Wish list is at $8 million; paying for it is up in air

At a special meeting Dec. 7, the Barnum school board approved, by a 4-3 vote, specific facility maintenance projects totaling more than $8 million. However, board members tabled anything to do with funding those projects this week.

Some of the items would be funded by bonding for health and safety, which does not require a vote by school district residents for approval. Other projects, such as roof replacements, are not covered under health and safety, just long-term facilities maintenance, explained Barnum superintendent Mike McNulty in a telephone interview Wednesday.

The school district is paid $280,000 a year by the state for facilities maintenance, McNulty said.

“We are, in effect, taking out a loan against those funds,” he said. “We need to do preventive projects before major equipment breakdowns happen.”

Projects that improve health and safety, such as improving air quality (HVAC systems), would be funded in part by an increase in property taxes to pay back the bonds, he said.

“It will only be a small amount, like $87 a year on a $150,000 property,” he said.

The projects are slated for both the school district’s high school and elementary school.

The projects in the high school include improving indoor air quality, new high-efficiency boilers and heating system, roof replacement on the oldest section, updating the fire alarm system, adding a handicap-accessible door at entrance No. 7, and new energy efficient lighting.

In the elementary school, the projects include kitchen cooler replacement, indoor air quality improvements and roof replacement for the 1989 section.

Voters turned down a building referendum as recently as 2014, and an operating levy in 2012.

On hold

The school board was scheduled to vote on selling bonds to fund the $8 million project list during the regular board meeting Tuesday, Dec. 21. Rather than voting, the board tabled all resolutions that would have allowed the district to proceed with the projects, including a pre-sale report by representatives of financial advisory firm Ehlers, along with a resolution stating the intent to issue general obligation facilities maintenance and tax abatement bonds for the projects.

“I’m still trying to wrap my head around this,” said board member Jamie Fuglestad.

Board member Louis Bonneville expressed his concerns about educating the public about the projects.

“Half of the people that I have talked to have no idea about this,” he said. “That’s concerning to me. When we are talking about spending $8 million, we need to find a better way to talk to the community.”

The board moved further discussion to a working meeting at 6:30 p.m. Jan. 11 in the boardroom after the reorganizational meeting. They could schedule a special meeting for a vote, or vote during the regular school board meeting at 6:30 p.m., Jan. 18.

Levy up 7.71 percent

In other business, the school board approved the 2022 levy in the amount of $1,006,902.12, an increase of 7.71 percent since the 2021 levy of $934,806.69. The levy does not include funding for the long-term facilities maintenance projects.

Barnum business manager Dawn Hultgren explained during the truth-in-taxation portion of Tuesday’s meeting that the property market value went up in the district, which increased the levy, and the school district resident student population declined, which decreased state aid.

However, the total number of students, including students that are open-enrolled, increased. That increased the long-term facilities maintenance and capital revenue. The debt service increase is due to the approved abatement bond (bonding for projects such as parking lots) only for property taxes paid in 2022.

In other matters, McNulty spoke about a document from the Department of Labor and Industry he received late Tuesday afternoon that provided information about the proposed mandated regulations for staff and students to be vaccinated or wear masks and get tested each week.

“The Minnesota School Board Association will probably contact me tomorrow,” he added. “This has been appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court but it may be coming. It may move quickly. We will be meeting about this in January and February and may have to have a board policy.”