St. Louis County School Board members discussed the possibility of closing some of the district’s seven schools this fall, citing costly delays in the construction of two new schools, including one to be built north of Cook.

Although the board planned to keep all seven school sites open during the 2010-11 school year, some members said it may be not be possible financially. The district, which had planned to break ground on the new schools by late May or early June, may have to wait until September or later to begin work, possibly postponing the expected fall 2011 opening of new schools.

In addition, the district faces the prospect that either one or both sites for the new schools would have to be scrapped and new locations found, which would add substantially to the project’s costs.

“We promised people that we would keep schools open,” said board Chairman Robert Larson, “but an awful lot of objections have come to our plan and does that change what we’re looking to do?”

At least one board member raised the specter of retaliation against opponents of the district’s plan.

Cherry representative Darrell Bjerklie, complaining about Tim Kotzian, Tower resident and chairman of the Coalition for Community Schools after the board meeting, jokingly added, “I know which school I’ll be closing first.”

Board members plan to discuss their concerns in more detail during a special study session tentatively scheduled for Monday, Aug. 2 at 3:30 p.m. at the district office in Virginia. They also asked Business Manager Kim Johnson to prepare an estimate of how much the district might save by closing schools.

Teaching staff reductions, however, will not be part of the savings. The district is already contractually obligated to teachers for the 2010-11 school year. Teachers could be reassigned to other schools.

In addition, transportation costs might increase if some students must travel further distances to schools.

Contingency plans

According to Johnson, the district is already projecting a loss of $1.9 million in the general fund for 2010-11 and only has $2 million in reserves for that fund. Other dollars in reserve are committed to retirement pensions and to servicing the bond debt.

If plans to open new schools must be postponed, it will further strain the district’s finances. In addition, delays could result in higher construction costs, which are at historically low rates due to current high unemployment in the construction industry.

“We will get to a point where we have to actually make some decisions,” concluded Larson. “Some day we’re going to have to stop talking and things are going to have to happen, but that won’t be very comfortable.”

That day could arrive by Aug. 12, when the board is expected to learn whether it will be granted a conditional use permit for its north school site. Later that same month the district will go before the Board of Adjustment on a variance request for the site.

Superintendent Charles Rick suggested that he and Business Manager Johnson begin exploring contingency plans.

“We can’t wait much longer,” Rick told the board. “We’re looking at the fall of 2010 but I’m also looking at the fall of 2011. If we can’t be in those new buildings, what are we going to do? We need to understand what our options are and choose accordingly, depending on what happens.”

Some board members thought those options should include closing some schools immediately instead of waiting another year.

Board member Zelda Bruns, who represents the Orr attendance area, disagreed.

“If you think you have problems now, start announcing the closing of schools this fall. You haven’t seen anything,” Bruns warned board members. “We had promised people that their buildings would be open.”

Tom Beaudry, who represents the Cook attendance area, said that closure of schools should be an option, citing unexpected delays in the projects. “From a contingency standpoint, I think it behooves us to have that discussion,” said Beaudry.

Bruns questioned whether closing schools now would produce any significant savings, noting that the district was already contractually obligated to its teaching staff. According to Johnson, labor accounts for roughly 75 percent of the district’s costs. Custodial, secretarial and administrative staff, however, could be cut.

Bruns also noted closing schools may cause some to open-enroll students in other districts, further eroding ISD 2142’s finances.

Bjerklie countered that teaching staff could be reassigned to other buildings and said he thought that there would still be huge savings realized by closing some schools.

Although he acknowledged the pledge to keep schools open for the 2010-11 year, circumstances change. “There gets to be a point where all bets are off and we need to do what is best for the kids,” said Bjerklie.

Closing process

The process for closing a school is fairly straightforward, as outlined in Minnesota Statute 123B.15, Subdivision 5.

The statute states that a district may close a school following a public hearing where people, either for or against the action, can testify. The district must publish a public notice for two weeks in the district’s official newspaper prior to the hearing, stating the time and place of the hearing and including the location and description of the school proposed for closure. It must also state its reasons for closing the school.

The entire process could be completed in under a month.

But what appears simple on paper could prove more difficult to enact. Opposition to closing schools in any communities at least a year ahead of schedule is likely to be fierce. And the district’s own language in its referendum, which specifies that an elementary school would be retained at Tower, might provide fodder for a legal challenge.

In addition, the district would have to show how closing schools will help it financially and is being driven by delays in the construction of new schools, which is being paid with bond funds earmarked specifically for that purpose. The district would have a stronger argument for closing some schools and combining students in other existing buildings in 2011, when the schools were already scheduled to close.

Project obstacles

Although opposition to the district’s restructuring plan in the north has been vocal, county regulations overseeing development on the sites selected for the new schools account for the delays.

Johnson Controls’ failure to complete required Environmental Assessment Worksheets prior to applying for conditional use permits caused the first major setback. Project manager John Henry said he had not been initially aware that projects exceeding 100,000 square feet required the EAW.

Last week’s denial of a variance for the district’s south site in Independence Township again threatened to derail construction. The county ordinance limits lot coverage of impervious surface in the zoned district to ten percent, while the school’s proposal called for 17 percent.

Henry said they were able to tweak the plans to meet the ten-percent threshold and he expected approval of the revised plans this week. The school design remains intact, he said, but the elimination of an overflow parking lot, some roads and other buildings, including a bus garage, reduces the amount of impervious surfaces. In addition, a special asphalt, which is permeable, will be used at the site.

“We want shovels in the ground and dirt moving and that’s the only way we see possible right now,” said Henry.

But if a variance is denied for the north site, it would be all but impossible to modify plans to meet requirements there. That’s because the north school site is located in a more restrictive zone, which allows just two percent lot coverage.

Board members acknowledged the difficulty and said it could force the district to search for another location for the north school.

Some board members implied that opposition to the district’s restructuring, led by the Coalition for Community Schools, helped influence the Board of Adjustment’s decision.

Although county planning staff had recommended approval of the south site variance, the Board of Adjustment voted to deny the request on a 4-2 vote. Board member Kelly Klun said the district had created its own need for the variance and argued that the board is unable to grant variances in such cases.

Board members asked whether the board typically rejected the recommendations of county planning staff.

“The board of adjustment is laypeople like you and I,” answered Henry. “They rely heavily on the staff because the staff includes civil engineers with years of experience in that field. So they rely on their judgment to make clear decisions.”

The board of adjustment hears the testimony of proponents and opponents before ruling on the variance, he continued. “The problem is that if they don’t stay on path, if they get off on what you’re actually there for, it plays a vital role in the decision of the board and I think we saw that last week.”

Johnson Controls consultant Jeff Shiltz also labeled the decision as “atypical,” comparing the situation to a school board routinely approving the recommendations of its administrative staff with few exceptions.

Permits pending

The conditional use permit granted for the south site stipulates that construction must wait until all permits, including those for wastewater treatment, are received. The earliest that might be is September, according to Brent Ballavance, senior engineer for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in Duluth.

Ballavance said his office received the permit applications for both the north and south sites by July 6. Although the MPCA has up to 180 days before issuing permits, Ballavance said they recognize the urgency of the project and are hoping to complete the process by September.

MPCA staff will make site inspections soon. The south site will have a subsurface discharge of effluent but the north site inspection may take more time because it calls for releasing effluent into Flint Creek, which requires a look at flow levels of the water. In addition, the creek’s discharge into an impaired body of water — the Littlefork River — will be a factor in the decision.

Meanwhile, an appeal of Planning Director Barb Hayden’s claim that the county never meant to exclude schools from sites zoned as Farm and Agriculture Management might still enter the picture (see related story on page 3) and could eliminate either the south or north site from consideration.

District has options if plans must be revised

What happens to the bond proceeds if School District 2142’s plans to build two new schools must be altered or scrapped?

According to Minnesota Statute 475.58, Subdivison 4, bond proceeds may only be spent for the purposes stated in the ballot language or “to pay, redeem or defease obligations and interest, penalties, premiums and costs of issuance of the obligations.”

The ballot in this case stated that funds would be used to build a new school in the Cook and Orr attendance areas and in the AlBrook and Cotton attendance areas. Although it also stipulated that some funds would be used for renovating the Tower-Soudan School, it does not specify that the school would be converted from K-12 to an elementary facility.

The district is also operating under a timeline that calls for spending the $78.8 million in bond dollars within three years. However, that deadline could be extended if unexpected circumstances delay construction.

There is one other option — a second referendum to change the use of the bond dollars for other purposes such as remodeling existing schools. According to the statute, bond proceeds may not be spent for a different purpose or for an expansion of the original purpose “without the approval by a majority of the electors voting on the question of changing or expanding the purpose of the obligations.”