School board members discussed a timetable for construction and met with key managers for District 2142’s restructuring during a study session last week.

Work on the project, which calls for the construction of two new schools and remodeling at three other facilities, is expected to begin this spring with site preparation and construction of new schools in the north and south of the district and a major remodelng project at Cherry first on the slate.

John Huenink, of Kraus-Anderson Construction, will be overseeing those projects while overall project manager will be Johnson Controls’ John Henry.

Remodeling work at Tower, where the K-12 school will be converted to an elementary school, and at Babbitt are less extensive and will start later. All projects, however, will be completed by the fall of 2011-12 in time for that school year.

The most complex, according to Huenink, will be the Cherry project where students will be attending classes while remodeling work is underway. Depending on the pace of construction and weather conditions, the district may have to shorten the school year to give contractors an additional week or two to complete their work.

Plans call for the demolition of a portion of the existing Cherry School, including the shop, after school ends in the spring. For the 2010-11 school year, industrial arts students will be bused to Cotton for shop classes or be offered other options.

Design of the school buildings will begin after consultation with staff and the public. More than 175 teachers and principals met in Cherry for a daylong workshop on Monday to offer input on classrooms and other areas of the schools where instruction might occur.

According to Superinten-dent Charles Rick, two of the issues emerging from that session were concerns whether the new and remodeled facilities would have adequate gym space for athletics and other activities, and problems that could arise if teachers are required to share the same classroom spaces.

“The principals and teachers had a lot of great thoughts on how to maximize the effectiveness and versatility of the district’s new and updated schools, and many of those ideas will be incorporated into the school designs,” said Rick.

Similar staff work sessions will be held with coaches, athletic directors and other district staff regarding outdoor athletics, parking and transportation, food service, building security and custodial concerns.

Rick said meetings will be scheduled later to get more community input on school designs, with designs expected to be produced by late February or early March. Designs can continue to be tweaked throughout the process.

Various teams will help oversee the construction and design process. Superintendent Rick will lead the building management team and the educational approach process. Because of the added demands on his time, Rick noted that he may need temporary help over the next 18 months to assist with day-to-day school operations and to handle special duties.

Although a portion of those costs may have to be assumed with general fund dollars, the district will seek to use federal funds, where appropriate, to minimize the impact on its budget.

Board members also will serve on the building management team. Members appointed to the team include Tom Beaudry, Darrell Bjerklie and Robert Larson with Chet Larson as an alternate.

Architects hope to make the new and remodeled buildings as energy efficient as possible and will provide at least two options to heat schools to allow them to adapt to changes in energy costs. In addition, plans call for providing both solar and wind energy to science classrooms that could become part of the curriculum for those classes.

Board members also briefly discussed how much funding has been set aside for new furnishings and equipment out of the bond proceeds. In addition, consultant Randy Anderson addressed concerns that the district would blow most of the bond proceeds on the new schools and Cherry’s remodeling, and reduce money available for remodeling at other sites. “There are separate budgets for every site,” said Anderson. “And that’s how the money will be spent.”

The district already has labor agreements in place so that even if contractors from Minneapolis win project bids, they will be required to use local labor, Henry told the board. Board members also discussed purchasing materials for the school locally as much as possible, but noted that the bidding process may have a lot to do with where items are purchased.

The petition, containing nearly 1,400 signatures, was filed this week with the St. Louis County Auditor in compliance with state requirements. The county auditor must first verify that the petition contains sufficient signatures before forwarding the petition and attached complaint to the state auditor in St. Paul.

In the case of the St. Louis County School District, approximately 400 signatures from district residents were required to prompt an investigation, so the petition would appear to contain far more than the required minimum.

“We believe the overwhelming response from residents of the Cook, Orr and Tower-Soudan areas, where this petition was circulated, demonstrates the depth of concern over the district’s plan to close vital schools in three communities,” said Cook Mayor Dick Edblom. “Nearly 1,400 signatures were gathered in barely a week.”

Violation of law?

At issue is whether the district violated state law and improperly used public funds to promote a vote in favor the of the capital bond issue. School district officials are required to stick to a neutral presentation of the facts surrounding a ballot question. But the petition alleges the district did not abide by that restriction when it produced materials that promoted a vote in favor of the bond issue, were one-sided and overstated the dire consequences of a “no” vote.

The 15-page complaint submitted with the petition cites numerous specific examples of inaccurate, exaggerated or misleading claims and statements disseminated to the public and state officials by school district officers, board members and consultants from Johnson Controls in promoting the bond issue. More than a dozen exhibits, from district publications to budget projections by the district, are included in the complaint.

“While the publications or presentations did not specifially state ‘Vote Yes,’ that fact does not excuse school officials from the requirements to present information in a neutral fashion,” the complaint notes. “Citing case law in his 1966 opinion, Attorney General Robert W. Mattson implied that a school district brochure that ‘over-dramatized’ the ‘dire’ consequences of a no vote could also run afoul of proper purpose requirements.”

Among the most serious allegations is that school district officials and Johnson Controls provided the state Department of Education with inaccurate, outdated and misleading financial data. As an example, the complaint notes that the district claimed it faced a $4.1 million budget deficit by the 2011-12 school year, but did not inform the state of steps it had already taken that rendered such budget projections obsolete.

Minutes from the June 22, 2009, school board meeting quote the district’s business manager explaining that teacher cuts in the 2009-10 budget had greatly improved the district’s budget and it was “much better than previously projected.” But the district made no mention of those actions in the report sent to the state just a few months later.

“It appears on the face of it that school district officials engaged in a campaign to not only mislead the public, but state officials as well. We find this kind of behavior unacceptable and we certainly hope that the state auditor takes it seriously and responds appropriately,” said Tower Mayor Steve Abrahamson.

“From the beginning, the school district’s presentation of information was entirely one-sided,” said Tower City Clerk-Treasurer Tim Kotzian. “School districts are required to be neutral in their presentation of information, but the St. Louis County School District failed to abide by that requirement.”

As required by state statute, a copy of the petition and complaint were submitted to the school district. In addition, the district was provided with a copy of a resolution of opposition to the school district’s plan, which was passed by the Orr, Cook and Tower city councils as well as Greenwood Township.