The solar project discussion highlighted the district’s consideration of a grant program to install solar panels, with the possibility of utilizing underused outdoor spaces like the Hoolahan property and Big Fork land. Ideal, a company with a strong track record in Minnesota, proposed a site plan for a solar array on nearly two acres of currently unused land. The project promised estimated utility bill savings of $87,000 and potential rent revenue. However, the board expressed concerns about the reliability of the savings projections, which were based on an assumed 3.5% inflation rate for electricity costs. The board deemed it important to verify these projections, particularly after consulting with the superintendent of Proctor schools, who shared positive experiences with Ideal.

The grant requires the development of a curriculum, a point of discussion regarding its integration into the current school schedule. It was suggested that the new curriculum align with Minnesota Science standards, facilitating a smooth incorporation. The possibility of partnering with a local hospital interested in energy solutions was also discussed. Concerns about the robustness of solar panels in northern climates were raised, noting that increased snow loads require specialized engineering. The financial viability of the project was scrutinized, with Ideal’s model indicating no upfront costs due to grant funding, though long-term financial implications remained a concern.

Insurance costs for the installation were projected at $1,400 annually, with an inverter replacement every ten years estimated at $50,000. These costs were to be factored into financial planning, especially after the district assumes full ownership of the panels in 20 years. Maintenance during winter, when snow could impede functionality, was another concern, with potential solutions including natural melting and insights from Grand Rapids’ experience with solar installations.

Simultaneously, the board addressed updates to the cell phone policy aimed at reducing classroom distractions and improving student outcomes. The policy was crafted to allow adaptation by individual buildings, with initial infractions handled by teachers and more serious issues escalated to administration. Feedback from parents was generally supportive, but concerns were raised about medical exemptions, such as for students monitoring insulin levels. Emphasis was placed on staff modeling appropriate behavior regarding cell phone use.

The enforcement of the policy emerged as a challenge, with a need for consistent application across different school buildings to prevent confusion, particularly for students with siblings in various schools. The discussion included suggestions for clarifying policy language to prevent misinterpretation and ensure actions align with existing student handbooks.

The board also reviewed a draft purchase agreement for the ISD 318 administration building from the city, noting the offer exceeded a previous one by more than double. Negotiations continued, with plans for further discussion in future meetings. The logistics of vacating the current administration building were addressed, with a sale planned for the end of the month under a “best offer” format. The board emphasized fairness and transparency in the sale process.