The most pressing topic was the potential building bond referendum, slated for a voting date of February 11. The referendum aims to secure funding for major projects, including HVAC improvements at Riverview Intermediate School and outdoor facility enhancements at Sartell High School. The HVAC project is estimated to cost $20.75 million, while the outdoor improvements are projected at $8.1 million. The board discussed the tax implications for homeowners, highlighting that the combined projects could result in an annual tax increase of nearly $109 for a home valued at $300,000.

The board emphasized the urgency of preparing for the referendum and the need for a comprehensive communication plan to inform the public about the financial implications and project scope. There was a consensus on moving forward with two questions on the ballot, one addressing the stadium funding and HVAC improvements. One board member underscored the importance of clarity in the referendum language, noting, “I think we need a little more info about what is all going to be required in between now and February 11 to ensure that we can actually hit that.”

Additionally, the board discussed the potential sale of properties, specifically Main and Voyagers, and the financial implications for individual districts. Each district would decide how to use proceeds from the sale, as the board lacks the authority to dictate these decisions. Future agreements would include language outlining the process for informing property owners and the necessary statutory steps for districts to make decisions. The board acknowledged that agreeing to the district agreement implies support for the Benton-Stearns board’s authority to enter into leases for educational programs. However, the financial approach to funding such leases remains at the discretion of each district board.

Concerns were raised about the tax implications of funding leases. One board member noted that districts have flexibility in how they fund leases, but this could lead to tax increases in subsequent years if not managed properly. If a district does not levy for a lease and ends up paying for it, taxes would increase the following year to compensate. Conversely, if a district levies excessively and does not utilize the funds, taxes would decrease for that year. The board acknowledged that levies are subject to annual adjustments based on actual expenditures.

The meeting also included discussions about the potential referendum questions, specifically targeting funding for significant outdoor improvements at the high school. The proposed improvements include the installation of two multi-purpose fields, one of which would be an artificial turf surface, facilitating year-round use for various athletic programs. The conversation highlighted the need for various funding strategies, including value engineering and long-term facilities maintenance (LTFM) funding. Cost estimates did not account for LED lighting, potentially raising the budget by about one million dollars if necessary.

The board discussed the importance of community support and creative funding avenues, such as naming opportunities for facilities like scoreboards and team rooms. One participant expressed optimism about securing the necessary funds, stating, “I think the community would rally around this and fund what we want,” but concerns remained about potential underfunding and the quality of amenities. The logistics and costs of conducting an independent election were also considered, with an estimated cost of around $30,000 for operational expenses.

A critical aspect of the referendum preparation involved the possibility of conducting a community survey to inform the wording of ballot questions. The cost for a survey targeting about 400 to 500 residents was estimated at $20,000. However, concerns were raised about the effectiveness of the survey, given that only a third of respondents might be likely voters. Listening sessions were suggested as a more cost-effective way to gather community input.

The urgency of the timeline was reiterated, with a consensus that the February election offered the best chance for success. Missing the February election could delay the project, leading to complications, especially concerning equipment procurement. The board agreed on moving forward with two questions on the ballot, addressing both stadium funding and HVAC improvements.

Further discussions included the development of a school handbook, with a focus on making it more suited to the district rather than relying solely on the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBAS) template. The importance of scheduling future meetings and work sessions was emphasized, with potential dates identified for further discussions.