Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews draft referendum package and timeline; administration seeks authorization to file review with MDE
Summary
Consultants and district staff presented a draft two-question referendum package to the Austin Public Schools Board on May 20 and asked for authorization to submit the Review and Comment to the Minnesota Department of Education by June 17 to keep a November 4 ballot option alive.
Austin Public Schools administration and consultants reviewed a draft referendum package and timeline with the board on May 20 and asked trustees for direction on submitting the required Review and Comment to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) by June 17 if the board wants a referendum on the November 4 ballot.
Consultants summarized three years of facility-assessment work, enrollment projections and a community survey. They presented a narrowed set of projects drawn from a larger $64.6 million project list and described a recommended two-question approach: a first question of approximately $54.4 million for priority facility improvements and a second, dependent question of about $11.9 million to renovate the Ellis pool.
The presentation included draft tax-impact schedules showing estimated per-year tax increases by property type and explained the difference between homestead and non-homestead (including agricultural) classifications and how those affect tax impact. Consultants told trustees the $84 million figure shown in the public survey represented an all-inclusive list of needs but was judged by the team to be larger than community tolerance as measured in the survey.
Administration asked the board for permission to prepare and submit a formal Review and Comment to MDE by June 17 and noted the board would need to adopt a resolution by the state's August 12 deadline to place questions on the ballot. Staff said an active information campaign — mailings, community meetings and online materials — would follow board action if the board proceeds.
At the meeting the chair asked, “Is there a motion to authorize district administration to complete and submit the review and comment?” The transcript does not record whether a motion was seconded or voted on during the meeting.
Why it matters: A successful referendum would authorize capital bonding for multiple district facility projects and alter local property tax levies. The board’s near-term decisions (review-and-comment submission by June 17, resolution adoption by Aug. 12) set the calendar for whether voters can consider the referendum in November.
Board members asked clarifying questions about project prioritization, fire-safety costs and the choice to separate the Ellis pool into a dependent second question. Consultants said projects categorized as priority 1 and 2 are included and that some items totaling about $13 million had been removed because they could be addressed with other funds in the near term.
