Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Aitkin board on capital-levy spending and transparency
Summary
At public comment, residents questioned how the district spent the 2021 capital projects levy, noting itemized figures in state data and urging the board to publish detailed school-by-school spending; the board agreed to add the information to its website and review reporting codes.
Several residents used the public-comment period of the March 10 meeting to press the Aitkin Public School Board for clearer accounting of the capital projects levy that voters approved in November 2021.
Mark Fisher told the board he expects the levy — described at the time as $9 million over 10 years — to fund a $300,000 per-year allocation for facility maintenance, plus bus acquisition and technology. “I don't believe you are” spending what the referendum promised, Fisher said, and asked why work at Rippleside Elementary has not matched public expectations. The board responded that the levy is for the entire district, not a single school, and said it would add more detail to the district website in response to the concern.
Resident Cindy Ince said she looked at Minnesota Department of Education accounting and found spending tagged with state codes (she cited code 795) that the state identified as capital-levy activity and reported school-level figures. Ince asked why some facility-maintenance totals appear lower than the $300,000 annual allotment in the referendum and cited Minn. Stat. 123B.63 as the statutory authority that describes permissible uses for certain capital funds. The board and staff said they would work to clarify coding and provide a clearer, more accessible breakdown online so residents can see what the levy funded each year.
Board staff asked for copies of the questions and said they would update the board’s website and frequently asked questions page. The board also noted that some capital projects (for example, the bus garage) can be bid and staged separately and that owners’ representation and smaller bid packages can help keep more work local.
The exchange illustrates two lines of public concern the board must address before the April referendum vote on a building project: (1) residents asking for clarity about how past levy funds were spent; and (2) questions about how future construction would be managed and bid to balance cost and local participation. The board agreed to post more detailed levy-spending information and to follow up with residents who provided data and questions.
