OAKES 41 board weighs referendum after survey backs $6.3 million facilities package

Members of the OAKES 41 school board reviewed community survey results and sketched next steps March 10 as they weigh whether to send a $6.3 million facilities package to a June referendum.

A board member said the survey aligned with the committee’s recommendation but went on record that “bypassing a fire suppression system and ADA is not what I believe is in the best interest of the students and of the school,” framing the central trade-off driving discussion: pursue the package most likely to pass, or include additional safety and accessibility work that could push the cost—and likely sink voter support.

Why it matters: Board members said the district faces pressing maintenance needs and that delaying projects could raise costs. The superintendent, speaking as the district’s chief administrator, said the community’s preference is clear but that trying to avoid required ADA work or building-wide fire suppression "goes against everything that I am." She recommended prioritizing HVAC and kitchen work if the board proceeds with a limited bond and said she would prepare a recommendation for the board to review.

Consultants from ICON told the board the committee’s recommendation and the district’s survey validated the $6.3 million base option as the one most likely to pass. ICON representatives described their role if the board votes to proceed: prepare legal resolutions, craft communications and FAQs, re-engage the citizen committee, and provide architectural and tax information at public meetings. ICON recommended involving counsel to ensure compliance with the North Dakota Century Code before placing a question on the ballot.

On technical triggers, ICON consultant Lee said HVAC upgrades are typically treated as maintenance and repair and “will not trigger to have to do fire suppression for the whole building,” but cautioned that a kitchen remodel can trigger fire-suppression requirements unless the work is contained to the kitchen space.

Board members and ICON also discussed timing and outreach. ICON advised a cadence of public meetings and communications in the weeks before a vote; board members noted that if a June referendum failed, the next common opportunity would be in November 2026, delaying projects and possibly increasing costs. ICON’s construction schedule estimate, attributed to their project lead, projected that if the referendum is approved and bidding proceeds as planned, construction work could start in spring 2027 with a target for occupancy aligned to the 2028 school year for a large new build; renovation work could be phased across multiple summers to limit disruption.

Financial questions: Staff described levy caps and how bond proceeds are drawn. The board discussed what would happen to any excess proceeds if bids come in under estimates; options discussed included paying down the note, not drawing the full authorized amount, or returning unused funds to taxpayers, but the board was advised it cannot use bond proceeds for items not described in the referendum question.

What’s next: Consultants said they will draft resolutions and coordinate with district counsel so the board can review language at the next scheduled meeting. The superintendent said she would prepare a recommendation for the board to consider. No formal motion or vote to call a referendum was recorded at the special meeting.

The board adjourned at 7:33 p.m.