SF 2393

as introduced - 81st Legislature (1999 - 2000) Posted on 12/15/2009 12:00am

  1.1                          A bill for an act 
  1.2             relating to education; eliminating the pupil per grade 
  1.3             condition for capital loans; amending Minnesota 
  1.4             Statutes 1998, section 126C.69, subdivision 3. 
  1.5   BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 
  1.6      Section 1.  Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 126C.69, 
  1.7   subdivision 3, is amended to read: 
  1.8      Subd. 3.  [DISTRICT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT.] A 
  1.9   district or a joint powers district that intends to apply for a 
  1.10  capital loan must submit a proposal to the commissioner for 
  1.11  review and comment according to section 123B.71 by July 1 of an 
  1.12  odd-numbered year.  The commissioner shall prepare a review and 
  1.13  comment on the proposed facility, regardless of the amount of 
  1.14  the capital expenditure required to construct the facility.  In 
  1.15  addition to the information provided under section 123B.71, 
  1.16  subdivision 9, the commissioner shall require that predesign 
  1.17  packages comparable to those required under section 16B.335 be 
  1.18  prepared by the applicant school district.  The predesign 
  1.19  packages must be sufficient to define the scope, cost, and 
  1.20  schedule of the project and must demonstrate that the project 
  1.21  has been analyzed according to appropriate space needs standards 
  1.22  and also consider the following criteria in determining whether 
  1.23  to make a positive review and comment.  
  1.24     (a) To grant a positive review and comment the commissioner 
  1.25  shall determine that all of the following conditions are met: 
  2.1      (1) the facilities are needed for pupils for whom no 
  2.2   adequate facilities exist or will exist; 
  2.3      (2) the district will serve, on average, at least 80 pupils 
  2.4   per grade or is eligible for elementary or secondary sparsity 
  2.5   revenue; 
  2.6      (3) no form of cooperation with another district would 
  2.7   provide the necessary facilities; 
  2.8      (4) (3) the facilities are comparable in size and quality 
  2.9   to facilities recently constructed in other districts that have 
  2.10  similar enrollments; 
  2.11     (5) (4) the facilities are comparable in size and quality 
  2.12  to facilities recently constructed in other districts that are 
  2.13  financed without a capital loan; 
  2.14     (6) (5) the district is projected to maintain or increase 
  2.15  its average daily membership over the next five years or is 
  2.16  eligible for elementary or secondary sparsity revenue; 
  2.17     (7) (6) the current facility poses a threat to the life, 
  2.18  health, and safety of pupils, and cannot reasonably be brought 
  2.19  into compliance with fire, health, or life safety codes; 
  2.20     (8) (7) the district has made a good faith effort, as 
  2.21  evidenced by its maintenance expenditures, to adequately 
  2.22  maintain the existing facility during the previous ten years and 
  2.23  to comply with fire, health, and life safety codes and state and 
  2.24  federal requirements for handicapped accessibility; 
  2.25     (9) (8) the district has made a good faith effort to 
  2.26  encourage integration of social service programs within the new 
  2.27  facility; and 
  2.28     (10) (9) evaluations by boards of adjacent districts have 
  2.29  been received. 
  2.30     (b) The commissioner may grant a negative review and 
  2.31  comment if: 
  2.32     (1) the state demographer has examined the population of 
  2.33  the communities to be served by the facility and determined that 
  2.34  the communities have not grown during the previous five years; 
  2.35     (2) the state demographer determines that the economic and 
  2.36  population bases of the communities to be served by the facility 
  3.1   are not likely to grow or to remain at a level sufficient, 
  3.2   during the next ten years, to ensure use of the entire facility; 
  3.3      (3) the need for facilities could be met within the 
  3.4   district or adjacent districts at a comparable cost by leasing, 
  3.5   repairing, remodeling, or sharing existing facilities or by 
  3.6   using temporary facilities; 
  3.7      (4) the district plans do not include cooperation and 
  3.8   collaboration with health and human services agencies and other 
  3.9   political subdivisions; or 
  3.10     (5) if the application is for new construction, an existing 
  3.11  facility that would meet the district's needs could be purchased 
  3.12  at a comparable cost from any other source within the area.