Good evening. The special meeting of the Independent School District 279 School Board is called to order at 6:00 p.m. on August 18th, 2026. This public hearing is being conducted in the board room of the Educational Service Center. The meeting is also being audio recorded and an archived recording of tonight's meeting will also be available on the district website. Seated in front of you this evening from my left and your right are Director Kelsey Dawson, Director Erica Foster, Director Thomas Brooks, myself, Board Chair Tanya Prince, Director Keith Tate, Director Sarah Mitchell. Also present in the board room is Superintendent Dr. Kim Hile and members of the Superintendent's cabinet. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider get granting an abatement of the property taxes imposed by the district. The proposed property tax abatement on all premises on all properties within the district boundaries. Our Executive Director of Finance and Operations, John Morstad, will share the proposal. >> Thank you, Chair Prince, and I'm going to immediately introduce Shelby McQuaid, who is our district financial advisor with Ehlers, who is an expert on property tax abatements, and I'm going to let Shelby take over. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board, Dr. Hile. I will just quickly go over the kind of the mechanics of the board authority to issue abatement bonds, and that starts with a public hearing and granting the abatement. So, um just a few pieces of information to put in front of you. Minnesota statutes grants municipalities the authority to issue abatement bonds, and the mechanism by which to pay back those bonds. Generally, municipalities like cities and counties can do that for a number of public purposes. Um however, for school districts, the interpretation by MDE is that school districts can only issue those bonds and for the purposes of parking lots and any ancillary projects that make the parking lot safety or safer like attached park sidewalks or lighting things like that. There is some limitations in statutes that school districts and other municipalities have to abide by and this this overall structure and abatement follows within the those debt payment requirements. So the specifics of the authority that you're seeking today is $15 million that you would be granting that abatement for and that includes the bond issuance cost. We intend to spread out that abatement bond debt debt service payment over 10 levies that would begin in taxes payable 27. The the the overall abatement process is is a mechanics in order to determine that the school district has the sufficient property to meet the statutory requirements. So what you're doing tonight is identifying the parcels necessary to meet that statutory requirement but there is no separate impact associated with that those parcels in particular. So your the school the school tax portion of those parcels and we've identified eight is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement to pay back that that portion of the [music] the debt payment. And so what you do is then add that portion of the levy to make that payment back. So you're adding that back and your entire entirety of your district and not specific to those parcels. So like I said, no impact to those parcels specifically. Um and so, the approval um and issuance of bonds starts with the call for the public hearing, which you've already done. You're holding that public hearing tonight. Um if you grant that um that abatement at your next regular business meeting, uh you would grant the abatement, authorize the issuance of bonds, and we would proceed with uh awarding and um issuing and awarding those bonds. Then those annual tax levies are certified to MDE and are incorporated in your overall levy that will come out just um very shortly, September 8th. Um and then once those bonds are available, you can use those to pay back yourself or um the district or any upcoming payments on the parking lot projects. Most importantly is that we were able to um structure this new debt um in accordance with your overall capital plan. And so, while there is a 10 levy specifically associated with the abatement bond portion itself, um it fits in with the overall capital plan and the intent going forward would be to issue that in conjunction with the remaining school building bond portion of the issuance that we would um uh ultimately authorize after granting the abatement or in conjunction with granting the abatement at your next business meeting. So, um happy to answer any questions. Um however, the next formal um step would be to call for public comment on this hearing. >> Board members, are there any questions before we move to public comment? >> I had one question. Um just the tax impact on the regular taxpayer, what does that look like? >> So, on the regular taxpayer um or on the an average home, we've included this as part of the overall um uh uh, debt levy that is um, part of the the final issuance of the school building bonds. And so really what we're doing is issuing the final portion of the school building bond portion and that's staying level with the the prior um, the prior year and ultimately goes back to what that was authorized for under the school building bond portion. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, we will now open the floor for public comments. Comments should relate only to the proposed tax abatement. We invite speakers to come to the podium and ask that you please limit your comments to 3 minutes. The board will not take action or engage in discussion during this portion of the meeting. If follow-up is necessary, speakers may be referred to the superintendent or appropriate staff. When you come to the microphone, please state your name and indicate whether you are a district resident. Would anyone like to come forward? >> I am a resident. My name is Colette Guyant Hempel. And my concern is that you're putting 41 million [music] into the um, Park Center [music] and yet I'm I apologize. Um, and yet there isn't a single additional gym. This district over the 30 years has taken out numerous gyms by taking out numerous small schools in Brooklyn Park. And the fact that we didn't get a gym, not one single gym in the new Crestview building and not any new gyms in the 41 million that's being spent on Park Center is very questionable to the residents in Brooklyn Park. There is more pickleball. There is going to be badminton. There is boys volleyball. All of this takes court space because Minnesota, as you all know, has 6 months that we can get snow. So, I would appreciate more consideration for replacing those four gyms that have been taken out. And [clears throat] and let's get to work on making sure Brooklyn Park has equal opportunities. Thank you. >> So, again, um we've opened the floor [clears throat] for public comment. Comment should relate only to the proposed tax abatement. Are there any other speakers who would like to come forward? >> Good evening, board. Um my name is Kevin Gaffney. I am a resident. I have a child that is at Maple Grove Senior High. I moved into the district in 2013 and I tried to be as educated as I can on all the financial, uh you know, motions that go on. And I'm not uh here to say that uh we should be money here or there, but it's very frustrating. It's very confusing. As I look back in those 10 years, the financial laws and maneuvers and everything are very opaque. And every single year it seems like we're coming back to the voters for more money. This method is not even voted on. And I know we hire consultants to say, "How can we, you know, position, you know, the need for more money so that people will pass it. And then we pass it by a lot of hundreds of votes, like 40, you know, 49.5 to 51.5% um is the, you know, the passing rate after we hire these consultants to figure out how to position, you know, voting on stuff. Uh so, it's just it feels very opaque. It feels like poor planning or that it was planned very well to do this where we're going to use non-voting type of techniques to get more money and I don't understand it. Um I tried to educate myself on it. If I don't understand it, I'm guessing that a lot of people who vote for it, and this one's not being voted on, don't understand it and it's just frustrating that year after year it seems like there's always more money being pulled out of it. And I don't understand what was said about the question, how does this affect the taxpayers? I didn't understand the answer. Is Is my taxes [snorts] going up or not? I don't know. It's It was moved around, I understand that piece of it. Um and then when these things do come up, it's only a year-over-year kind of uh um explanation like, "Oh, it's only 30 cents for every homeowner." But we're not adding that up over the every single year that we're being asked for more money. So, I understand that this may not be a uh um a new tax, uh but for the average person and all the legal maneuvering, it sure feels confusing. >> Are there any other attend uh meeting attendees that would like to come forward to speak? Okay. Our final agenda item is adjournment. The board will then move to the forum room for their work session. Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:11 p.m.? >> So moved. >> Moved by Director Foster, is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Director Tate. All in favor say I. I. >> Uh uh uh Motion passes 6-0.