--- ## author: Jesse Sierks date: D:20171017085700-05'00' --- ## Special Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 2026 5:00 PM ## ECC 350 and Virtual, 5701 Normandale Road, Edina, MN 55424 ## I. Determination of Quorum and Call to Order ## II. Approval of Agenda ## School Board Special Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 2026; 5:00 PM ## ECC Room 350 ## I. Determination of Quorum and Call to Order ## II. Approval of Agenda ## III. Discussion ## A. Long-Term Financial Planning and Potential Future Funding Considerations ## IV. Leadership Updates ## V. Adjournment NOTE: School Board members may participate by interactive technology as permitted by Minnesota Statute 13D.02 ## III. Discussion ## III.A. Long-Term Financial Planning and ## Potential Future Funding Considerations Speaker(s): Dr. ## Daniel Bittman, ## Superintendent ## Board Meeting Date: 5/5/26 ## Title: Long‑Term Financial Planning and Potential Future Funding Considerations ## Type: Discussion ## Presenter(s): Dr. Daniel Bittman, Superintendent Description: This agenda item provides an opportunity for a preliminary School Board discussion related to long‑term financial planning and anticipated future needs. The conversation will focus on maintaining a shared understanding of emerging priorities, including areas such as safety and security, aging facilities, building capacity and early learning. Recommendation: No decisions or actions are planned at this time. Desired Outcome(s) from the Board: This discussion is intended to support thoughtful governance and ensure adequate time for reflection before any potential options are considered further or brought forward for broader engagement. Attachment(s): n/a ## Potential ## Referendum: ## Executive Summary Presented by: ## Dr. Daniel Bittman Superintendent ## Mert Woodard Director, Finance and Operations May 2026 ## Table of Contents Introduction i Section 1: Purpose and Recommendation 4 ## Section 2: Project Scope and Overview 6 ## Section 3: Construction Feasibility 7 ## Section 4: Preliminary Project Cost Estimates (Facilities) 12 ## Section 5: Operating and Staffing Impacts 13 ## Section 6: Financing Structure and Options 14 ## Section 7: Illustrative Tax Impact (Preliminary) 15 ## Section 8: Governance Process and Decision Timeline 16 ## Section 9: Key Risks, Constraints, and Considerations 17 ## Section 10: Recommended Next Steps (Board Action Path) 18 ## Introduction Edina Public Schools is at a moment that will shape its direction for years to come. Enrollment patterns, instructional expectations, and community standards for school safety have evolved significantly over the past decade, placing increasing pressure on facilities that were largely designed for a very different educational and security environment. At the same time, the district has or plans to expand or reimagine early learning, special education, talent development and language programming, and student support services in ways that require more specialized space, better building design, and more modern safety infrastructure. The facilities and systems currently in place, while well maintained, do not fully align with the educational, operational, and security demands of today and tomorrow. This executive summary outlines a comprehensive bond and capital projects levy referendum framework intended to address these needs in a financially responsible and programmatically coherent manner. The purpose of a potential referendum would be to take care of what we currently have in terms of students, facilities, and community expectations. The proposal combines targeted facility investments with staffing and technology enhancements to improve safety, increase capacity, and support new and evolving programs across the district. It also presents a range of financing options, tax-impact scenarios, and a statutory timeline for board action and voter approval, providing the School Board with a clear foundation for evaluating whether, when, and how to move forward with a community-supported investment in Edina’s schools. The administration is confident that the construction projects and on-going financing recommendations it makes will serve the District well for the next 20 years. ## SECTION 1 ## Purpose and Recommendation This executive summary outlines a potential voter referendum package that includes: • Add dedicated student and staff wellness, safety, security and cybersecurity staff capacity to implement and maintain an enhanced safety and security posture. • Modernize districtwide safety and security technology (cameras, public announcement systems, access controls, notification systems, crisis detection and prevention systems, etc.) and establish sustainable funding for replacement cycles. • The construction of a new Early Learning and Family Center (ELFC) designed for modern early childhood programming, safer family access, and superior design and aesthetics. Over the last several years, the District’s resident student population has declined to 77% of total enrollment. While the District’s total enrollment has not suffered due to its ability to attract students from other districts, declining birth rates will affect all sections of the metropolitan area — it is imperative that the District retains more of its residents to lessen the reliance on open enrollment. Enhanced early learning programming and facilities is a key strategy for doing that. • Add space at Edina High School (EHS) to accommodate current and future specialized programming, alleviate cafeteria space inadequacy, and address current classroom shortages. Dozens of licensed staff do not have dedicated rooms for instruction, creating cascading effects on the schedule and implementation of programming. Multiple teachers are forced to share classrooms, and EHS has 4 fewer science classrooms and labs than the optimal level. • Add space at South View Middle School to address a lack of dedicated classroom spaces for non-core curriculum programming including, but not limited to before/after school activities, talent development, multilingual learning, intervention, etc. • Add space at Valley View Middle School to address a lack of dedicated classroom spaces for non-core curriculum programming including, but not limited to before/after school activities, talent development, multilingual learning, intervention, etc. • Kuhlmann Stadium renovations to improve safety, separation of home and away fans, ticketing, concessions, restroom facilities, a more contiguous flow between the various athletic amenities on the campus, and add additional bleachers for more seating. • This process would require the District administration to advance a two-part referendum concept: (1) a school building bond for major capital construction and potentially initial safety technology purchases, and (2) a capital projects levy increase to fund ongoing safety technology lifecycle replacement and safety/security staffing for 10 years. ## SECTION 2 ## Project Scope Overview The conceptual scope is summarized below. Final scope would be refined through collaboration with the Board, staff, stakeholders, and the District’s architect. Schematic design, cost validation, and community engagement will be priorities prior to Board action on a final ballot proposal. ## Component Preliminary Scope Elements Notes New Early Learning Modernized early childhood facility; improved safety by Option A: ~90,000 SF standalone. Option ## Center separating early learners from all-ages traffic; optional gym/community space; departure from ECC creates potential space for Transition (18–22) programming. ## B: ~138,000 SF with gyms. Option C: Remodel of ECC. ## Elementary: Creek ## Valley Secure entrance reconfiguration + additions; improved sightlines and controlled ingress/egress; additional flexible instructional/support space. ~9,000 SF addition. ## Elementary: ## Concord Previously-planned ~4,000 SF addition; loading dock improvements; potential office/courtyard reconfiguration. ~4,000 SF concept addition. Edina High School Addition to accommodate current and future specialized programming; alleviate cafeteria capacity constraints; address classroom shortages. ~26,000 SF (up to ~8 classrooms); larger ~66,000 SF adds up to 16. South View MS Additional space for non-core curriculum programming including before/after school activities, talent development, multilingual learning, intervention, etc. ~6,600–23,400 SF yielding 3–9 classrooms. Valley View MS Additional space for non-core curriculum programming including before/after school activities, talent development, multilingual learning, intervention, etc. ~6,600 SF yielding 3 classrooms. ## Kuhlmann Stadium New structure on the North end including indoor restrooms, home and away ticketing, modern ## ~38,000 SF. concessions, flexible second-floor space. Safety & security technology Camera modernization; PA/notification redesign; access control expansion; servers/software standardization; replacement cycle funding. ~$10M–$15M (to be validated). ## Safety/security staffing ## Add 4 roles: Cybersecurity, Security Systems, Physical ## Safety & Security, Behavior & Threat Assessment Annual cost: ~$575K–$650K. Coordinators. ## SECTION 3 ## Construction Feasibility Several of the projects described in Section 2 require new construction on sites with limited available land or constrained municipal infrastructure. The administration and the City of Edina have been in constant communication to evaluate potential sites and address feasibility challenges. This section summarizes those findings. ## Early Learning and Family Center — Site Search There is an extreme lack of parcels available in the City of Edina large enough (more than 5 acres) to accommodate a new early learning facility. The administration has reviewed more than 20 sites in coordination with the City, evaluating each for parcel size, level of difficulty, assessed valuation, and overall feasibility. The sites reviewed span all areas of Edina and include district-owned land, City-owned parcels, houses of worship, office buildings, and potential assemblies of residential properties. The complete inventory is presented below. ## Address Acres Difficulty Hurdles Valuation Status 4401 W 76th St 3.5 Low — $0 Excess land for Fire Station #2 7600 Parklawn ## Ave 5.24 Low Loss of tax base $6,300,000 Office building; possible redevelopment ## 4200–4444 W 76th St 4.0 Low — $6,700,000 Two outdated flex buildings 4931 W 77th St 1.8 Low Loss of TIF $6,600,000 Hotel pad with parking garage ## 7401 Cahill Rd 3.23 Low — $4,300,000 Flex office warehouse 7125 Cahill Rd 3.98 Low — $3,700,000 Office/industrial 7001 Cahill Rd 4.26 Low — $7,000,000 Outdated strip center 7671 Cahill Rd 3.9 Low — $6,400,000 Flex office warehouse 5555 W 78th St 5.05 Low — $5,200,000 Flex office warehouse 5200 Willson Rd 3.25 Low — $5,800,000 Older office building 4500 W 50th St 4.08 Moderate Loss of park $0 Wooddale Park ## 5421 France Ave 2.68 Moderate Uncertain $0 St. Peters church/school 6600–6800 ## France Ave ## 21.69 Moderate Prime tax base $41,700,000 Southdale Office Center ## 7300 York Ave 9.24 Moderate Eminent domain ## $24,500,000 Edina Place Condos 7600 France Ave 6.65 Moderate Buyer will resist $13,600,000 Spartan Nash anchor 5730 Grove St 7.16 Moderate Traffic impact $0 Good Samaritan Church 5146 Eden Ave 3.0 Moderate City contract $0 City-owned parcel 4115 Grimes 4.69 High Flood plain $0 Weber Park area 59th & School Rd ## 3.25 High Eminent domain $8,200,000 13 houses, Normandale 6400 Tracy 8.29 High No sewer $0 Church, no sewer capacity ## 5700 Benton 4.31 High Eminent domain $9,800,000 11 houses, Countryside ## 5516 Vernon 3.0 High Eminent domain $4,400,000 6 houses, Highlands 5901 Lincoln Dr 17.29 High Sewer + flood $15,600,000 Older office, parking struct. 5780 Lincoln Dr 2.59 High No sewer $2,100,000 Older office building 8 Merilane 15.1 High Traffic impact $7,000,000 Residential neighborhood Source: City of Edina site search — Early Childhood Program, 5-acres with easy access (March 2026) Among the non-district-owned sites evaluated, the property at 7600 Parklawn Avenue (5.24 acres) appears most favorable due to its parcel size, existing parking infrastructure, and proximity to Fred Richards Park. However, developers have expressed interest in converting the property from office space to tenant-owned senior living. Nothing has been finalized or advanced through the Planning Commission, and the administration remains in contact with the current owners. Absent a viable non-district-owned acquisition, the best option is to construct on a district-owned site. Otherwise, the District may be forced to renovate the existing space at the Edina Community Center. Among district-owned sites, two represent feasible options from a pure acreage standpoint: Cornelia Elementary and Creek Valley Elementary. Both sites have more than 6.0 acres of available land for development, and potentially more if adjacent City-owned land is included. ## Creek Valley Elementary Site The Creek Valley site is likely not viable due to a lack of sufficient sewage capacity in that part of Edina. The City engineering department has informed the administration that only 10 sewage available charge (SAC) units are available, which translates to roughly 10 single-family homes at most — nowhere near enough to accommodate an educational facility of any significance. A preliminary site plan prepared by Wold Architects & Engineers is shown below for reference, though the sewage constraint remains unresolved. Creek Valley Elementary site — preliminary test fit (Wold Architects & Engineers, December 2025) ## Cornelia Elementary Site That leaves Cornelia as the lone district-owned site with viable infrastructure. The Cornelia site is 14.3 acres with another 4.3 acres owned by the City immediately to the west and south. There is anywhere between 7.0–10.5 acres of land on the site to accommodate another facility, with the exact amount depending on a number of different factors. While no decisions or formal conversations have been had, the administration has had “test fits” applied to the parcel to visualize potential options: Cornelia Elementary site — preliminary test fit, 138,000 SF concept ## Edina High School — Sewage Infrastructure Significant construction at the Edina High School campus may not be feasible due to a lack of sewage infrastructure and capacity. The City and administration are in constant communication, and the City continues to analyze long-term solutions. ## Cost Escalators Beyond land and infrastructure constraints, several regulatory and code-driven factors have the potential to materially increase construction costs across the referendum portfolio. These escalators are not reflected in the preliminary cost estimates presented in Section 4 and will require detailed validation during schematic design. ## Storm Shelter Requirements Minnesota adopted the 2018 International Building Code (IBC), which references the ICC 500 standard for storm shelter design. Under this code, any Group E occupancy (schools) with an occupant load of 50 or more — the equivalent of roughly two classrooms — is required to include a storm shelter capable of withstanding 250 mph winds as part of any new construction or building addition. The storm shelter must be sized to accommodate all occupants of the entire facility, not just the addition itself. This means that even a modest classroom addition can trigger a shelter requirement scaled to the full building population. The structural, mechanical, electrical, and architectural hardening required to meet ICC 500 standards is substantial. Storm shelter construction requires reinforced walls, hardened doors, ballistic-rated windows or storm shutters, independent ventilation, emergency power, and sanitation provisions. A joint study conducted by Wold Architects & Engineers, the District’s Board-appointed architect, along with BKBM Engineers and Stahl Construction found that structural costs alone can more than double when a space is designed as a storm shelter compared to conventional construction. A rough rule of thumb is an additional $100 per square foot of construction, which can add up to 20% to total project costs. This cost escalator is particularly pronounced for the smaller additions proposed at Concord, Creek Valley, South View, and Valley View, where the shelter square footage requirement may approach or exceed the size of the addition itself. For the new Early Learning and Family Center, the shelter requirement will be incorporated into the facility design from the outset, but it nonetheless adds meaningfully to the overall project budget. Wold has extensive experience integrating storm shelters into school designs in a way that maintains a welcoming learning environment — using consistent architectural language, natural light through storm-rated glazing, and multi-use spaces such as gymnasiums and classrooms that serve double duty as shelter areas. ## Storm Water Management The City of Edina is a highly developed community that has reached a point where any removal of pervious surface — such as green space, unpaved areas, or natural ground — triggers a requirement for the developer to furnish storm water management facilities. This applies to all new construction and building additions within the city, including school district projects. Depending on the amount of pervious surface removed by a given project and the existing (or nonexistent) storm water management infrastructure on the site, construction costs can escalate significantly. Storm water solutions may include underground detention or retention systems, rain gardens, permeable paving, or other engineered systems designed to manage runoff volume and rate to meet current City code. Sites with little or no existing storm water infrastructure face the highest potential cost impact. Each of the preliminary project cost estimates presented in Section 4 includes contingencies set aside for site work; however, those contingencies may not fully accommodate what is necessary to meet current storm water code requirements. It is very difficult to estimate these costs with precision before full project design, site surveying, and coordination with the City’s engineering department. The administration will work with Wold Architects & Engineers and the City during schematic design to develop site-specific storm water management plans and refine cost projections accordingly. ## SECTION 4 ## Preliminary Project Cost Estimates (Facilities) Preliminary project costs reflect early planning estimates including construction and owner/soft costs. Cost estimates assume a November 2026 election and construction beginning the summer of 2028. ## Project Indicative SF Preliminary Total Project Cost Concord Elementary addition 4,000 $10,522,278 Creek Valley Elementary addition 9,000 $12,210,588 Edina High School – specialized programming & classroom capacity Option A: up to 16 classrooms ~66,000 $59,670,000 Option B: up to 8 specialty classrooms ~26,000 $29,296,250 ## South View MS Option A: 9 classrooms ~23,400 $25,112,550 Option B: 3 classrooms ~6,600 $13,010,850 ## Valley View MS ~6,600 $11,354,950 ## New Early Learning and Family Center Option A: facility with gyms & community ~138,000 $104,678,750 spaces Option B: standalone early learning facility ~90,000 $75,968,750 Option C: remodel of existing ECC ## N/A $44,869,813 Safety & security (PA, cameras, door security, vestibule hardening) ## N/A $10,000,000–$15,000,000 ## Kuhlmann Stadium Enhancement Option A ~38,000 $50,662,500 ## Option B $35,700,000 ## Option C $27,150,000 ## Subtotal Range – Facilities Projects $158,414,729–$289,211,616 The subtotal range above assumes all projects are included in a single referendum package. The actual ballot proposal may include a subset of these projects depending on Board direction, community input, and financing capacity. Administration’s minimum recommendation: The administration’s minimum recommendation would be for $205,000,000 in bonding authority, which would accommodate safety & security infrastructure enhancements, a new standalone Early Learning & Family Center, and additions to Edina High School, South View, Valley View, Concord, and Kuhlman Stadium. These represent the most urgent priorities given current facility constraints and evolving security needs. ## SECTION 5 ## Operating and Staffing Impacts New or expanded facilities or security enhancements require operating capacity to protect the investment and sustain service levels: • Custodial/maintenance staffing needed for a new standalone ELFC – approximately four custodial staff, estimated annual cost of $315,000–$330,000. • Ongoing safety/security and student/staff wellness staff (4–6 positions) – estimated at $575,000–$720,000 annually including benefits. • Technology lifecycle replacement – safety and security systems require planned replacement cycles. Sustainable levy funding is necessary to avoid future ‘cliff ’ replacements. ## SECTION 6 ## Financing Structure and Options The district’s current revenue structure does not accommodate the magnitude of the proposed investments; voter authorization would be required. ## GO School Building Bonds (voter-approved) ## Capital Projects Levy Increase Purchase/installation of safety/security technology. Construction and renovation projects (ELFC, EHS, SV, VV, CC, CV, Kuhlmann Stadium). Ongoing safety/security staffing; technology lifecycle replacement fund; potential pay-as-you-go capital needs. 10 years of authority. Amortizes capital costs over 20+ years. Bond size should reflect final scope, escalation, contingencies, and inflation. Creates sustainable annual capacity. A 1.4% increase is estimated to generate ~$2.2M annually. Structuring options include: (a) a single-question bond including facilities plus initial safety technology, paired with a levy increase; or (b) separate ballot questions. Administration will return with a recommended structure after scope and messaging refinement. ## SECTION 7 ## Illustrative Tax Impact (Preliminary) Estimated monthly tax impact for a home valued at $800,000, November 2026 election (taxes payable 2027), combining various bond sizes with a $2.2M annual capital projects levy increase (+1.4% to the existing capital project levy of 5.932%). ## Scenario Term Bond/Mo Levy/Mo Total/Mo $60M Bond + $1.6M Levy 20 yr $2 $7 $9 $80M Bond + $1.6M Levy 20 yr $3 $7 $10 $100M Bond + $1.6M Levy 20 yr $4 $7 $11 $120M Bond + $1.6M Levy 20 yr $5 $7 $12 $140M Bond + $1.6M Levy 20 yr $6 $7 $13 $160M Bond + $1.6M Levy 21 yr $8 $7 $15 $180M Bond + $1.6M Levy 22 yr $10 $7 $17 $200M Bond + $1.6M Levy 22 yr $13 $7 $20 $220M Bond + $1.6M Levy 22 yr $16 $7 $23 $240M Bond + $1.6M Levy 22 yr $20 $7 $27 $260M Bond + $1.6M Levy 23 yr $25 $7 $32 $280M Bond + $1.6M Levy 23 yr $30 $7 $37 $300M Bond + $1.6M Levy 24 yr $34 $7 $41 Tax impacts will be updated as the Board narrows scope. The District currently finances a robust LTFM plan utilizing a significant yearly pay-as-you-go levy. This levy can be shifted into bonded debt, allowing a major voter-approved bond to not significantly increase overall school taxes for residents. ## SECTION 8 ## Governance Process and Decision Timeline Minnesota school building bonds require a state Review & Comment process and a statutory election timeline. Milestone Nov 3, 2026 Feb 9, 2027 Apr 13, 2027 May 11, 2027 ## Submit Review & Comment to ## MDE Jun 16, 2026 Sep 22, 2026 Nov 24, 2026 Dec 22, 2026 Adopt Resolution (≥84 days) Aug 11, 2026 Nov 17, 2026 Jan 19, 2027 Feb 16, 2027 ## Receive MDE Review & ## Comment Sep 4, 2026 Dec 11, 2026 Feb 12, 2027 Mar 12, 2027 Board public meeting on MDE response Aug 25, 2026 Dec 1, 2026 Feb 2, 2027 Mar 2, 2027 ## Publish Review & Comment (48–70 days) Sep 16, 2026 Dec 23, 2026 Feb 24, 2027 Mar 24, 2027 Election Date Nov 3, 2026 Feb 9, 2027 Apr 13, 2027 May 11, 2027 A November 2026 election provides the earliest viable path. Later dates allow additional time for design and engagement but delay project delivery. ## SECTION 9 ## Key Risks, Constraints, and Considerations • Land availability: See Section 3 (Construction Feasibility) for a detailed assessment of site availability, sewage capacity constraints, and ongoing coordination with the City of Edina. • Cost escalation: Delaying a vote adds 5.0–10.0% per year. The Concord addition proposed in 2022 is now twice as expensive for the same scope. • Scope discipline: Maintaining clear linkage between the community’s highest-priority needs and the final ballot package. • Operational sustainability: Ensuring student and staff wellness staffing, security staffing, and technology replacement cycles are funded. • Ballot structure: Whether to bundle or separate facilities and security/operations for voter clarity; alignment with legal parameters for bond vs. levy. • Community engagement: Surveys, listening sessions, and stakeholder advisory structures prior to final Board action. • Capital project levy authority: There is no cap beyond what voters authorize. The District has many eligible costs currently paid from other funds. As of taxes payable 2026, the District produces $1,138 and $209 less per ADM than Hopkins and Richfield respectively. A 1.0% increase would still leave the District $956 short of Hopkins and $30 short of Richfield per ADM. • Peer district referendum activity: Between FY2016–2026, neighboring ## districts authorized: Wayzata ($566M), St. Louis Park ($279M), Hopkins ## ($309M), Minnetonka ($85M), Richfield ($87M), Eden Prairie ($38M). Edina’s total: $7M. Upcoming 2026 referenda include Wayzata ($496M, April 2026), St. Louis Park ($50M bond + levy increase from 4.287% to 10.127%), and Robbinsdale (~$550M, under Board consideration). The District’s investment posture has been significantly more conservative. ## SECTION 10 ## Recommended Next Steps (Board Action Path) Administrative Recommendation: The administration believes the following to be required for the District’s long-term success: $10,000,000–$15,000,000 in bonding authority to immediately implement safety & security equipment and technology upgrades, a 1.0% increase (~$1.6M annually) to the existing capital project levy to finance on-going safety, security, and wellness staff and related software and equipment replacement costs, the additions to both South View and Valley View middle schools, and a standalone Early Learning and Family Center. • Confirm scope of projects and preferred referendum structure (bond + levy, including whether initial safety technology is funded through the bond). • Initiate schematic design and cost validation for each major project component; identify phasing approach and disruption mitigation. • Refine safety/security technology program standards and produce a detailed cost plan (including lifecycle replacement schedule). • Confirm ongoing operating costs (custodial/maintenance staff, student and staff wellness staff, security staff, utilities) and determine levy funding requirements. • Complete legal preparation: draft ballot language, coordinate with bond counsel, and prepare Department of Education Review & Comment submission materials. • Identify an election date and backward-plan Board work sessions and community engagement milestones leading to formal Board actions. ## IV. Leadership Updates ## V. Adjournment