[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6516343,"mediaKeyId","5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a","parentId",5733425,"title","SiteLogic report finds $58M in immediate needs; board weighs options and timetable for long‑term facility maintenance plan","audioSeconds",3437,"startMs",1159000,"endMs",4596000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a&start=1159&end=4596","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a/thumbnail_1159000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6516343/Minnesota/SiteLogic-report-finds-58M-in-immediate-needs-board-weighs-options-and-timetable-for-longterm-facility-maintenance-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6516343-a47c261197d757d04cdd4c1b08cbfad3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770503963&Signature=RQ-TcNQFxt-EgCatWNok2BdNPYs8rjuxAtyjk1tck6jkO-yhqC0jD~oYX~6NVFyWPdVb3Yd-Q-08XYYzG7Y9xq05PRVE0lyoUigrHX3P3v62GRxhLu0aZrIo8vcjEA27IfJcxddOQDBfGqBm66OecTD~Tn73~hAimIKFSP6TlChpAIXn5CIZb2BfFGahdswhemIJ7rfTrkMAcf1YQha8Dq~vhJDACYmhzZ-pAe8-WDLgUlWVWOmlDz-HcZPuXBBAzxdUYRheNXozfzmPY7GdK-QxCg5e0Eq7-WADGDrYjB4ZOhFXLgoxuQcNHG6JEVYJ1RDAnKMzLEtfkdIwjs2Jcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","St. Francis Area Schools","date","2025-06-24T03:30:01Z","article","Saint Francis Area Schools officials heard a detailed facilities assessment June 23 that catalogs hundreds of building assets needing maintenance or replacement and outlines funding choices, timelines and immediate steps the district can take.

The district contracted SiteLogic to inventory building systems, assign condition scores and estimate replacement costs. Michael Smith, a planning executive with SiteLogic, told the board the district’s average building health score is 66 and the average facility age is about 37 years. SiteLogic assessed about 1,940 distinct assets and identified several hundred at higher risk of failure.

The assessment estimated roughly $58 million in current asset replacement needs; after projecting inflation and market escalation over 20 years, SiteLogic presented a planning figure that approaches $120 million. District staff said the district currently receives roughly $1.2 million per year in long‑term facility maintenance (LTFM) formula revenue but that prior bonding has effectively reduced annual available LTFM cash to roughly $400,000 — creating an annual shortfall the presentation put at roughly $2 million a year that grows over time.

Why this matters: the report maps which buildings and systems are closest to failing, shows how small, staggered projects can reduce long‑term tax spikes and points to short‑term procurement risks such as 14‑week lead times for HVAC units.

What SiteLogic presented

- Building‑level condition: SiteLogic produced color‑coded building health visualizations showing urgent, caution and acceptable conditions. Smith said portions of several buildings — notably the middle school and early childhood center — showed large shares in “alarm/alert” condition.
- Asset counts and priorities: SiteLogic said it tagged about 1,940 assets district‑wide, with about 516 assets identified in elevated cost or replacement categories and roughly 450 assets flagged as “in market” for attention. Examples cited included rooftop HVAC units installed in the mid‑1990s and mechanical systems from the 1970s–2000s that are approaching end of life.
- Lifecycle and cost modeling: Smith walked the board through typical service lives (interior finishes ~20 years, roofs ~25 years, major mechanical ~30 years) and a schedule of projected replacement costs by year. He emphasized the benefit of phasing work to avoid spikes in tax levies and to reduce premium pricing risk by bidding sooner rather than later.
- Operations and quick wins: SiteLogic identified immediate energy‑efficiency and contracting changes (some already underway) that could lower operating costs without tax impact.

Board and staff context

Maintenance supervisor Chuck Inker and district staff described knowledge gaps left after the prior facilities manager departed; SiteLogic’s shared repository (site ID) was presented as a way to hold institutional memory — including photos, serial numbers and change logs — in one place accessible to maintenance staff.

The presentation framed realistic funding paths: energy‑efficiency projects (no tax impact), targeted capital projects paid from LTFM or other state programs (including indoor air quality/grants), and a potential 2026–27 referendum or capital bonding if the board chooses a large scope. SiteLogic and district financial advisors said some projects could be bid and executed in 2026 but larger, design‑heavy work likely would fall into 2027.

Costs and the LTFM gap

Smith showed the district’s average building health score is 66 and cautioned that, without investment, scores for some buildings would decline further (for example, projected drops of 4–9 points in two years for several sites). His topline replacement estimate in current dollars was about $58 million; when inflated, that total grew toward roughly $120 million over 20 years. Staff said the annual LTFM allocation is roughly $380 per pupil, which for the district amounts to about $1.2 million — but the board has previously bonded against that revenue stream and currently only receives about $400,000 in cash each year for maintenance, contributing to an annual upkeep gap estimated in the presentation at roughly $2 million that will rise with inflation and deferred projects.

Timing, procurement risk and next steps

Smith warned of long lead times for HVAC equipment (he cited 14‑week delivery windows for some units) and urged the board to “cement” simpler 2026 work quickly to hold prices. The district and SiteLogic identified a range of funding options: energy‑savings projects (reinvest savings), capital facility bonds (referendum), capital loans or targeted grants for indoor air quality and life‑safety work. SiteLogic recommended prioritizing high‑risk assets to avoid costlier emergency repairs and to coordinate work that requires accessing the same building cavities (for example, doing HVAC, sprinkler and electrical work together to avoid repeated ceiling removal).

Board action and procedure

The board discussed whether to approve the district’s LTFM submission immediately or to postpone and workshop SiteLogic’s prioritized projects. A board member moved to postpone the LTFM plan discussion to the next regular meeting to allow the facilities committee to meet and refine priorities; the transcript records the motion but does not record a formal roll‑call vote in the public record excerpt.

What the district will track next

Staff said they will schedule an additional facilities committee meeting to finalize recommended 2026 projects and to provide updated cost estimates and prioritization back to the full board before any July 31 LTFM submission deadline. SiteLogic offered to provide more granular project‑level pricing and phasing options to enable the district to select a mix of work that reduces long‑term tax volatility.

Ending note

Board members thanked SiteLogic and district staff for the data and said they want workshops to vet trade‑offs before pursuing referendum or bonding options. District staff emphasized that early action on the highest‑risk assets will reduce emergency repairs and long‑term cost growth.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025_06_23 SFAS School Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Saint Francis Area Schools officials heard a detailed facilities assessment June 23 that catalogs hundreds of building assets needing maintenance or replacement and outlines funding choices, timelines and immediate steps the district can take.","taxTitle","St. Francis Area Schools, School Boards, Minnesota","taxId",56938,"location","Minnesota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6516328,"Votes at a glance — Saint Francis Area Schools, June 23, 2025",2029,11091000,13120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a&start=11091&end=13120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a/thumbnail_11091000.jpg","/articles/6516328/Minnesota/Votes-at-a-glance-Saint-Francis-Area-Schools-June-23-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6516328-4cba165712da000253e836df0dd0ab72/orig.mp4?Expires=1770503963&Signature=naS7b3WtLEa~lBrCCSuS~Of2aFPrEXQ9KEDY4N5gZ5a4guVShsNXwMzWC5L-kNqQr94Fkktij6ifrs9Zaw4Q2XGXMkpgHquWeVlYCpNMuRFUVgCNa49ufBeKl0V9YvBkFoG2m37nohWxhO2yqDH5VK1ilkazwe1OQa9TLm-VdhvMJLwbGF4QeDnSEhMFh-UOUvxpnFkK~n-eSw9qN1gN8bwItEWsaOHJBLonlRKtAaajotVDLl0OJMkg-DkBoVvc4~ieETYweLmI4JVK9JCkvsLDo~QSCevEknUPfsP6eZ3WbgRSYTLYVnQ-TFdcxDA7249I9It-kcGmOla8JdZOjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saint Francis Area Schools board took several recorded actions and votes during the June 23 meeting. This roundup lists the motions and outcomes recorded in the meeting transcript excerpt.

Consent agenda (items 4.1–4.5)

- Motion: Approve consent agenda items 4.1–4.4 (consent agenda). Moved by Mister Schonrock; seconded by Miss Anderson.
- Outcome: Motion approved (board proceeded with roll call for consent items). The transcript shows the motion carried; later item 4.5 was pulled for separate vote.

- Motion: Approve consent item 4.5 (specific item pulled for discussion then voted). Moved by Miss Anderson; seconded by Mister Schonrock.
- Vote (roll call in transcript): Mister Ombre — Aye; Mister Shona — Aye; Miss West — Aye; Mister Orkey — Aye; Miss Anderson — Aye; [Chair] — Aye. Motion recorded as prevailing.

Insurance: property/casualty pool (MIST)

- Motion: Approve joining the Minnesota Insurance School Trust (MIST) property/casualty pool and adopt the resolution included in the board packet.
- Moved/seconded: motion and second recorded in meeting.
- Vote (roll call in transcript): Mister Warking — Aye; Miss Anderson — Aye; Miss West — Aye; Mister Shonrock — Aye; Mister Humphrey — Aye. Motion approved by roll call.

Interim school board appointment

- Motion: Appoint Jessica Bakken Clubman as interim school board member (to serve until election/seat certification). Moved and seconded on the record.
- Vote/outcome: Motion moved and seconded in open session and the process proceeded (appointee will not be seated until after the 30‑day petition window and the July 28 meeting as required by statute). The transcript records motion and second; formal roll call not printed in the excerpt but the board continued with meeting business after the motion, and staff described the 30‑day petition procedure for the appointee.

Long‑term facility maintenance (LTFM) plan

- Motion: A board member moved to postpone discussion of the LTFM plan until the next regular meeting and to include SiteLogic project discussion at that time.
- Vote/outcome: Motion recorded in the transcript; the excerpt does not contain a completed roll‑call vote. Staff and SiteLogic agreed to schedule an additional facilities committee meeting to finalize a prioritized list for board review before July deadlines.

Budget (FY 2026)

- Motion: Move to adopt the FY 2026 budget as presented.
- Outcome: Motion to approve was made and seconded; the excerpt does not include a recorded final vote in the provided transcript segment.

Notes on procedure and next steps

- Several votes in the meeting were taken by roll call and recorded aloud; where the excerpt does not contain the roll call, staff described next‑step procedural items (for example, the 30‑day petition window for an interim appointment and the July 31 deadline for some LTFM submissions).
- For items with no recorded final roll call in the transcript excerpt, the article reports only the motion and documented next steps rather than asserting an outcome.

","The board recorded and acted on several routine and special items: the consent agenda items 4.1–4.5 were approved by roll calls (4.5 recorded explicitly), the board approved joining a Minnesota insurance pool (MIST) by roll call and moved to appoint an interim board member (motion and second recorded). A motion to postpone final LTFM approval was",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6516334,"Public speakers urge board to reverse book removals and defend mission; community members endorse interim board candidate",623,134000,757000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a&start=134&end=757","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a/thumbnail_134000.jpg","/articles/6516334/Minnesota/Public-speakers-urge-board-to-reverse-book-removals-and-defend-mission-community-members-endorse-interim-board-candidate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6516334-78980f2711d04b314bc52ab3d74cb6ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1770503963&Signature=K7GdaehR7UQ0ndEMt5boxODneiWJ81Q7w378Mt-eIrweVPJzxj7sx8ZGPuRbRHhP0NGxzEuKXLwp2l9zAzF5PY4JAvo-buzW0eS2qC1VULlqUeDfb1jNNtiYLbhnPsA78dw~OVfvLuDIxn9A62l9uE5n1t-bkuNLqDOnmwYb5yMlpQtaCrTMUlL2UaQZdu7GKTBAzlT1Ovi6VfH3COvS9TAM9Xjdte-Cbcj-wj0limYcua~uAlmzoB4rzIhE3RCySyFa36lYdXw4zHhfqzNRpwF9S3z4vZ5wIyCxBHFP2D2rHtQp95AUjXvs3zhNHoa2JEulxuVaDNAoMh2vykSiBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple community members addressed the Saint Francis Area Schools board during public comment June 23, criticizing the recent removal of library books and urging the board to follow district policy and professional recommendations. Speakers also offered a public endorsement for one applicant to fill a current board vacancy.

June Anderson, a community member who identified herself during public comment, criticized the district’s handling of a set of challenges to library titles. Anderson said the person who submitted the challenged list lacked educational credentials and a stake in the district and that the board bypassed the district review policy and state law by appointing an ad‑hoc committee that included the challenger.

Anderson characterized the process as an “illegal book ban” and asked why the board did not seek input from professional educators — the superintendent, librarians and teachers — before removing titles from library shelves. She asked whether the board would cover legal costs arising from the decision and called on members to consider the consequences of actions that restrict student access to classic American literature.

Other speakers emphasized mission and inclusion. Barb Anderson reminded the board that decisions should reflect the district’s mission statement and that political pressures should not drive policy. A third public speaker, Glenda (surname not given), used her time to endorse a particular applicant for the current school board vacancy, describing the nominee’s community involvement and volunteer service and urging the board to appoint someone who will support inclusivity and student success.

Board response and procedure

Board members thanked speakers for engaging and reiterated that public comment does not generate immediate board action; the superintendent and chair may respond when appropriate. Several board members later discussed the formal appointment process and scoring rubric for the interim board vacancy; the board proceeded with an appointment process during the meeting.

Ending

Speakers closed by urging the board to follow professional review processes, prioritize student access and ensure that governance decisions reflect the district’s mission and values.

","Several residents used the public comment period to oppose a recent removal of library books, allege an ad‑hoc process that cut out educators and said Minnesota law prohibits banning books for content; another speaker publicly endorsed a candidate for the open board seat.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6516338,"District presents FastBridge results; leaders outline literacy, math and MTSS priorities for 2025‑26",2045,4700000,6745000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a&start=4700&end=6745","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5733425-6d12b4f1bd01d39881d5a1e10214a23a/thumbnail_4700000.jpg","/articles/6516338/Minnesota/District-presents-FastBridge-results-leaders-outline-literacy-math-and-MTSS-priorities-for-202526","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6516338-3df7bc65a2f14d53deac68c32ce0c771/orig.mp4?Expires=1770503963&Signature=b51ALtWS2M8DQzC~43nQnKv0osdEEUVFmvpLG3mXiUuMAX8Ey6Z8NmDQrXzZ7202~pEq631T9zp4aZ~5EhGuXkeGaxVowKp-Nb~uQNU1OosnYdco9brdwE2EDDTQU6XfGJ3XHtd7MLNnSOKuo7SdRwvSEvOC7QdqhLGFiBCSddIbRdCLWauOpTsMz2ZUjQAx6evCXHnqiIrsNUoxvGDfhg3FTcNVxtrtX3b9y4iYCyXrtLbWTFsh1TTJTH4yBkrr54thPMlNbgkCZOOgkWci8sxqv0koafSfv7EE6IDHBZoDm30bpCrs4MJFw3cQSQ57OcaTjV-ldV2fl8e--nghsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Saint Francis Area Schools leaders reviewed spring FastBridge screening results and district improvement strategies June 23, identifying third‑grade literacy as a primary area for targeted work and describing plans to strengthen standards alignment, interventions and professional learning.

Superintendent Vanessa Anderson summarized district goals and directed instructional staff to deepen standards work and interventions. The district’s FastBridge growth tables show elementary grades tracking expected or aggressive growth in many places, but the presentation highlighted a drop in the share of third graders meeting the “low risk” literacy benchmark — from 57 percent in the prior year to 49 percent in the most recent screening.

Why this matters: third‑grade reading proficiency is widely used as an early predictor of later academic success. District leaders said the FastBridge snapshot does not alone prove instructional failure but identifies a trend that requires focused intervention.

Key takeaways from the board presentation

- Literacy: The district will continue phonics and foundational reading work in K–5 and expand comprehension and vocabulary focus (science of reading) for grades already trained in phonics. District staff plan additional principal‑level review and to align curriculum materials explicitly to Minnesota standards to ensure coverage.
- Math: High school and elementary teachers worked this year on assessment timing and rigor. The district will scale intensive coaching (already piloted in 2nd and 4th grades) to additional grade teams to improve standard alignment and assessment practice.
- Multi‑Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and interventions: Secondary teams will strengthen MTSS implementation; leaders plan better identification and targeted supports for students who miss benchmarks. The district also plans coaching and expanded use of regional specialists (Brightworks) to deliver free, targeted support.
- Safe learning environments: The district reported discipline incidents trending down across datasets but is still validating two closely related discipline datasets before publicizing one consolidated measure. District leaders said they will review Genesis (the district’s alternative learning program) practices with an eye toward expansion and better alignment with program intent.

Equity and subgroup focus

Staff said they are beginning deeper disaggregation of FastBridge by subgroup, including students with disabilities and English learners, and will use Sam Holland (data coordinator) and special‑education staff to sharpen strategies for closing gaps.

Next steps and monitoring

Instructional leaders said school improvement plans will incorporate the district‑level strategies presented in June. Superintendent Anderson and staff said they will return to the board with more detailed school improvement plans after principals finalize plans for the coming year.

Ending

Board members thanked staff for compiling the data. Several directors emphasized the centrality of instructional outcomes and asked staff to prioritize actionable coaching and assessment alignment work over the summer so that interventions can start early in the school year.

","Superintendent Vanessa Anderson and instructional staff reviewed FastBridge screening and growth data, flagged a drop in third‑grade literacy low‑risk rates (57% to 49%), discussed discipline trends, and outlined plans for science‑of‑reading training, expanded interventions and use of regional Brightworks specialists.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

SiteLogic report finds $58M in immediate needs; board weighs options and timetable for long‑term facility maintenance plan

Votes at a glance — Saint Francis Area Schools, June 23, 2025

Public speakers urge board to reverse book removals and defend mission; community members endorse interim board candidate

District presents FastBridge results; leaders outline literacy, math and MTSS priorities for 2025‑26