By Christopher Magan

St. Paul Pioneer Press

ST. PAUL — School leaders hope part of the education bill vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton giving them dedicated money for building maintenance won’t be a casualty of a $17 billion budget fight.

It’s been a top priority for years of suburban and rural school districts where limited resources often force administrators to pick students’ needs over routine maintenance. They hope it will be included when lawmakers reconvene in St. Paul to draft another $17 billion education funding bill.

The proposed new funding starts with $32 million in the next two-year budget, but expanding what’s called the long-term facilities maintenance program will eventually cost Minnesotans $100 million or more. Local property taxpayers will also have to chip in.

“Republicans and Democrats know this is the right thing to do for their school districts,” state Sen. Kevin Dahle, DFL-Northfield, said as the legislative session neared its tumultuous end. He sponsored the bill to end a $300 per pupil funding disparity between metro districts and the rest of the state.

Now, just 25 school districts in the state’s alternative facilities program can increase local property taxes for school maintenance without voter approval. Entrance into the program is based on the overall age and size of a district’s buildings.

That means districts like Forest Lake have been shut out of the program while their neighbors in Stillwater and White Bear Lake are allowed in.

Forest Lake Superintendent Linda Madsen said that with money limited, her district has put off routine maintenance to focus spending on smaller class sizes and programs for students.

“It’s a formula that doesn’t make any sense,” Madsen said of the existing facilities maintenance system. “All schools in Minnesota deserve to have it.”

Forest Lake school officials will ask voters to approve $161 million worth of bonding in November to catch up with years of deferred maintenance. The new school upkeep money proposed by lawmakers wouldn’t address those needs, but it would keep a future work backlog from building up.

Closing the gap in funding for school maintenance will also come at a cost to local taxpayers.