Save Indus Group, et al., Relators,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-1093

Save Indus Group, et al.,
Relators,

vs.

Ind. School District No. 363,
Respondent.

Filed August 5, 2024
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Independent School District No. 363

Marshall H. Tanick, David Robbins, Meyer Njus Tanick, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota
(for relators)

William L. Davidson, Mark A. Fredrickson, John A. Knapp, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan &
Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Reyes ,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
Independent School District No. 363 operated two schools until 2023, when its
school board decided to close one school and consolidate operations at the other school. A
group of concerned citizens challenges the school district’s closure decision. We conclude
that the school district complied with the statutory requirements for giving notice of a
2
public hearing on the proposed closure and that substantial evidence supports the school
district’s closure decision. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
Independent School District No. 363 is a large school district in terms of geographic
area. It covers 1,532 square miles of Koochiching County, including the western part of
the county from the Canadian border to the southern county line. But the school district is
relatively small in terms of the size of its student body. Total enrollment in the school
district during the 2022-2023 academic year, in grades kindergarten through 12, was 270
students. Most of the students did not reside in the district but, rather, attended a school in
the district through open enrollment.
Until 2023, the school district operated two kindergarten-through-grade-12 schools:
the Indus School, which was located in the northern part of the district and of Koochiching
County, just south of the Canadian border, and the Northome School, which is located in
the southwestern corner of the district and the county. The driving distance between the
two schools is 82 miles.
During the 2022-2023 academic year, approximately two-thirds (178) of the school
district’s students attended the Northome School, and approximately one-third (92)
attended the Indus School. Approximately half of the students at the Northome School
were residents of the district (as opposed to non-residents attending by open enrollment),
while less than one quarter of the students at the Indus School were district residents.
Although total enrollment in the school district fluctuates from year to year, student
enrollment generally has declined in recent years. Between the 2018-2019 academic year
3
and the 2022-2023 academic year, total student enrollment decreased by 5.5 percent, from
286 to 270. During that period, enrollment at the Indus School decreased by approximately
12 percent, from 105 to 92. Comparatively, enrollment at the Northome School decreased
by 1.6 percent, from 181 to 178.
The school district’s declining enrollment corresponds to a declining population in
the area. Census data shows that the population of Koochiching County decreased by
approximately 17 percent (from 14,355 to 11,941) in the 21-year period between 2000 and
2021. Census data also shows that the population of school-aged children in Koochiching
County decreased by approximately 24 percent (from 2,470 to 1,887) in the 11-year period
between 2010 and 2021.
The school district’s declining enrollment has coincided with its worsening financial
condition. In the five fiscal years between 2013 and 2018, the school district had annual
spending deficits of between $76,713 and $231,458. In the spring of 2023, the school
district projected a spending deficit in that fiscal year of $354,934, which was
approximately 5 percent of projected expenditures of $7,070,785. In the 2021 fiscal year,
the school district spent, on average, $20,111 per student, which is approximately 50
percent more than the statewide average of $13,266 per student. The school district’s
spending per student at the Indus school was approximately $6,000 higher than its spending
per student at the Northome school.
The school district maintains an “unassigned fund,” which has been used to cover
its deficit spending. Between 2014 and 2022, that fund decreased by approximately 33
percent, from $4,853,413 to $3,261,717.
4
Meanwhile, facilities at both schools are in need of significant repairs, maintenance,
and upgrades. The Indus School requires approximately $3,000,000 in air-handling and
sewer improvements, and the Northome School requires approximately $2,700,000 in air-
handling, elevator, and gymnasium improvements.
At a school board meeting in March 2023, the school district’s superintendent
presented four options to address the issues described above. The first two options would
have eliminated various staff positions, courses, and extra-curricular programs. The third
and fourth options were to close the Northome School or the Indus School, respectively.
The school board decided, by a vote of four to two, to pursue the closure of the Indus
School.
In April 2023, a hearing officer appointed by the school board presided over a public
hearing on the proposed closure of the Indus School. The superintendent testified and
submitted exhibits that reflect the above-stated facts about enrollment and the school
district’s financial condition. The superintendent also testified that the Northome facilities
were larger than the Indus facilities and had the capacity to serve all students presently
attending both schools.
Numerous members of the community spoke in opposition to the proposed closure
of the Indus school. Many expressed concerns about the long bus ride—approximately 90
minutes each way —that would be required for Indus students if they were to attend the
Northome school. The superintendent acknowledged those concerns but stated that 18
Northome students presently have a bus ride of a similar length and that closing the
5
Northome school instead of closing the Indus School would subject a greater number of
students to longer bus rides.
In May 2023, t he hearing officer submitted to the school board a 3 0-page report
with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. The hearing officer
determined that it was necessary and practicable to close the Indus School. In support of
this recommendation, the hearing officer reasoned that the school district would not have
sufficient revenue to operate both schools, that declining student enrollment was
concentrated in the Indus attendance area, that spending per student was higher at the Indus
school, that more capital improvements were needed at the Indus school, and that the
school district would spend less to transport students from the Indus attendance area to the
Northome attendance area than vice versa.
At a meeting in June 2023, the school board decided, by a vote of four to two, to
adopt the hearing officer’s findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation and to close
the Indus school, effective July 1, 2023. An association of concerned citizens known as
Save Indus Group and a parent of an Indus student (collectively Save Indus Group) appeal
from the school district’s decision by way of a writ of certiorari.
DECISION
In Minnesota, school districts have a duty “to furnish school facilities to every child
of school age residing in any part of the district.” Minn. Stat. § 123B.02, subd. 2 (2022).
To fulfill this duty, a school district is authorized to “establish and organize and alter and
discontinue such grades or schools as it may deem advisable.” Id. A school district’s
decision to close a public school is regulated by the following statute:
6
The board may close a schoolhouse only after a public
hearing on the question of the necessity and practicability of
the proposed closing. Published notice of the hearing shall be
given for two weeks in the official newspaper of the district.
The time and place of the meeting, the description and location
of the schoolhouse, and a statement of the reasons for the
closing must be specified in the notice. Parties requesting to
give testimony for and against the proposal shall be heard by
the board before it makes a final decision to close or not to
close the schoolhouse.

Minn. Stat. § 123B.51, subd. 5 (2022). A school board’s decision to close a school
pursuant to this statute is subject to judicial review by writ of certiorari. Western Area Bus.
& Civic Club v. Duluth Sch. Bd. Indep. Dist. No. 709, 324 N.W.2d 361, 365 (Minn. 1982);
Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 712 v. Mountain Iron-
Buhl Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 712, 431 N.W.2d 601, 603 (Minn. App. 1988), rev. denied
(Minn. Jan. 25, 1989).
A. Procedural Requirements
Save Indus Group first argues that the school board’s decision is invalid due to two
alleged procedural errors.
First, Save Indus Group argues that the school district did not provide adequate
notice of the public hearing. Before conducting a public hearing on the necessity and
practicability of a proposed school closure, a school board must publish notice of the
hearing “for two weeks in the official newspaper of the district.” Minn. Stat. § 123B.51,
subd. 5. The notice must contain the “time and place of the meeting, the description and
location of the schoolhouse, and a statement of the reasons for the closing must be specified
in the notice.” Id. “[T]he announcement of the proposed closing of a particular school is
7
a required procedure that starts the hearing process.” Kelly v. Independent Sch. Dist. No.
623, 380 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Minn. App. 1986).
In this case, the school district published notice of the April 2023 public hearing in
the Rainy Lake Gazette, the official newspaper of the school district, on March 17 and 24,
2023. The first notice stated that the public hearing would be held at the “Indus School
commons, located at 8560 Highway 11 SE, Baudette, MN, in Lake of the Woods County.”
(Emphasis added.) The second notice stated that the public hearing would be held at the
“Indus School commons, located at 8560 Highway 11 SE, Baudette, MN, in Koochiching
County.” (Emphasis a dded.) It is undisputed that both notices stated the correct street
address; that the Indus school’s mailing address is associated with the city of Baudette,
which is in Lake of the Woods County; and that the physical location of the Indus school
is in Koochiching County.
The hearing officer addressed the issue of notice in his recommendation as follows:
The School Board gave proper public notice of the
public hearing to consider the closing of the Indus School.
Though the initial posting erroneously included a reference to
Lake of the Woods County, the correct street address of the
Indus School was included in the notice as required. The
county was corrected in the second printing of the notice.
There was no evidence of any actual confusion by any person
with respect to the location of the Indus School.

In its resolution adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation, the school board
determined that notice was proper.
Save Indus Group contends that the first notice does not satisfy the statutory notice
requirements because it incorrectly states that the Indus School is located in Lake of the
8
Woods County. In response, the school district contends that the notice is not deficient
because the statute does not require that the notice include the county in which the public
hearing will be held.
The school-closure statute requires notice of the “place of the meeting.” Minn. Stat.
§ 123B.51, subd. 5. There is no caselaw interpreting this particular phrase. But the phrase
is similar to language in the statute in Thompson v. Town of Berlin, 91 N.W. 25 (Minn.
1902), which required notice of the “time and place” of a public meeting concerning the
location of a public highway. Id. at 25 (citing Minn. Gen. Stat. § 1808 (1894)). In that
case, the supreme court considered whether a town had given adequate notice of a public
meeting by describing the place as “the northwest corner Sec. ten.” Id. at 26. The supreme
court stated that that description, by itself, would be “clearly insufficient, for it designates
no place, with a sufficient degree of certainty. ” Id. But the supreme court reasoned that,
when read in conjunction with the entire notice, which described a nearby proposed public
highway with greater specificity, “no intelligent person could be at all deceived as to the
place of meeting” and it was “reasonably apparent that interested parties have not in fact
been misled to their prejudice.” Id.
In this case, the school district’s published notice provided more specificity about
the place of the public hearing than was provided in Thompson . The school district’ s
published notice stated that the public hearing would take place at the “Indus School
commons,” stated a particular street address, and identified the city in which the Indus
school is located. Given that the subject matter of the public hearing was the Indus School
itself, it is “reasonably apparent” that all “interested parties” would know the place of the
9
meeting. See id. Save Indus Group does not challenge the hearing officer’s determination
that there was no “actual confusion.” Thus, the school district’s notice of the public hearing
complied with the requirements of the statute.
Second, Save Indus Group contends that the school district did not fully respond to
requests for information and records in the interval between the school board’s March 2023
decision and the April 2023 public hearing. Save Indus Group also contends that the school
district did not respond to a request for a special meeting. But Save Indus Group does not
develop the argument or identify any legal authority that might have obligated the school
district to respond to the requests. Thus, Save Indus Group has not demonstrated that the
school district violated the school- closure statute or any other law by not providing more
information. In addition, Save Indus Group does not explain why any failure to provide
information would justify appellate relief in a certiorari appeal from a school-closure
decision.
B. Substantial Evidence
Save Indus Group also argues that the decision to close the Indus school is not
supported by substantial evidence.
As stated above, a school board may decide to close a public school “only after a
public hearing on the question of the necessity and practicability of the proposed closing.”
Minn. Stat. § 123B.51, subd. 5. This statutory language “implicitly requires a
determination by the Board of the necessity and practicability of the closing following
notice and hearing.” Western Area Bus. & Civic Club, 324 N.W.2d at 365. This court’s
review of a school board’s decision to close a school is “narrow” in that we “ must
10
determine, through an examination of the entire record before the Board, only whether the
Board had jurisdiction, whether it acted within those jurisdictional bounds and whether the
evidence furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken.” Id. A petitioning
party may challenge “the underlying factual basis for the Board’s decision” according to
“the substantial evidence standard.” Moberg v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336
N.W.2d 510, 515 (Minn. 1983) (quotation omitted). This court has stated, “School-closing
decisions are by their nature political decisions, entitled to judicial deference and respect.”
834 VOICE v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 834, Stillwater, 893 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Minn.
App. 2017). Accordingly, “We will affirm a school board’s decision when the data provide
a substantial basis for the board’s action, and particularly when the question is debatable
and requires board members to exercise their administrative judgment.” Id. at 655
(quotation omitted).
In this case, the school district’s superintendent presented ample information at the
public hearing to justify the hearing officer’ s recommendation and the school board’s
decision to close the Indus school. In short, total enrollment was declining, especially in
the Indus attendance area. The school district was engaging in deficit spending year after
year. The Northome school had the capacity to serve all students from both schools and
could do so in a more cost-effective way. The school district considered other alternatives,
including staff reductions and restrictions on course offerings and extra-curricular
activities, but decided that those solutions would not resolve the financial issues.
The information presented at the public hearing in this case is generally similar to
the information provided in Western Area Business & Civic Club, in which the supreme
11
court upheld a school board’s closure decision based in part on “budgetary, revenue and
long-range planning information; educational and curriculum data; geographic and
demographic studies; [and] building evaluations” as well as “the Board’s deep concern not
only with the subject facility but also with the district as a whole.” 324 N.W.2d at 365; see
also 834 VOICE, 893 N.W.2d at 655-58 (affirming school board’s closure decision based
on substantial evidence of declining enrollment, school’s operating capacity, inequitable
learning experiences, and budgetary constraints); Bena Parent Ass’n v. Independent Sch.
Dist. No. 115 , Cass Lake, 381 N.W.2d 517, 519 ( Minn. App. 1986) (affirming school
board’s closure decision based on substantial evidence of cost savings and budgetary
constraints).
Save Indus Group challenges the school board’s decision on several specific
grounds. First, Save Indus Group contends that the hearing officer and the school board
should not have relied on the superintendent’ s testimony and exhibits on the ground that
“nothing in the record . . . shows the superintendent was qualified to complete the report.”
Save Indus Group does not elaborate on how the superintendent may have been unqualified
to provide the school board with the necessary information. In the absence of any such
reasons, we must presume that the superintendent of a school district, who is responsible
for overseeing the day-to-day operations of a school district, is well-positioned and well-
equipped to provide information to the school board.
Second, Save Indus Group contends that the school board should not have
considered projected enrollment data for the 2023-2024 school year without an explanation
of how those projections were calculated. Save Indus Group focuses on information that
12
enrollment was declining more in the Indus attendance area than in the Northome
attendance area. But Save Indus Group does not provide any conflicting data.
Third, Save Indus Group contends that the school board did not fully consider the
school district’s financial performance and improperly relied on information about deficit
spending to conclude that maintaining both schools was not viable. The hearing officer’s
report clearly demonstrates that multiple sources of financial information were considered
in determining that maintaining two schools would not be financially viable. The hearing
officer responded to community concerns by performing “a side-by-side review” of the
financial data reflected in the superintendent’ s report, audited financial statements, and
reports from the state department of education. The hearing officer included three tables
in an appendix, which summarizes the most pertinent financial information. Save Indus
Group may disagree with the financial analysis undertaken by the hearing officer and
adopted by the school board, but Save Indus Group has not demonstrated that those
decisions are not based on substantial evidence.
Fourth, Save Indus Group contends that the capital improvements required at the
Indus School do not demonstrate that closure was necessary because the school district had
sufficient funds to pay for the improvements at both schools without going into debt. We
defer to the school board’s judgment in deciding to not spend approximately $3,000,000
on capital improvements at the Indus school in light of the declining enrollment in that
attendance area and other considerations.
Fifth, Save Indus Group contends that the long bus rides created by closing the Indus
School make the school board’s decision to close the school not practicable. But students
13
in the school district attending the Northome School already take bus rides of similar
length. In addition, closing the Northome School would require more students to take
longer bus rides.
Sixth, Save Indus Group contends that the school district should have “engaged a
broader sub-committee to investigate the necessity or practicability of a school closure. ”
There is no such requirement in the applicable statute. See Minn. Stat. § 123B.51, subd. 5.
We will “not read into [a] statute a requirement that the Legislature has omitted.” Karl v.
Uptown Drink, LLC, 835 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn. 2013). Furthermore, this contention does
not challenge the evidence on which the school district relied in making its decision.
In sum, the school board’s decision to close the Indus school is supported by
substantial evidence.
Affirmed.