Thompson. >> Yes. >> I would like to add in the recommended action item titled completed external investigation report, board briefing and next steps. Can you clarify
what the vote is on the recommended action? >> Uh it is to discuss board briefing and next steps. Uh I would like to make a motion at that time to set a date for the board to discuss the investigation report.
>> Okay. So the the action is or the recommended addition is to add a recommended action onto seven section seven of the agenda to vote on adding something on a future agenda for a discussion. >> Correct.
>> All right. Do we have a specific date? >> January 13th. >> All right. Is there a second to the motion? >> I have my hand raised. >> There's a second. Discussion. Um, I object to the motion. I'm going to say
for the record, um, this this, uh, this file arises from my HR complaint in which I am the complaintant, and placing it on an open session agenda raises procedural data practices and retaliation concerns. I support addressing any forward-looking
recommendations in a board development or retreat setting rather than public discussion of the complaint and I will not participate in any discussion. >> Uh to the extent it's a formal objection to the motion. Um I would say it's without merit based on advice of council
that we were all provided that said if the board wants to make this public they can make it public. Uh and now we have a pending motion on that. Is there any discussion on the motion itself? I would say just because we could doesn't mean we should.
>> All right. Uh, Director Cameron. >> Uh, thanks um, Chair um, Swanson, I thought in previous meetings you had instructed us that we're not allowed to make motions to add agendas for future items. >> Yeah. And then we did make a motion and
something was added. Mhm. So yeah, >> so I would say there is a question on whether it goes against policy, but generally speaking under Robert's rules, I believe it is allowed. Uh if there is no >> Oh, Dr. Anderson.
>> Yeah, I want to be mindful of the content of all this and um respectful of all people involved. I know this is tricky and on multiple levels. Um just wondering if it seems like what is on the table here is either we um discuss
it at a formal board meeting or as director Baker is saying we could take some um time during a um board development session if we have those come January to kind of focus on forward progress movement. Is that the Is that
what we're looking at in terms of or the vote is just specifically on whether we bring this to a the January 13th board meeting? >> Correct. So, the vote is just whether or not it's going to be placed on for discussion on the January 13th meeting. >> This is whether or not we're going to
have that vote later today. >> Yeah. And I guess my um I I do want to make it clear that I appreciate everybody's perspective on this. And I guess I would prefer to rather have a um um more I don't want to say informal dialogue, but work session dialogue
about kind of what we can do based on all of the findings. Um, so that would be kind of my preference is to make this a more constructive um, meeting and that is still uh, transparent with the community in terms of that's all recorded and can um, be discussed at
that time. >> Okay, Director Cameron. >> U, that's how I feel about this topic too. I think at a um, board development session as a board we could decide what steps we want to bring forward for action um, given the report, but I think it's important to have time for the seven of us to discuss the report. um
not at a formal meeting so that we can um really have a a fruitful discussion um and make recommended actions for our board going forward. >> Director Carbone. >> Yeah, please. Thank you. Um
why is is this motion relevant? It's relevant because fact number one, accusations were made at a public school board. >> Point of order. Point of order. I said that the motion on the table is to vote on whether we add this to the agenda not
to discuss the findings of the report and if this discussion continues when it's not added to the agenda I will leave the meeting. >> This is not disclosing anything on the report. It is disclosing the facts up
until the release of the report and why it's relevant to have a public discussion about how we got there, what the report says at a later date as
Director Thompson is stating. And um it is very relevant because there were accusations made and they were made publicly and it is and and those accusations
led to a third-party investigation. Uh that investigation cost thousands of dollars, taxpayer dollars, and the investigation is now done. Point of order. I don't believe the
investigation is public knowledge. So, we have now just disclosed. We're I think we're breaching. Thank you. >> If a matters if a matter is discussed at a board meeting, it's made public. So, well, we are we are discussing it right now. >> We're not. We're supposed to be discussing the motion. >> Yeah. Which we're getting to. So, again,
I think we can The issue is whether or not the board is going to agree to vote on this or put it on the agenda to vote on. So, Are we ready to vote? Director Thompson? >> Yeah, I I just made a motion to add it as a item in the recommended action
section where we can decide where my hope is I can make a motion to add it to a future meeting uh date where we can discuss it. Uh I would assume at that time we would have dialogue around adding it or not adding it. Uh the intent of this motion is to just add it
as a recommended action so the board has the authority to decide if we want to add it to a future meeting. So my hope is my hope for the rest of the board members here is to uh be in favor of adding it as a recommended action and then we can have dialogue if it warrants
to move forward or not. >> That's it. >> All right. There's no further discussion. Um, I'm going to call the matter for a vote on Director Thompson's motion, uh, which was seconded by Director Carbone, to add a recommended
action to our agenda, um, which is to vote on, um, placement of a discussion item on a future board member agenda for January 13th um, to discuss the investigative report um, of the board of certain board members. Uh, all those in
favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? >> All right, motion fails. >> Uh, any other additions or amendments to the agenda? If there are none, I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda.
>> It's a motion by Director Cameron. Is there a second? >> A second by Director Reichenberger. Uh, all in favor of approval of the agenda say I. I. >> Any opposed? >> It's approved. Superintendent Bowman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening all
and good news on December 16th. Uh, start with Lakeville students performance at Pearl Harbor. Yes, that's Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Students from Lakeville South High School band traveled to Hawaii the second or the weekend of December 5th for an
unforgettable learning and performance experience. The band was presented with an American flag flown on the USS Missouri for the 80th anniversary of the signing that ended World War II in the Pacific. Students honored the anniversary by performing 1940s jazz on
the deck of the Missouri, visited the USS Arizona Memorial, and marched in the Pearl Harbor memorial ceremony and parade alongside Marines and bands from across the country. In addition, Lakeville cheerleading
junior Molly Vanderberg, uh, Lakeville Online Academy and sophomore Elena Keterling earned the prestigious title of All-American Cheerleader at the Universal Cheer Association camp this past summer.
As part of that honor, they also traveled to Hawaii, proudly representing Lakeville as they marched in the Pearl Harbor Memorial Parade. Also want to acknowledge Lakeville football players who competed in the
52nd annual All-Star football game last Saturday. Lakeville North's senior Roman Johnson and Lakeville South senior Josh Bergen along with support from Lakeville South football head coach Ben Burke
competed in the 52nd annual Minnesota high school football all-star game at US Bank Stadium. Johnson and Bergen were two of 90 high school football players from around the state chosen to participate in this
event. and we are very grateful and thankful for both of those young men who represented Lakeville area schools. If you want to read more about the amazing things happening in our district, isd194.org/news
is your place to go. That concludes good news, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Superintendent Bowman. Uh we're now going to turn to public comment. Uh the board will open up the floor for 30 minutes to allow the public to address the board with comments and concerns. To participate in public comment, individuals must have
registered in advance using the form provided on the website by noon on the Monday before the scheduled public comment section. Uh there will be no board response during the session. Public comments framed as complaints and/or concerns about students and or staff are not appropriate in a public
forum due to data privacy laws. These comments should be addressed to the administration outside of a public meeting. Likewise, complaints about schoolboard members should be privately directed to the board chair and/or the superintendent. No formal action will be taken on a topic presented during public
comment and as necessary, the administration will follow up with the appropriate personnel on any concerns that need to be individually addressed. Also, if necessary, the board will follow up during board communications at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. Uh, individual remarks are limited to 3 minutes. The board will
provide a signal when the participant has 30 seconds left, which is a sign Miss Baker will hold up. Um, please try to keep audience noise to a minimum to allow everyone the opportunity to speak uninterrupted. And if you are speaking, please try to speak into the microphone so everyone can hear you.
And the first name we have is Jesse Healing. >> I come up. >> Absolutely. >> All right. How you doing? Um, apologize. I put a lot of thought into it, but I didn't memorize it, so use the phone here. Um, good evening, uh, chair and
board members and superintendent. Um, first I'd like to say thank you for the time and work you put in, uh, to serving our students in our community. Uh, my name is Jesse Highing. I live in the legacy neighborhood. Um, and I'm here tonight to comment on the proposed attendance area uh plan and respectfully
ask that the board reconsider the proposal to move Legacy and Baris Ridge from Kenwood to Maguire. I don't know if you're all familiar where those two neighborhoods are. Okay, cool. Um, so, uh, just to be very clear about the concern, it's not about avoiding change.
It's not about school quality. uh we appreciate our schools and we understand the challenges um of balancing enrollment. Uh this is about continuity and the real social impact on kids especially at the middle school age. So under the current proposal uh as far as
I understand Legacy and Baris Ridge would be the only two neighborhoods attending Meuire that would then go on to attend North. Um uh again, as far as I understand, 100% of the other Meguire students go on to Lakeville South. So
that means our kids would spend three years forming relationships, playing sports, and building identities with peers who will all uh separate from them at high school. Middle school is already one of the hardest transitions kids face. uh research and lived experience
tell us that friendships formed during these years often carry into high school and beyond. Uh asking a small group of students to be the clear major the clear minority knowing that they'll later split away from nearly everyone that they've bonded with creates isolation uh
anxiety and unnecessary disruption. Uh what makes this especially difficult to understand is that Kenwood is projected to operate at the lowest capacity at 84% compared to Maguire at 89%. Legacy students and Baris Ridge students
are already at Kenwood, but moving them from Kenwood to Meuire makes me more crowded than Kenwood. Um from what I can see. So from what I can see, moving these kids uh from these two neighborhoods does not solve overcrowding, but it does introduce a
new north south split that doesn't need to exist. Um so again, my thought is just to offer up a couple logical alternatives um that we could do to reduce disruption. A, you know, keep the legacy and Baris Ridge kids at Kenwood uh where they already are. Uh B,
prioritize Kenwood students. Prioritize moving Kenwood students that are already zoned for south to Meguire or prioritize moving Kenwood students already zoned for north to Century. Uh these options would preserve continuity, maintain
stability, minimize student disruption, uh and align with how feeder systems are designed to work. Uh whereas the alternative, chips away at trust and causes instability for our kids. Uh, I hope that you find this request is practical, child- centered, and grounded
in fairness. Um, and that you choose not to move Legacy and Baris Ridge to Meguire, uh, where they will ultimately be separated from their peers when they metriculate to high school. Please allow our kids to stay with their future classmates, teammates, and friends at Kenwood and Lakeville North. Thank you
for listening and considering the real human impact of this decision. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You can clap. It's okay. Sure. Uh, Cat Adair. Okay, is this good? Um, good evening members of the board. My name is
Katadair and I live in the Choke Cherry Hill neighborhood. I'm here tonight because the new boundary adjustment is not just a little change. It's yet another major disruption in the same to the same group of children and it's unacceptable. Based on the new attendance map, it appears that only our
section of the Choke Cherry neighborhood would be split from the rest of our neighborhood, sending children to three different elementary schools while not moving ourselves. The kids would move from have moved from Cherry View to High View and now potentially East View.
That's three schools and it's a challenge for all the kids in their education. Um, we moved to our home 10 and a half years ago very intentionally to give our kids stability in their schools and their friendships. I didn't have that growing up. I've personally
moved and was attended three different elementary schools and I personally know the impact of that change. Um, it takes over a year for kids to really feel settled and feel that their school is their home community. And I experienced that too. Last year, my daughter moved
from Cherry View to High View and started third grade with one teacher. Her teacher left halfway through the school year and she got another teacher. It was very disruptive. She cried most days and she didn't want to go to school. All very uncharacteristic of her. She came home in tears and she
struggled emotionally all school year. This year brought even more changes with the new principal and her classroom is in the art room. Luckily, she's had an amazing teacher and is now feeling stable and is loving High View. I understand overcrowding is a real
challenge, but let's be clear, the kids are suffering because of a district planning mistake. They are being asked to absorb the consequences of this and it's not okay. I am an educator in another district, one with a settled teacher contract
and I know and I know that it's essential for students to feel settled, safe, and secure in their schools and moving is not okay for the third time in an elementary school year.
Splitting our section of Choke Cherry Hill from the rest of our neighborhood makes no sense. High View is attached to our neighborhood, making it safe for kids to be able to bus or to bus to school, but then when the weather is good, they can bike there and they can
walk with their neighborhood friends. I personally was hit by a car biking towards East View. I would not let my child bike to East View from where we live. It's not safe. >> 30 seconds. I'm asking the board to be transparent with provi with families by providing
clear reasonable uh maps. Do not split the neighborhoods which naturally support friendships, safety, and connection. And most importantly, do not move our children to a third elementary school only to correct district mistakes. Our schools and educators are
incredible, but our children need stability. Please slow this process down, reconsider this proposal, and put the best interest of our students first. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, >> Chris Katzenmeer. Are we good? >> All right.
Good evening, Chair Swanson, school board members, Superintendent Bowman, and everyone present tonight. My name is Chris Katzmire, and I'm a work experience teacher for Lakeville Area Schools. This is my 25th year in education. For most of that time, I
taught special education. I came to Lakeville 10 years ago because I believed this district valued students and the educators who supported them. When I arrived, I saw programs that helped students with disabilities build independence and confidence. I taught in
a program called Bridges, and I helped coach an adaptive cheerleading squad that supported our adaptive sports teams. Those experiences mattered to students, to families, and to staff. A few years later, the Bridges program was cut. Those opportunities disappeared,
and with them, a message was sent about what and who we choose to prioritize. Today I teach work experience. Previously there was only one person in this role. This year the district added a work-based learning teacher for special education. Together we are
trying to grow this program. But it is difficult to build something meaningful without the staffing time and resources that other districts already provide. Just yesterday we visited a neighboring district with an established work-based learning program. What stood out was not
just their programming. It was the level of support and respect their teachers and students receive. Their educators are paid more, they are trusted more, and they are given what they need to succeed. Seeing how all students are included in their work-based learning
program and the resources provided to ensure that success made it clear how far behind we are. I could return to my previous district and make $13,000 more per year. With longevity restored, that
difference could reach $22,000 annually. I want to be clear, money is not why I came to Lakeville. I took a pay cut because I believed in this district and wanted to do work that mattered. I still believe in our students. But what has been difficult is watching educators
here repeatedly be asked to do more while being given less. Less support, less respect, and fewer resources. That reality has been reinforced through the last round of negotiations and again in this one. So tonight I am asking the board to change course, engage
meaningfully with EML and move negotiations forward in good faith. Our mediation session is scheduled for January 8th. We are we are coming prepared to make progress and we need the district to do the same. When educators feel valued, students benefit.
That is the outcome we should all be working toward. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And final public comment goes to Amber Alexson. Good evening, Chair Swanson, board members, and Superintendent Bowman. My name is Amber Alexson. I am the parent
of two children who attend High View Elementary. I am here yet again to advocate on a matter that is deeply important to me and directly impacts my family and children. Tonight, I am here to speak on the boundary change discussion later in the agenda that is currently being suggested for fasttrack
approval by January 13th. The presentation was posted on Friday. Even after reviewing it carefully, it remains unclear whether the front portion of the Choke Cherry neighborhood would be reassigned to East View Elementary. Families should not have to guess whether their children's school placement is at risk. That lack of
clarity matters. Our neighborhood is bordered on all four sides by busy roads. Under this proposal, most children attending East View, other than the small portion of our neighborhood, would live in areas my kids cannot safely access due to road crossings, making it harder to build and maintain
strong home and school peer connections. For most families, this would be a second elementary school change in a short period of time. Many students may also be facing their fourth principal in a row. Principles play a critical role in school culture, consistency, and trust. Repeated leadership changes
disrupts relationships and stability. It is also important to acknowledge recent history. In 2024, parents res raised concerns to both the district and the board that H Highview Elementary would exceed capacity within 5 years and warned it would happen sooner if large numbers of students were moved from East
View and Cherryview. Those concerns were not meaningfully addressed. We reached that point after just one year. High View is now over capacity and students are being moved back to East View and Cherry View, creating avoidable transitions for children. As you consider solutions, please prioritize
stability. Students moved to East View from new construction areas last year could remain there. At a minimum, families being moved again could return to Cherry View, where at least the building staff and systems are familiar. I am a very involved parent. I supported the levy through Unite for 194, have
been a part of the facilities task force. I currently serve as president of the special ed PTO and sit on the special education advisory council. Even with that involvement, I do not have confidence that student experience is being prioritized alongside capacity numbers for families with children
receiving special education services. These decisions greatly sorry directly affect stability, progress, and trust. If the pro proposal goes forward, my sixth grader by the time they enter sixth grade, they'll have attended four schools, had five principles, multiple
case managers, and at least seven occupational therapists. This is not stability. This is disruption. Finally, I urge the board to settle the teachers contract as soon as possible. The district currently has seven open special ed positions and special education teachers are working under
overload contracts. Boundary decisions have long-term consequences. Please slow down this process, provide clarity, and treat student stability, especially for students with disabilities, as a priority, not an afterthought. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right, that concludes our public comment. Thanks for everyone who signed up and shared. Um, moving on to the consideration of the consent agenda. Is there any items that board member would like to pull out for further discussion? If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.
>> So moved. >> Motion by Director Anderson. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right. There being a first and a second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? It is approved.
All right. On to our state of the schools update from the elementary ed. Good evening, Chair Swanson, members of the board, Superintendent Bowman, executive team, um, EML members that are
here. Um, we have the privilege of sharing and giving an update from the elementary schools. Um, we were told that all nine of us get about 20 minutes. So, um, go for it. I'm teasing. Um, unfortunately, you get to hear from a few of us this evening. and I get the
privilege of starting it off uh tonight. Um so uh just as my colleagues are sitting here in the front row behind me, um I wanted to just let you know that even though there are nine elementary schools, there are nine elementary school principles, we march to the same
beat. We are one unit uh often in each morning, we now have established a new morning guideline of when the first text can go out about uh what time or how many subs we maybe are looking for to share. So, um, so I I appreciate in 16 years of being able to serve, uh, as
principal at Ter, I've worked with many different, uh, colleagues, uh, throughout that time, and I have to tell you, this group of elementary principles is one of the finest. So, um, you'll get to hear from Principal Kelly and Principal Domrand this evening. Um, and, uh, and again, we'll stand for some
questions as as we go throughout the presentation as well. Um as some of the things that have been some recent uh changes and updates as you all know um 2425 school year brought about the opening of High View Elementary. Um at
that point in time the uh we had to adjust the attendance uh of boundaries at that point and we implemented those changes. Um and then for the 202526 school year um some exciting things that have that have come on board in each of our in some of our elementaryaries. I'll
say that uh each of our buildings have a reading interventionist uh that uh really works on addressing tier three uh supports in reading. Um some of our buildings now have added family support workers as well. And then we've increased the number of of schools
receiving receiving title one funding and those supports as well. So those are some exciting things that have been added for the 2526 school year. Um throughout the presentation um tonight you'll see our presentations organized to reflect the five components of the
Lakeville framework. So as you see the slides you'll you'll note that each of these five components are highlighted throughout the presentation. I'm going to turn it over to uh my colleague Principal Kelly and she's going to share a little bit more with you this evening.
>> Thank you Principal Hbert. Good evening, Chair Chair Swanson, members of the board, Superintendent Bowman, and all intended tonight. My name again is Jill Kelly. I'm the principal at Christina Hudson Elementary. I'm going to walk us through the first three parts of the Lakeville framework, which um Lakeville
framework provides the foundation for instructional decisions. As we go through the slides, we're going to highlight specific practices and actions that align directly to this framework. And these slides will move from that vision that you see act to actual practice. the um they show how the
framework is lived out in our classrooms and in our elementary system. This slide shows how elementary schools align to the infrastructure and continuous improvement. Elementary teachers have been working diligently on state required redact professional de
development. As you may know, last year, uh, this included our K3 teachers, our special education teachers, our licensed reading interventionists, as well as our ELD teachers. Now, this year, that's including our grade four and five
teachers, expanding literacy work and PD across all elementary grades. This slide also reflects the Bridges math curriculum. Again, last year that was with four and five teachers and this year that includes K through three
teachers and special education teachers. Unlike secondary staff, our elementary teachers are generalists. So, they teach English language arts, math, health, science, and social emotional learning. This occurs in various ways throughout
the day and in various formats. that can include whole group instruction, small groupoup instruction, and even one-on-one um one-on-one intervention as well as really taking the time for that social emotional learning across the entire system. This work reflects our
continuous improvement in how teachers learn, implement, reflect, and refine practice alignment across the framework. Next, I'll talk a little bit about purposeful student and family engagement, which is very important. Um, this is essential to student success and
to the well-being for all. Our goal is to build strong partnerships with families that go beyond just communicating and fundraising. So, as Mr. Hellberg had stated, this year we were able to uh reimplement in some of our elementary buildings our
family support workers. There's a growing need across ISD 194 due to increased family, social, and economic needs. Our family support workers serve as a bridge between home, school, and our community. There is a clear need for
family support workers in every building to ensure equitable access and support for all. We also have many family engagement nights and these go beyond our typical PTO events or our fun dances or all those wonderful things you hear about in
the community. They are designed to connect families directly to learning and student experiences. Some of these nights include our STEM nights, title one family nights, fine arts nights, and these support academic learning, celebrate student work, and strengthen
school and family relationships. Parent Square, which many of you are all know well about, um provides consistent and accessible communication to all families. Conferences and assessment days offer meaningful dialogue about
student progress. incoming kindergarten family events support early con connections and smooth prog um smooth transitions. We have several of those that take place throughout the year. They include our f our our fall events
which we all conduct um and we do um we do presentations throughout our community and online. They also include our winter events where we invite families in to meet us individually in our buildings. And those also involve when we have students come in the
spring, one of my very favorite nights of the year. We also have coll-located services which allows therapists serving our students into our buildings so that students don't have do not have to leave for the appointments but can take those can take place during the school day so there's
less academic time missed. Together, these efforts reflect intentional, inclusive, and responsive engagement aligned to the Lakewell framework. Data-informed decisions guide instruction and intervention extension for all our kids. They focus on the
focus is on data and purpose that we use for purpose and clarity. One thing you might not know is our elementary teachers participate in data digs at minimum of twice per year. These take either full or half day where we have subs come into our classrooms and so
that we can have our teachers meet with um our learning specialists, ourselves, our tutors, sometimes our ELD teachers, and even um our special ed teachers. This allows um our support staff and grade levels to engage in deeper
analysis of data. It's um teams analyze benchmark assessment data together. Grade levels and the team review data and identify trends. They discuss what the data means for not only tier one instruction but also important tier 2
instruction and interventions. We also look at extensions for our students who need additional challenge. And planning planning focuses on clear next steps for instruction and support for all our learners. Tutors assist with some of these
two-tier interventions, but due to recent budget cuts over the past few years, um we've reduced that has reduced our tutor availability. Many tutors lost instructional days and hours, some up to 30 days in some buildings. This has impacted um the amount of tier 2 support
available to our students and teachers have picked up that slack and they are doing quite a few tier 2 interventions in their classrooms as well. Um PLC's meet twice or once a week. However, two times a month those PLC's have been used for the Redact and Bridges professional development for the
past few years. This has limited time for reviewing our ongoing classroom data and unit assessments. The last thing I would like to highlight before I turn it over to Principal Domrand is our intervention support team model. Teachers bring students to our ISTs
um to review interventions that are either completed or in progress. Teams review this data and intervention history. Additional plans are developed and collab um developed collaboratively. This process not only supports our students but helps mitigate special
education referrals. And with that, I'll turn it over to Principal Domrand. Good evening, Chair Swanson, board, and our audience members. I am here to talk about multiple I'm going to talk about several things here, but multiple ways to demonstrate
learning. And one of the first things I want to share a story about is um just before Thanksgiving I was doing a walkthrough of a classroom and it was a fifth grade classroom teacher and the students were all huddled around their desks and they had pictures and they
were writing away and I just said, "What is going on here?" I saw a picture of vomit um on on the students paper and and I said, "What what's going on in here?" And the teacher said, "Oh, well, one of the projects that the kids want to do, we gave them a choice of what do they want to write about?" And they
wanted to write about the grossest things that they could research. And stu and you should have seen those fifth graders. They were just so immersed in getting to research to then support their argument of whatever they wanted to talk about. The way that they diagrammed that the just the way that
kids were really sharing what they were doing. And so when we talk about ways to demonstrate learning, it's not about just the ways that many of us went through traditional schooling of how we experience things, but it's giving our kids those unique experiences where they can express their interest while also
demonstrating their ability to write. They're demonstr demonstrating deeper reading besides just what they're choosing for a fictional text. Um, additionally, I'm just going to talk a little bit about Bridges. And you know, one of the reasons why we selected Bridges um when we were doing our pilots was that it offered a different way than
just the traditional algorithm algorithmic way that we learned how to do math for many of us in that in that manner. And what Bridges does is it's not just number corner where you're bringing your students into the everyday experience of whether we're learning our numbers, we're doing calendar experience in those early ages to talking about
mathematical concepts with students and letting them be creative in the way that they choose to solve them. But also, we're looking at when we're delivering the lessons. We're really seeing a spiraling effect. So students don't just do one unit and then you're done with that unit and we move on. And I hope you remembered it well enough that you can
demonstrate at the end of the year or we do a quick review. Instead, we we continue to go back around and give those students a chance to review as they're learning it. Now, we're in our our first or second year of Bridges implementation. Um, and I'll be talking about that here, so maybe I'll get to
that point in just a moment. Um but then specialists, you know, um for our students, one of the great things about having specialists is you can tap into almost every student has a place where they tap into. You might not be someone who's really into PE, but art or music
or STEM is like your jam. And when we think about offering that that wheel rotation for the students to be able to go through and do those specialists, it gives them a chance to find their interest as they go on into the other schools and and move into middle school and high school. And so we just and one
of the things I will just acknowledge is like for our STE um STEM teachers having them full-time really allowing them to be immersive when they're meeting with the teachers and talking about what science standards are being taught in the classroom and what's being taught in the STEM room. Um so it gives our students those chances to do experiments
to be able to you know think critically but also go I thought this but now I think this after they've had a chance to experiment. And kids are so used to getting the answers right away. And what our specialists and what our classroom teachers do is give kids chances to
learn ways that work and ways that don't work because that's really experience. That's the things that we are always trying to teach our kids not to give up the first time and to find those other ways. Um I know I'm out of time and I talk a lot. All right, so here we go now in intentional instructional practices
and supports. Um just first we were talking about the READ Act. Um the readact isn't a choice. The read act is a mandate. And so we have to just look at how do you bring an entire system of our size into getting everyone trained. And so we did the K3 last year and this
year we're in our four five for elementary. And you know, one of the challenges I'm just going to say as we do this intentionality is we are bringing along a lot of practices that require scheduling um scheduling constraints when we're figuring everything out to fit with MTSS because
when we're looking at literacy, we want to build clear 90minute blocks for our students to have literacy, but also MTSS that adjoins to that block. So when you're thinking about specialist and you're thinking about lunches, those are things that we have to really be intentional about. And then how do we create these nice long math blocks for
our students to be able to do bridges because we are implementing this new curriculum. And um just to share with you, our teachers are spending tremendous amounts of time learning bridges, but it's not just about how do they plan around it and how do they learn, but then it's implementing and
going, well, that worked pretty well or this isn't working as well. What do I have to go back and do? And and so just to give the the kudos to our teachers who are putting all their efforts into adopting new curricula, new curriculum and new practices, either Redact or
Bridges, you're doing each one. So that's not a lot of time to learn all of it and then implement it. And we are really seeing a lot of success from it, but we're also feeling the growing pains of any any big changes like that. And so our teachers are handling it like the professionals that they are and we're grateful for it. Um we would be remiss
to not mention learning specialists. Um, our learning sm specialists are in every one of our buildings. We each have one of them and they are our whether you want to call it our data gurus, our testing coordinators, our supports for our teachers are giving the kids the rub
on the back and going you can do it. They are they're our cheerleaders there. There's so many things that we have from having a learning specialist who gets to know the kids the way we do as principles. You don't know, you're not teaching a class of 30, but you know all 730 of your kids or whatever our number
is in each of our buildings. You get to know them because you are helping with their data and helping teachers make sense of what do our groups look like? How do we make sure we're supporting this this friend who might be coming in uh from another school or another district and you realize you've got some gaps in your skills. Our learning
specialists are one of the first people to get in there and help teachers get their feet on the ground with our kids. So, we are we are grateful for them. Um, Principal Kelly mentioned instructional tutors. Um, I I will tell you as as Principal Hellberg mentioned, when we talk about Title One and having more
schools getting Title One, the only issue is our pie didn't get any bigger. We just cut it into more slices. So, as a school that received more title funds, our my school or several of our schools, we saw our instructional tutors decline because we had less title dollars and
less intervention dollars. And so one of the things about having a robust um tiered MTSS system is you've got to have those supports to build small group and and so you know when we really are thinking about how do we look at supporting our teachers is also making
sure we have the support people for our students. Um and so that is something that you know a few years ago we kind of saw those cuts happen but these people are critical in our schools and the way right now that we are using them is four days a week but not on Fridays. you
don't work in the month of May. These are the things that we're doing. But for the kids, it says, well, Fridays aren't as important. May is not as important for learning just because of the constraints we have to work in. But just to make you aware of how we are intentional, but also some of the struggles that we're dealing with when we're really trying to implement these
systems. And the last thing, the reading interventionist, um it's been critical. We are seeing the difference already. our data in our kids who are going to tier three um because it's small, it's really intentional and it is happening every day. We are seeing students already making those growth that growth,
but it's in a very it's a very small group of kids that get to have that. And so when we're thinking about what those systems look like, we just want to mention all the pieces that go into it and uh and share that. And so that gets into what we need. and I get to have the
part where we talk about um some of the systems issues that we experience here as as leaders of our buildings. Um number one is the capacity of our teachers and our system for professional development. We um we have poured a lot on poured a lot on our staff because the
readact was mandatory and so at the same time we were adopting a math curriculum. So we just happen to have a perfect storm of things happening but we're also in the process of adopting social studies curriculum. we are going I mean there are a lot of things that are still on the plate that are coming up for us and so when we think about professional
development and we think about um our staff is there is a lot that's happening besides just taking care of kids and and we are really seeing the strain on our system for that. Um other pieces here for us as principles is our capacity for instructional leadership. Um, you know,
as we I I mean, the boundary discussion is going to be the boundary discussion, but as we look at our larger schools, we are seeing more students who have significant needs that require an administrator and and that often will take us away from opportunities to be in the classroom as much as we would like
to be. Um, for us to be instructional leaders, we have to be able to set up our rounds and be in there frequently. And it's not always happening. And so, um, whether we're looking at the legislative requirements, whether it's student and staff support, um, there's just a lot of hats we wear as principles. And so, we just want to share some of those pieces, um, that are
happening in our elementary schools because it's not the days of tying shoes and wiping noses. We are we're dealing with kids with real life um, needs. And also, by the way, we want them to read well, write well, be critical thinkers. Um, and the last thing um, which we are addressing, and so I'll just u say some
of the issues we have with our physical spaces within our schools. um some of our we're we're using everything we have and we are getting creative with the ways that we use them and so um that's always something that's just on the plate for us. And so with that we will
open it up. >> Oh yeah, the video. >> I saw it. Oh, there we go. Here's our video. Okay, hold on. Let's look at this quick. One of my favorite things about school is the specialist time. I love all that
we can do. >> I love to learn and and get around and talk to all my teachers >> and to see my principal and saying hi to my teachers. One of my favorite things about school is doing math because you
can do all kinds of things like addition, rounding, and subtraction. >> My favorite thing about coming to school is reading and writing. >> Probably just seeing all my teachers and friends and getting to learn new things every day. >> It's probably that I'm feel welcome and
that I'm going to meet someone new today. >> When I come to school, I'm excited to learn something new in science. Seeing my friend on the bus and bringing out my little toys >> to be kind to your friends and always
try your best. >> Law and division because it is hard but but it's helpful in life but I can do hard things. I love it when we get to do Greek and Latin words roots cuz I like to see like what word comes from like
each root word. >> Doing code spark coding. >> Last week I built um a model bird feeder. >> New crafts and new like artsy stuff cuz I'm a fan of art.
>> Math and reading. Math is one of division with remainder and reading is the EDM. >> One of the most interesting things is probably how to add and multiply fractions from my math teacher, Mr. Griffin.
>> I've learned in character strong that empathy is like being with other people and it makes me feel happy around other people. So that is our presentation. So we'd like to open it up if you have any questions for us.
>> Director Thompson, >> I appreciate the overview. Thank you for this. I'd love to just get straight into like the tactical things. When you said you've got three bullets here, capacity for teachers and system for professional development. Uh like can you help me like break that down? What does that mean? because I feel we already have
professional development for staff. Are you asking we need more professional development hours? Uh and then if so, uh do you have recommendations of how that needs to how that can be done? Can we can we pull them out of the classroom and then give them the give them the professional development or is that constructurally something we can't do?
So I'm just wondering a what do we do already and then what exactly are you needing more? >> Yeah, Director Thompson, great question. um you know so we do already have a professional development schedule that that is set and we've got quite a few days that are set aside but even with that the readact was so significant that
as uh principal Kelly was saying we had to sacrifice uh two of our PLC meetings a month just to get all of those hours in and and frankly short of extending the calendar there's just not enough hours right now for us to get in all the professional development that we would
want to do for the amount of work that's going on and and the reality is is we set it up around holidays typically, but how the learning is happening and how the how it works for teachers is it's not just always around a certain break. It's like as you're implementing, then
you need that time to work together and go, okay, now we're ready for this next level of learning, but it's just not the way a school calendar works. So, it's one of the it's one of the limiters and um we have seen the addition of those extra days that have been approved in the calendar. So, it's been helpful. it
the just the load is still a lot right now. >> Director Thompson. >> So the followup then is is that then then uh is it money? Do you need more money so that we can hire substitutes to pull these our staff out so that we can
give them more PLC or professional development or do we need to uh or does it get recalibrated at the next calendar where we don't have this huge implementation so we'll have the standard PLC's available where we can do our PLC's appropriately. So I'm trying to I'm still I'm like I'm trying to
figure better understand like what exactly are you do we need a million dollars? Do we need $5 million? or is it just it's going to run its course at the next calendar? >> Well, that's I I think it's twofold question is is there is part of it that's running the course because we are getting everyone readact trained because
that was part of um the legislative requirements. Um now as we move forward how we choose to do our calendar and set up the next round of of professional development days and making those spaces available um that would be an important thing. Um I want to address the question
you brought up about um paying for subs. The reality that we are looking at as as was mentioned in the very beginning is every day we're going who has a body because I'm gonna have to split my fifth grade today and we're going to move 11 kids from this third grade fifth grade classroom into we have to split them and
because we're not getting enough subs. So, it's it's a great idea and we used to be able to do it a lot more, but because of the um we have we have a lower field of teachers to pull from for for that. Um especially on the amount of professional development we would want
to do across a system our size. Um it's hard to do with within the day. >> Director Anderson, >> I hate to admit that I haven't been paying attention to the number of days. I mean, I remember last year there were a lot more days that kids were out of
school because you guys were doing more professional development. Is that continuing this year? Okay. So, it's the same years. Yep. Two-year calendar because we we knew the redact was still going to be required and we still had to carve out those days and we're using that for bridges as well. So, I mean on
the days that um if if there's a redact training for our fourth and fifth grade teams, our K through three teachers are working on bridges >> bridges and that's all put into our calendar. >> Okay. I haven't felt the pain as much this year, so I must maybe we should just >> It's normalized. We got We got a little
used to the days off, maybe. >> So, going back to Director Thompson's point, I mean, do you think it I know you're saying capacity for teachers? I mean, do we need additional PD days or will we in the next cycle or no? >> Um, it's and it's one of the questions I
would I I would lean over to to Director Georgie as well because it's part of the larger plan. Um where where we are is we're talking about our current our current state and and we have more standards to be adopting and we have new curriculum that is still on our horizon.
So we just know that it's coming. Will it be as um will it be as uh demanding as what the readact required? Um the readact was I mean it we every district had to bend and and break in some places in order to make this happen in a a
short period of time. Um but it but it is it just does bring the question um you know all of us are pragmatic when it comes to leading our buildings and we represent our families, our kids, our teachers, all the people that are in there and um when we are trying to do
and I'll I'll I'll use the Cword from 2020 and 21 that came up for a little while maybe interrupted some things in school. We put a pause on a lot of professional development. So now we are catching up. Um and and so when when we're trying to do all this catch-up in
a short period of time, it's hard to get really good at implementing anything when one year I learned a lot about reading and I'm implementing this and this and this, but now I'm doing bridges and I've got to implement this and this and this. Oh, I I forgot what was I doing all the reading stuff. I've got a few pieces, but I didn't get the
robustness of what the learning was because I had to shift my thinking into a whole another level. And while we all might like to think we're great at multitasking. When it comes to learning, true learning happens over time and it builds on itself. We do that with our kids, the same thing works with adults.
We we gain knowledge as we practice and experience and refine. And so when we did readact for one group, the very next year, this year we moved into bridges. Well, now when I have conversations around learning, it's really focused on math because that's what we're learning. We're doing this. That's that's a big
part of it. And so when we when we talk about it is really the the healthy way for us to learn is to really have those have a few priorities that we are taking um taking on, but we're just trying to play so much catch-up. And so do I have the answer for you? Do we have the
answer? No. But it's the things we talk about for how do we make the best difference for our kids. And so right now it's like let's get as much new stuff as we can because we know it's good for them. But it's also how do we really make sure that we've got that system dialed in that that we're able to implement it well.
>> Director Anderson, >> I have one more question. Um, how are our new teachers doing who have taken on everything this year? Um, and I know we have um maybe implemented more of that mentorship program this year. Just kind
of wondering how that's going for our newer teachers. >> And I feel like I'm stealing the microphone here. So if anyone wants to come up and join me up here, I'm I'm um I uh um well, so it is great to have the mentorship program number one. And um
one of the things I can also tell you that we are approaching it differently is um for instance, I had I had a a brand new teacher, first year teacher today go and shadow another teacher at another building. And so, um, and then our mentor teacher in our building is
meeting with the teachers and giving them, um, helping meet their specific needs that they're having. But if you were new and you didn't finish your Redex, so you didn't do letters, you didn't do core, and you're taking on bridges, you're doing both right now because you have to get you have to get Redex certified. And and then, by the
way, here's the curriculum. It's it's a lot to, you know, there's no spoon. I mean, you're just ladling things in because we have just so much to do. Um, I I I don't I think it would not be fair for me to say, "Oh, it's an easy job." I think it's it's heavy for a lot of our
new hires that are that are coming on. It's helpful, but it's just still a lot. >> Director Thompson. >> Yeah, I've got two additional follow-up questions from from the previous one. And so, I appreciate that. I I just want to make sure that I as a board member understand what is the problem we're trying to solve to make sure that your
PR so that the principal staff um has uh a team uh trained and educated so that they can deliver on on the core core of our academics. Um I believe I recall uh the teachers union contract has what 180 185 something but it only has so many
days. >> 186 days >> 186 and so part of that 186 days >> incorporates professional development time in that as well. Yes. if if the read act was not uh uh you know around is the current 186 days and the amount
of professional development days as allocated within the 186 days is that enough? >> Just expressing for myself I believe that would be it would be enough right now. I I'm not going to propose adding calendar days at this moment in this discussion but um I I think it would be
when we don't have the demands of core of redact. Thank you Dr. McDonald. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Thank you so much for the question. Um, in Tracy's absence and, uh, based on my work on the calendar for I don't know, six, seven, eight, nine, what feels like
forever, um, I appreciate that question. So, I want to just back up and say two things and then get to your specific question. when um Michael and I and the principles when we're talking about trying to provide the right supports to the buildings um particularly the elementary
um when we're looking at the system as a whole um our conversations have really been around two things that they mentioned number one how do we free up time for the principal because they are the only administrator well in almost
all of our buildings um they are the only administrator so how do we free them up to be able to do more instructional leadership and less behavior response so that they can be in classrooms and they can help lead, guide, support the teachers in the
workload that they are dealing with. Um, number two, when they talk about professional development, we know best practice is not the one and done, right? You all come together, we all do a big thing, we go and try to implement
something and then with redact and bridges they are one and done five times a year. And so what you lose in that is we don't have enough or we don't we could utilize from a system standpoint
more instructional coaches because that then gives you job embedded ongoing professional development where teachers are implementing and they're getting immediate feedback from peers and experts in the field that's non-evaluative that helps them and then
can be the bridge to the principal to be able to support them in their learning. So for us, we see those two from the systems l lens at the elementary cuz we've put in additional supports at the high schools. We've put in some additional supports at the middle
schools over the past couple years. Not that they're all sufficient, but we've we've made some headway there. But if we really want to focus on implementation and get high level returns on our implementation and the work um we need
to provide something that's more ongoing because the teachers are working extraordinarily hard but they can only do so much when they're asked to implement and then move on to something else and implement and move on to something else. So, so just to give you some context for um I know it was in
their presentation, but just from our lens um at the systems level, how those would be some supports that I would recommend. Um from a calendar standpoint, we've been fortunate that that we used to only have one well two maybe three professional development
days in our calendar. Um we broadened that um because of the read Act. We still didn't have enough time with the required minutes that we have because with the state it's not just number of student contact days, it's number of
student contact minutes which is always a challenge at our secondary sites particularly at our high school. So, we did build in as many PDs days as we can, but that's why that resulted in PLC time being taken away twice a month because
we couldn't actually take any more non- studentent contact days in our calendar and meet the requirements of the state. So, it's not as simple as just saying, hey, we'd love to have a PD day every month, but we have to balance that with the number of instructional minutes that's required. So, um, so all of those
things, Brian, to answer your question, I think are helpful in getting us to where we want to be with implementation. Anytime we have more time, that's good for our teachers to come together and work together. Um, that's the most powerful learning that they can do.
>> Brett, Director Anderson, follow up on that. >> So, wait, wait, wait. Don't go. Um, so I hate to rewind to budget cut time because that was very painful for everyone involved. Um, but in terms of the in instructional supports,
what was cut? What do we need? And then also I assume based on what you're talking about with freeing up principles, there's the behavioral interventionists that are necessary. >> Yes, I think all three of those things. So the one of the primary cuts at the elementary was in their tutors. So they
have they have non-licensed tutors that they utilize to help support kids um in intervention and when they have extra needs. Um that was a significant cut at the elementary level um when we did our budget cuts. So what happened is the number of tutors are
allocated to buildings based on hours and so they get a a block of hours and then the principles make the decisions around what does that look like in our building based on the number of hours? how many people can we hire, how many students can we serve, that sort of thing. So, that was really important.
Um, we do have uh what we refer to as instructional coaches in our system. Um, those coaches have an extremely uh significant workload and their focus therefore is is specific to TDE and Q comp. And that's a conversation maybe
for another day because there's a lot of things that I would want to share in depth around that. um but they're already serving a large number of staff per coach and so they don't have time built in their day with the requirements of Q comp and TDE to be able to do that
ongoing sort of instructional uh support that that if buildings had people in their buildings to be able to do that that would look a little bit differently. So, it would be it would be an addition, but also maybe uh they would have a different focus um more on
the day-to-day instruction and implementation support um uh instead of the TDE support. So, we need both of those. Um they just have different roles. Did I get all three of your questions? >> I would in terms of the behavioral interventionist, that's just a different
kind of discussion too. I feel like in terms of where things are at and future >> it is, you know, the conversations because we as a as a school district, as you all well know, um we have um infinite needs and finite resources. And
so we're always having to try to make strategic decisions and plan ahead in terms of what does this look like? What might we want to be doing differently? How can we make those things happen? Right? And so the a lot of the conversation at the elementary has been
around really we need an AP in those buildings to provide administrative support so the principles can do the instructional leadership pieces and then we also need behavior specialists. The the difference is if you have to make a choice
with an AP, you have much more flexibility to utilize that administrator to be able to do behavior support but also do teacher observation support with other administrative type duties. If you have a behavior specialist, they are limited because
they are um teachers and peers and so you don't want to conflate those two things. And so their focus would be strictly on student behavior. I mean, if I was queen of the world and I had a money tree, um, both would be ideal. I
think what we've talked about is the right structure to really do what we want to do is elementary principal, elementary assistant principal, behavior interventionist, and then an instructional interventionist, which you know, we have some reading interventions
that were sort of cobbled together through a number of resources um for this year um that may or may not be sustainable over time. So, I mean, just to be very clear, I mean, given our constraints, financial constraints, if we're talking about adding resources,
we'd have to cut resources from somewhere else. >> Yeah. I mean, we don't we don't have those resources. So, it's either we have to obtain more resources or we have to make some decisions from a prior prioritization standpoint in the system
on where that would be shifted from. So, those are really our only two options. I mean, unfortunately, we're not in a business that generates revenue. Um, our job is to make sure that we're allocating our dollars appropriately to support kids in the best way we can. So, thanks for that question.
>> Director Thompson. Oh, Director Cameron. >> Um, to that point, um, Chair Swanson and, um, Director McDonald, I think it would be great for the board to think about for this coming fall if we consider an operating levy. You know, we have $5 million capacity um, to reach
our max. And I think this is an opportunity to think about are are some of the things you're speaking about tonight and and the principles things that we should consider. Are there other there's of course other things there's infinite needs, right? But I think our district should think about do we try to go to go for the max um and get the
resources the most resources that we can. So >> should I try I I feel like I have taken over the elementary presentation. >> Director Thompson, do you have a question for a principal? >> I do not. Well, yes and no. But but director Cameron, I think you're I think
you're spot on. I mean, we we have a limited capacity of what we can do for next year. And that's where I was going to go next. It's uh you know, and that's why I'm asking that's why I was uh you know, narrow zeroing in on like like what what what does the elementary team need? And so if it's not more PD time
because we the calendar is going to get updated next year. Um I'd love to see an assessment on how much dollars we spend on subs and if it makes sense to actually hire additional teachers to offset those subs where they can get deployed wherever they need to go. Uh and then if you almost like you almost
have more subs or not more subs, you have additional uh teachers that can then that can be deployed to different parts of our elementary and then pull those teachers out for additional training. And so but maybe that is what the instructional coaches are supposed to be. So I I guess what I'm looking for
and and maybe for another meeting uh besides an assistant principal in every single building, do you also want an assistant or do you also want an instructional coach in every single building? Are those the two big things that would help make things much easier?
What I will say um director Thompson is in our conversations um we have talked about the sort of the four core positions um to support implementation and support teachers in the building and those were as you noted AP uh reading
specialist or reading math um I'm sorry reading math interventionist behavior interventionist and then and then a a coach. I'm I will I don't want to speak for the principles because we haven't had that prioritization discussion, but I believe and someone's welcome to come
up um that those really are the four core positions um that based on how our system works that we really do believe would sort of move the needle and move the needle more rapidly um and set us up for success. So
>> I thank you. I would love to just get a a list like give me your top two so that we as a board can start having conversations with it going into Q1. >> Well, I think this goes back to the discussion we had last meeting about uh getting an updated presentation from
teaching and learning on what their needs are or requests are. So, >> and I do know that um Sandy and Tracy have been working extensively among all the other items that they are dealing with um that we're implementing and working on uh in the system on putting
together a a plan of longevity. So, um they will the principles are certainly involved in that and we will I be happy to come back and share that once that work is done. Um there's a lot of planning and um going into that right now. So, happy to come back and share.
I'm speaking for Tracy. Tracy and Sandy would be happy to come back and share. >> I had a principal question. >> Uh, principal, >> thank you. >> Principal Domin, if you don't mind, >> uh, you had on your on the presentation capacity of physical school spaces. Um,
and I just note on our dashboard, it says, uh, Lake Marian's about 82% capacity. Uh, in prior discussions with middle school principles, they said I think 85% would be ideal. Would you agree with that? Um, yeah. And and you
know the thing is we the way that architects draw our maps is they everything is like well this is the ideal world. And the thing is we're not always dealing with ideal situations. So we are um for like our tutoring groups. I use our library. So we have kids
checking out books at the same time. I've got five MTSS groups on and also another classroom that currently isn't isn't used that we have MTSS groups because we need to have a place that can be pretty I mean noisy, you know, because kids are reading, kids are
talking. And so when we look at the way that we do the map, the map is strictly is this a first grade classroom? It is. Okay. Then we we label it that way. But we're also looking at special education. Um many of us offer center-based uh programming and center-based programming
um depending on the need of our students might require additional spaces because um students might have significant needs where other students might need to move and we have to find spaces for whether it's taking a calming break, whether it
is um to allow a student to have a moment in their classroom and the other students have a place to go. We're using our our spaces really well. So when we do those capacity pieces, um it's a luxury, but I I can speak to before our audition went on at Lake Marian and you
know, we had over 700 plus students and I was using our commons as two classrooms. Um it was far from ideal. Um Paul Hellberg can talk about what they were doing at Cherry View and East View. I mean like we were getting so creative with how we were fitting people into our spaces. So we know what the extreme
looks like and so that 85% number is is ideal. I mean, or or below that. Obviously, it's it's nice to have a little bit of freedom with your spaces, but when you start getting over that, you start losing the ancillary spaces that you're using for kids in other ways that do not fit into a traditional
schedule. Like, band, where do you put band? Oh, that's only two days a week, but I have to have a space for you to be making a lot of noise and no one wants it next to a third grade classroom. So, like these are the things that don't always fall on those maps in a in a nice way, but we have to take them into
account. >> Thank you. I appreciate that, Director Baker. >> So, during the last budget cuts we did, I felt like the LEAF staff got significantly cut, which was tutors in all of the all of the buildings. Um, knowing that since that time our enrollment has continued to increase,
have any of those tutor positions been brought back or how would you see that need and and what would you say um would you need moving forward? I I just know I worked for Paul as a tutor at Cheer View once, so I know how important that position is. And I know that that
instructional support is not only important for teachers and supporting that work in the classroom, but helping our students um get that additional instructional >> Yeah. >> coach there. So, >> thanks for the question, Director Baker. Um no, we have not restored it. Um the
the money has not magically come back yet. I like the money tree analogy here. We don't have it yet. But uh um and and here's I'm going to give you a historical perspective. Um when we were talking about we we had the freedom to schedule is um I'll just use my school
as an example. I had tutors coming in every day. They worked every day with our kids. They were part of our staff and they knew every kid because they had an MTSS group from every grade level. And when you talk about school community, you um you and they were
working without having health insurance benefits because they were less it it was less than a full-time job, but they would come in at 9:45 and work until 3:30. So, primarily when the kids were there um and yet we could have um supports in reading, but also supports in math because we had enough blocks of
time and they could do our new supervision and just essential critical members of our teams um that were really important. So what's happened is out of necessity we've had to cut it down to okay we're going to do intervention on Mondays through Thursdays Fridays
they're going to work 2 hours a day as noon supervisors. Well you can imagine if your job was you work Monday through Thursday you're going to work all day but on Fridays just come in from 11 to 1 and then out of here and then in May you're just going to work 11 to1 every day. Um it's harder to retain people um
when we are trying to make the most out of those situations. So um that's just our current state of affairs. It's not a complaint or a It's just the reality of where where we were to where we are right now. >> And to your point, like without the consistent instruction, it it's not as helpful. So,
>> correct. It's just that, you know, and then if someone calls in sick, we don't get subs for tutors. >> Um, and so that's another piece is like if you're gone, well, then we just have to cancel your tutor group. Um, if you have a medical need and you're gone for a short period of time, um, these are just the realities of us. So, it
interrupts the instruction. And it also interrupts the planning of the teachers because then those kids don't have a place to go. So the teacher has to just house them in the room and they might not have their group ready because they've got another group going. So these are just the the things that are byproducts of that. >> Georgia Thompson. Yeah, I I do recall I
think when when when that was cut like those tutors played a huge part in a variety of different kind of jack-of alltrades functions and more importantly it's like I think during recess I don't know who watches these kids but you've got 200 kids outside running around and then then they got to come in and then someone someone has to calm them down
and get them ready to go and make sure that they're ready they're all set. Um, I would love to make uh, you know, obviously getting assistant principles to this year probably isn't in the budget. instructional uh uh instructional folks probably not in the budget, but if there's an opportunity to
pull in uh you know, one or two additional tutoring staff where they have that flexibility where you can kind of plug and play them throughout the course of the day, I'd love to be able to see a proposal like that and if it's within the uh within the budget that we can allocate for the remainder of the year, why not take advantage of that if
we can? So, that that would be one takeaway that I would like to ask for us to look into. Any other questions for the principles? Really appreciate it. Thanks for all the
information. We all Thank you. All right, Mr. Yoho. Attendance area plan. You guys don't want to stay. This is the best part. Best part's coming up. All right. I
>> I don't blame you. All right. Okay. Here we go. All right. Chair Swanson, directors, superintendent, community members. My name is Lucas Yoho. I'm the executive
director of operations. I'm going to give you anformational brief on attendance area alignment for the 2627 school year. Okay, here's our agenda. So, I'll kind of go over topline, what the requested
decision will be by the school board, go through some background, our kind of planning timeline, what we've done to date. Uh then I'll go into the attendance area objectives and planning criteria and that was really uh kind of what shapes our attendance areas and
what we use to kind of go through that process. Uh I'll talk through some special considerations there. Uh and then I'll go over the plan overview at both the elementary and middle school level and talk about our commitment to families.
Okay. So again, uh not requesting any decisions here tonight. Uh this is really to provide you information uh so that in January, specifically no later than January 13th, uh we can make an informed you can make an informed
decision about future attendance areas for the 2627 school year. Um, and then also part of tonight is to receive any refined guidance that you may have uh based on that attendance area criteria objectives that was set on 25 November
uh to further shape our attendance areas uh as directed and and just to be clear those objectives and criteria really drove the development of those attendance areas. Okay, so that gave us our proverbial left and right limits,
our guiding uh our guide to kind of make uh suitable and acceptable attendance areas uh for that. If you believe that our attendance area proposal here is not acceptable, then I would request some refined guidance to that objective or
that criteria. That really lets us go back then and then shape those attendance areas to meet that new and improved criteria. Okay. So, kind of to go over a little background if we will, you know, why are
they needed? So, if we look at the attendance areas uh over there to the right, really the problem that we have is a concentration of students, elementary students to be exact, uh throughout uh our our district
boundaries. And you can see their high view 105.9% way over the top uh for a lot of reasons there. And then we also have some that are that are creeping on uh the 85% uh that was talked about previously. And
then we have some uh that are extremely low in uh occupancy if you will aka enrollment uh really you know due to the way we shape our attendance areas. But then as students move in and out um you know families move in and out that
creates that u those gaps or that that crowding if you will. Uh so if we look at that that's really you know the essence of the problem that we have uh at the elementary school level. So from 59.3% to 105.9%.
Okay. If we look at the middle school attendant attendance areas, um we have really two problems. We have an overall enrollment is high, right? We've done we've talked about that extensively as part of the facility schools vision uh
and why we were doing uh middle school expansions. We're at 86.7 as a district and that will continue to climb um as well, right? And so that's part of the problem. And then to a lesser degree, but still there is concentration
uh specifically uh uh Century Middle School, the northeastern part of our district is extremely high. Uh again, we talked about that 85% in the previous brief. Uh that holds true even at the middle school and at the high school. 85%
uh is probably the limit uh you know and past that is where we start to feel the effects of being unable to meet our learning outcomes um with our students. So again here overall enrollment is high. We're addressing that through facilities expansion uh and then
concentration is the issue and then here in this brief we'll address some of that with um an attendance area adjustment. Okay. And to kind of further reinforce that point, you've seen this slide before in the uh the facilities vision
discussion, if you look to the northeast there of our district up there around uh uh High View Elementary, Cherry View, etc., a lot of uh housing developments are going into uh that area. You can walk outside High View, for example, and
you can see houses being built, right? that is very uh very assured expansion uh in those areas and then to a lesser degree but still happening down in the southwest of our district specifically Oakland new market I talked a lot about that in the previous brief you know
where conditions are set for to see some of that expansion happening in the next 3 to 5 years uh so we see that coming and that's something we continue to monitor uh with our city planners both Elanoo market uh and then obviously Lakeville uh to kind of see where those
permittings are done. You know, we we routinely review commission um you know, planning commission meetings uh etc. to make sure that we have a good pulse of what is actually being developed. And so that kind of re really reinforces you know we'll see increased enrollment in those in those areas both in the short
term and the long term. >> Director Anderson, >> can you help me understand um with the proposed development? You know, I think the one I obviously have on my eyes on is um Leonard Spirit. Um how often are those I mean, what are the chances that
that is going to be approved and we're going to see pretty large numbers coming out of that? >> I am pretty confident that it is going to be approved just based on the approvals that they've gotten from the city planners uh thus far. Uh now the question becomes, is it 800 single
family and 600 town homes? Is it something else? there's a lot of uh environmental studies that need to happen and and that leads to, you know, maybe a reduced footprint in terms of housing. So maybe that will go down and that's just something we continue to monitor. They're still on track. Uh I
believe you'll see the first house um in either the end of 27 or beginning of 28 if I'm not mistaken. So they are actively pursuing development of that area. >> Okay. And I know Douglas is here, but how how many students would we expect to come out? Let let's say it was 800
single families. >> Well, you you roughly get one student per per single family house. So that's 800 right there. And it'll be less with your town homes. And then it depends is it a is it a detached town home? Is it a you know multi-attached town home? we
have a kind of formulation we would go through and as we start to see and and see that you know getting built then we'll we will definitely take a look at that and making sure that we're staying ahead of uh those developments so we don't have a crowding situation in our
schools. >> Okay. >> Is this the development that was kind of jumping the Musa? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Was >> Yeah, it's over there southwest of 35 and uh I believe it's 180. Yeah. 70 there. So, >> and those are all in the Lake View
territory, >> I believe. So, yes. Yes. Lake View. Yep. >> Okay. Okay. So, here's what we've uh so attendance area alignment process to date. So, I just like to reiterate this really a continuous a continuation of
previous work. Uh we've we've continued to look at the products that were made previously. We've looked at previous community input. All that is still valued. Uh it is still considered as part of the inputs to developing uh you
know the proposed attendance areas. We had a similar planning group in November that really consisted of 17 school leaders and district staff. Uh and then we've also vetted it with all the the building leaders across um you know the elementary and middle school level. So
definitely well put together team that looked at this u diligently throughout the the month of November. Um we we and again just kind of continue to reiterate we developed and evaluated against that planning criteria uh and those
objectives. So as as Douglas kind of you know made these attendance areas that was the criteria that we used and that's the criteria we validated uh that work against to make sure that uh those attendance areas were suitable and feasible based on that criteria and
those objectives. So the timeline again we established that criteria early November uh did a few drafts there uh on 25 November if you recall we reviewed uh the criterion objectives which you'll see here shortly. No change to that. Uh and then we're here on the 16th. Again,
not requesting any decision. Uh we'll have a a schoolboard meeting on the 6th and then on the 13th uh we'd request a decision uh for that. And I'll I'll explain here in a couple slides why the
13th of January uh is important. Okay. So, we've seen this before on the 25th of November. really three major objectives for attendance area alignment. Really am an amalgamation of everything we've done in the past. I've seen a lot of different objective
statements. Uh so we tried to boil it down here to the three uh primary objectives. One, ensure room for long-term growth. Uh so as director Anderson pointed out, just ensuring that we anticipate that future growth and
that informs how we shape our attendance areas. I'll explain that a little bit in detail once we go through the plan, but accounting for near-term and long-term growth uh to minimize again uh you know our attendance area uh alignment issues
that we may have. Uh number two, maintain a diverse and balanced student body. So we know that we have a a diverse uh school population and we want to meet all statutory requirements for that. Uh and then number three, making sure that you know our teachers and
students uh have the appropriately sized classrooms, classes, uh and the space to work and learn. So that's important as well. And so that was the three objectives that we determined were suitable. Uh and then that kind of led will lead to uh you know what balance
looks like first. And so we've talked about this extensively. Uh uh Brett talked about it as well. So 75 to 80% occupancy or enrollment if you will is you know the proverbial sweet spot where we have a little bit of room for
unexpected growth. We know that we really can't predict when a family is going to move into or out of our school. So we want to have some space for that. Uh and then to the point made earlier having space to do all those other things that we may need to do. Yes sir.
Lucas, um, what is the margin just in case, you know, you just mentioned something. What's the margin of error? If if the calculation's off a hair, what kind of fudge factor are you giving yourself to make sure
we don't flip over that uh 85%. >> Right? And so that's where we like to be, 75 to 80%. Um so if you look at you know historically just for example in our middle schools we've historically operated 75 to 80%
u or correction 80 to 85% historically over the past decade. So that's where we like that 5% is a sweet spot. Little more was always always good but we really don't want any less than that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are you asking about more like the error around that? >> Yeah
>> Carly. Yeah, just in case the the calculation or the projections off a hair, >> you know, is there a margin to absorb that without flipping over the 85%. >> Well, and it might help to understand
what the error margin of error has been around these estimates. >> Yeah. So, so in the next year, we've generally gotten in within 1% of our projection. So we've been pretty good within that next year in terms of of being, you know, in terms of our
projection, okay, getting within 1%. So, but we always like to, you know, we're always beholden to people that move in or out. And so, you know, we want to have some space there for that. And then also during a school year, folks move in and out and maybe you have a surge of folks that move in. And so, we want to be prepared for that.
>> Okay. >> Okay. And then you could see there, uh, we've kind of talked about this a lot. Uh Brett talked about it previously in terms of what happens when when you get past that. Um and so we want to make sure that the keeping our schools around 80% uh is where we want to uh do that but
also at the same time take a look at you know what our future growth is going to look like uh and account for that and I'll show that to you on the next slide. Okay. So we get into the criteria here. Um this is the criteria. So, seven seven
points uh that we used to ensure that we have attendance areas that are suitable and acceptable uh for our educators uh you know in order to have that right size classroom. We we use 65 to 70% for
those that have growth potential. So, if you remember northeast southwest we're like hey we know that we see short-term growth is going to happen. Just step outside of High View. You can see the houses being built. We know in the southwest we're going to have some growth probably in the next 3 to 5
years. We want to account for that. All really to kind of stabilize our attendance areas over the long term to the greatest extent possible. Um we established 75 to 80% for those areas that have minimal growth. So think about the middle of our district. Those
housing areas are established. Not a lot of space for continued growth. But we do also know that folks move in and out and they bring children with them and we really can't predict that to a to a large degree and so we want to have some space there. That's why we picked 75 to
80% and again we kind of started with a range here because if you if you look down the list we also have to do racial and social economic diversity to the greatest extent possible. We want to make sure there's space for our education special education students uh to the greatest extent possible. So
there are there are definitely some factors in there and so we wanted to provide a range uh to make sure we can can meet that criteria and then also you know realizing that we want to minimize students minimize the movement of students from our current schools to the greatest extent possible. So really take
the current map that we have, the current attendance areas, and where can we make small adjustments? And I know in some cases they're not going to be small, but that was our goal instead of trying to, you know, flip the map on its head or something like that. We wanted
to to to minimize movement. Uh, and then also, you know, as mentioned before, housing subdivisions, right? So we we worked diligently to make sure that our boundaries did not go through housing subdivisions to the greatest extent
possible. We wanted to make sure attendance areas were connected and logical. You you'll have some some in some cases boundaries would go through what some might call a subdivision, but we try to make that between additions, right? So you have, you know, I'll just
maybe it's choke cherry, you know, one and choke cherry two. we try to make that division between those those two additions. So we work that and and then some areas we also got to recognize that some of those areas are very dense with children and trying to include them in
one would just throw off our you know our criteria of of of occupancy. So again we went through that diligently to make sure we balanced that as the the best extent possible. Okay. So really the only difference here for the middle
schools, we used much of the same criteria. Uh what we did is we wanted to we we do know that we are uh going to expand our middle schools. Um and we appreciate that um approval. Uh but what
we wanted to do is we know there's a bit of a concentration problem with uh Century. So we wanted to provide some relief to that school. So we we built a attendance area to kind of provide that relief. Uh and then the intent there is we won't need to make a change based on
that new capacity when it comes available in two years leaving uh Kenwood Trail kind of where it's at. So I think that's going to work out well uh for us. And again all the other criteria remains uh unchanged. >> Director Baker. >> Yes ma'am.
So I just want to ask specifically about um the one that you just mentioned reducing the movement of special ed students to the maximum extent possible. So I'm looking at the data that's on infinite campus >> about that for special ed and there's some for the middle school and there's
some for the elementary. Can you kind of explain what that's showing here? I mean, I see a bunch of different numbers for um levels of disabilities that are in each building, but that doesn't tell me whether like some of the programs are moving or or what the plan is for that. So, could you
>> So, if you just if you give me a couple slides, I'm going to talk about special education and I think that will answer your question. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, uh let's go into a couple special considerations here. multiple movers. So, a lot of words here, but if
if we consider somebody a a child a multiple mover, if they've moved to three different uh and just in this example here, three different elementary schools. So, they they were in East View, High View opened up, we made the that attendance area adjustment, we
moved them into High View. Uh now based upon all of the things and the overcrowding we're going to have to move them based on that criteria and the objective we're going to have to move them to Cherry View. So that is considered Yes ma'am. >> So for the multiple movers would any
student group that you moved from High View fit into that category? >> Say ask that one more time ma'am. >> For the multiple movers how you've described that. Would it be any student group that you would move from High View that would be considered a multiple mover? >> Are you talking about versus like
special education or >> No, I'm just thinking in general because we've made these boundary changes before. So, I'm just trying to figure out like would there be different student groups we could move from High View that wouldn't be considered multiple movers or is it just >> if they go back to the school that they came from, they wouldn't be considered a
>> multiple. So, so what we did is if and we didn't consider them a multiple mover. if they're going to go back to the school as in that second example there and that so we recognize that they are still moving three times or they moved they're going to three different
schools. Um and so we recognize that in most cases based on the feedback most parents want their child to stay at the same or or school they've been to before and so that's why we didn't consider them a multiple mover by definition here. How
many how many kids are we talking about that are multiple movers at the elementary level? >> I got a slide for that. If you just give me a couple slides, sir, we'll we'll get into that. >> Can I ask one question about the last part there where it says intrad district enrollment? >> So, if we So, I'm trying to think forwardly about this. So, if we have the
multiple movers and we add them on as a priority for interdist enrollment, would they then be impacted because you're also shifting the middle school boundaries? So then they would >> potentially >> right >> potentially depending on where their where their their attendance area is for
the middle schools. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. And so to my last point, multiple movers will be added as a priority to the intra district enrollment process. We'll set some thresholds. I have a slide for that. But in order to kind of mitigate that and we know there will be some space in our elementary schools or
our schools uh we may be able to take some intra district enrollment there uh to help alleviate some of that of this issue. >> Can I can I one question real quick? So those students who are intradist enrolled do not have busing. Is that
correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So that is just something I think I want our everybody to consider in terms of equity of who has availability with that and who doesn't. >> Yeah. And we're using the same we're not changing uh the policy or the guideline for our
correction the guideline for intra district or open. We're still using that same process just in this case to kind of alleviate uh some of the turbulence will make intrad district enrollment a priority based on being a multi multiple mover. Okay. So here uh is the special
education. Um so in a resource model they'll they'll in settings one through three general education classrooms centerbased with uh specialized center-based classrooms uh for setting three. So in terms of attendance area
changes if they're in a resource program one two or three they'll be subject to the the attendance area changes. if they are a center-based uh if they get services through a center-based program, then they're going to remain at their current site.
Now, special education will also offer an IEP meeting to kind of review those services and making sure that is appropriate uh based on that transition uh for that student. Did that answer your question, ma'am?
Perfect. And I know that our special education uh department has kind of looked through the eaches of of those students to make sure there wasn't anything extraordinary or exceptional there. So they've been they've been put a microscope on that.
Okay. So interdist transfer kind of discussed this a little bit. Um again it's uh where they are now is where they will stay. So kind of again there to reduce uh some of the turbulence. Uh again if um they want to
do an intrad district um transfer uh and there are multiple mover uh we can do that. And then also in terms of of criteria because we're going through um you know attendance area changes we can't unravel what we're trying to solve
through intrad district. So we'll set those thresholds accordingly uh at 70 and 80% based if they're a high growth or a low growth school. So we can kind of control that enrollment. Uh of course if we have to add an FTE then we'll look
to bump up that number those numbers of of uh intradistrict enrollers if you will. U so we'll have some space there as well. And we'll be very deliberate uh through the summertime to make sure we're maximizing the space we have without kind of overenrolling uh our
high growth uh and low growth schools accordingly. >> Director Anderson, >> I appreciate you answering all my questions so far. Um why so I I was I asked specifically about that um new development with uh Lake View. Just so I
guess I'm wondering, are we talking about timeline in the next couple years? Because it does seem like Lake View would have potentially a considerable um increase in students if that development comes to be
>> potentially. Now, they're not going to build 800 homes that eight that those homes are over 10 years, right? And so they're only templated, I believe, like 80 single family homes a year, best case scenario. Um, so there will it's not all going to come at one time. When we look
I'll I'll explain it a little bit in in a a couple slides, but Lake View and JFK, for example, are kind of in a naturally declining enrollment. And so you'll see they're going to be a little bit higher, but we know they're declining. And so we'll continue to
monitor that. And then if we need to make them adjustments based uh you know on these new uh these new developments then we can we'll we'll certainly have to do that. The problem is is they're not I'm I'm not I'm not com I'm not confident on how much they're going to
grow and how much they're going to development. So I don't we don't need to make that decision now. So we can wait to do that just to stabilize our attendance areas across the district if that makes sense. So there might be potential if that really does blow up that those would be routed to different
schools >> perhaps. That's something we'll have to look at. And I'll kind of towards the end there ma'am I was going to talk about you know we need to really you know every year I plan to do this is to be up here and do an analysis a deep dive of attendance areas and then make
recommendations to the board uh to make sure that we are monitoring what our developments our projected enrollments and that we're being smart about how we uh adjust our attendance areas based on all the the factors some of which we control and and some frankly that we do not.
Okay. So, open enrollment again uh by statute they'll they'll remain an open enrolled uh at their current school. Uh in January we'll bring forth a resolution um to limit our enrollment of non-resident pupils uh per statute just so we can have a little bit of uh
control uh with our enrollment. Um >> again, >> Thompson >> just want to make sure I understand that what I just heard is accurate. students that have just want to make sure I understand that it's accurate. Are you saying that
students that have enrolled into our district out of district >> they they are automatically required to stay in the school that we put them in or no? >> Yes. >> Per statutes. Yes. So if someone enrolled into Lake View Elementary this year
>> and they're out of our district, >> I can't ask them to move to a different elementary school because those are the state laws. >> Got it. So then and so what what what is what what rules do we have about making sure that out of district people like this is that's ridiculous. I mean I know
I get that it's a state law but like so if I'm hearing this correctly my Lakeville students can't go to this school if it's full if 50 out of district kids are in that building if we hit our capacity. Is that is that is that an accurate statement? >> I would say that's an accurate
statement. Is it a statute or is it a a resolution that was passed by the school board years ago? >> The the statute I think requires us uh we have to accept open enrollment. We
can by resolution um redefine or um let's do that. >> Well, but the but the just just to be you know we we want to be careful. um because
all the all the same stability issues uh apply to all students, right? So, we have to be try to do that to the extent that we can. But I I have heard and there have been many uh emails about this particular issue of um the priority
of resident versus open enrolled. as long as we comply with the statute, um you end up in a scenario where you're potentially tearing uh our our students and we just want to be thoughtful about
that and and I think that's your point. Um so we first we have to follow statute and second we we want to make sure that um to the extent that statute allows we optimize our internal flexibility. I I
think that's your point, Mr. Tom. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we I'm looking at the the anal the date the demographics. I think it's like 307 students are open enrolled into our district in elementary. So, there's 307 scattered across all of our nine schools. Uh but I
think there is an appropriate conversation that needs to be had of when do we look at that lever versus we look at all of our residents and where they are followed by special accommodations, special education, then we would want to look at intrad district
transfers then open enrollment folks outside our district. Like I I I have a tough time agreeing that we need to have them at a higher priority from that list. But that's for another discussion. And the question isn't we're not saying don't allow them into the district. We're just
saying let's prioritize who goes to which school, right? Yeah. I mean if we have high capacity school that we're moving >> our own residents away from, >> you know, for the detriment of kids that are >> the other element too is is that um we do have students that go out of our district
>> agree >> and go to other districts. So we want to be careful about uh or thoughtful >> about what the there is a financial impact to that as well that we want to be um
again wise about. Yes, >> they >> director Anderson, >> they all are our students. Um, and we have put resolutions in place before to say, you know, we're reaching a capacity number that we don't feel comfortable with in a certain school and so we're
going to limit open enrollment to 1% or whatever. >> I would agree that they are students, but I want to make sure our Lakeville students, those that are in 194 are taken care of first. No, I mean I think what what we're hearing is that we do
have the ability to limit within schools how many students we take in terms of percentage but we also have schools that we could use open enrolled student. So I mean that's where >> yeah director Cameron
>> um I'd like to ask for more information from district leadership to confirm the statute. I want I want to read it myself um to really understand like are we able to move students who are open enrolled to another school? I I'm I realize we need to keep them and we want to keep
them in our in our district. Um but what are our options um before and and are there any related resolutions that the board has previously passed that relates to open enrollment that this board needs to get updated on? >> Is it 124D03?
Uh, I I will say yes. Sounds about right. >> I just don't I don't see the limitations. I guess >> we can I can definitely provide an information sheet or paper. Is that appropriate? >> Yeah, that'd be great. Okay. >> Thank you. >> We'll lay that out. >> And just a couple of things. So, at the
elementary level, we're we're not talking I don't know if I somebody may have said 50 kids in a school. We we're not we're in single single digits and we already we already based on our >> We can't be in single digits. We have 307 open enrolled kids going into our elementary schools. So, if we've got
nine schools, that means we got 30 kids roughly in that building in some capacity. >> All right. Well, I'll get you the the the numbers. Uh I I'm I'm not pushing back on what you're saying. I I think essentially uh that's the course of action we walk down. Um
but I again, I just want to be careful about the the overall condition that we set in our school district. uh because we are out of balance more out than in. >> Right. So
>> So if we treat them dramatically differently that would probably reduce our amount of open enrollment that is critical to >> but we I mean none of them got moved last time either. >> None of them got moved last time either. >> So So in that sense we are treating them
dramatically different by giving them a preference. But >> yeah. Yeah, >> sorry. Go ahead. >> Okay. That's good. All right. Racially isolated schools. U So again, there's the number 34.6 for students of color
and then free and reduced program currently 21.1. So we want to stay within 20%. That does create a a um a a limitation for us. So, as we look at our different neighborhoods, making sure
that our schools balanced. Um, so again, one of our criteria there that kind of limits uh in some certain instances how we can move uh students around. Okay. And I'll show you the it's in the data slide where you can kind of see
where we've we've balanced that. Uh staffing considerations. Okay. This is why 13 January is important. So, we want to make sure that we can, you know, our our teaching staff, our educators make those adjustments across the schools
based on our projected enrollment, based on our attendance areas. We need to comply with the Minnesota education Minnesota Lakeville contract. Um, and and importantly, we want to make sure that we can do this early enough so that we get our high qu the highest quality,
best candidates uh out there in the job pool. If we wait then those best candidates will end up going to other schools and we want the best educators in the district. So that is ultimately the reason for 13 January. I'm going to
show you a timeline. Um on the next slide. Okay. So there's the timeline. 13th January, you the school board approves an attendance area that helps uh or is
important to uh critical to doing the enrollment processing and staffing analysis. So, we have those new attendance areas that will tell us what our enrollments are going to be at those schools. that does take some time to do
uh you know in conjunction with human resources to make sure that we have that uh as precisely as we can make it. Uh and then by the end of February there we have done the preliminary staffing or posted we go through the hiring process
uh and then we're um we have those hiring done by June making sure that we have the best candidates possible. So that's the importance of January 13th. Sooner is better. Okay.
All right. Okay. So let's go to the plan overview if you will. So I've previously talked about this in a little bit of detail, but here is on the left hand side is currently where it stands today.
Uh and then proposed for 2627. If we take uh the attendance areas that we've proposed here. So again just to point out Cherry or correction uh Christine Huddleston and East View are
extremely low uh in enrollment and High View is extremely high. Um and so we want to balance that out. If you look to the right uh there would be the number of students to the top. Uh that would be the percentage occupancy.
And then you know sir in terms of what you talked about buffer at 85% based on projected enrollments that's how many uh seats you would have available until you get to 85%. Okay. So again what we know we know that
high view for example is a growth area because it's in the northeast. So we put that as low as we could get it reasonably. Uh 68% there. We know that Cherry View is also in a growth area and then Lake Marian. And so we've pushed
them down uh extremely low in order because we know it that in the near term in the Northeast then over the long term we're going to have increased enrollment in those those areas. We also know that um some of our >> Sorry, should we What about Lake View? I
mean you have it at Yep. >> 82%. >> Right. And so Lake View, right? and and somebody did catch that. So that's good. I'll explain it now. So yes, that is in the southwest, but that particular school is seeing decreased enrollment. So we see we think that that will go
down naturally uh over time and then that will account for that buffer space that we need. Director Baker. >> Um, Lucas, can you clarify for the public that 85% the reason that we're looking at that number, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that's because anything over that then we're not
>> we're we're not we have to go and use things other than spaces that were intended to be used as classrooms. So, because I get I'm seeing a lot of emails where people are saying, well, this school's under a certain percentage, but if we go above 85%, we have students that are receiving that their education
not in a classroom setting. We're we're multi-purposing different rooms to make that work. >> That's correct. You know, and I think Brett Brett set it up teed it up uh absolutely perfectly in terms of how we use those spaces and we just become crowded and it's it's all the things that you just uh discussed, ma'am.
Absolutely. Yes, ma'am. >> Well, to your earlier slide, I think ideally we're between 75 and 80 >> for our minimal growth schools. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Dr. Anderson, >> I'm trying to understand this. So, I appreciate your um continued discussion
on this. So, Lake Marian is in a high growth expectation, >> but I don't understand that from like where when you look above with the future housing development. I don't understand that. Can you help me understand that? >> Like where's the growth coming from in
that area? It'll it'll come from it'll come from the the housing developments in that in that area. >> It's going to come from the west over by River Meadows. There's going to be growth over by more so Scott County and so forth. I I personally think that we
should move all that into Lake View. Move Lake Marian to the right like like I don't know. I'll wait until the presentation's done. >> So it's not about the new development coming. It's about growth hap because it's not >> it's growth from the west. It's not from
the west. >> I I I see both places on the west but one is in Lake View that I know this is happening over an extended period but Ritter Meadows is not nearly the same size. So I'm just trying is it based on new growth coming or is it based on
>> okay >> new growth? >> It's not on the map. >> Well that is that is on the map of where these new developments >> right? So that's where like Lake Marion has a much smaller expectation for growth whereas Lake View across a period
has a much higher. >> Yeah. I mean >> but we also know that Lake View is also kind of declining in enrollment uh in the short term. So that's kind of why it's a little bit higher in terms of that percentage. Can you talk about that a little bit because I mean I listened to the audio from the discussions in
2024 and Lake View was anticipated as being overcrowded within like a year, >> right? >> So what changed there? >> I I am not sure what has changed specifically, but the trend now is is declining. >> I I would say there's a couple of
factors. One is the the uh predicate for uh growth. If you look at the charts that were provided back then on the growth trajectory for the district, they were higher than what we've triangulated um and reported here. Uh again, so we
had internal counts, we had Hazel's demographic study and we had uh Mr. Sheen's demographic study and we triangulated those to um refine the projection. Um
we've looked at all the housing starts uh went to Elco New Market went to Lakeville uh planning folks and uh validated all of that. That's what we used to make the maps that you see in the numbers that that you have here. And
then uh qualitatively there's a it's a dynamic situation. It's not a static situation. So coming and going and being able to algorithmically try to assess that is why I I think to your question director Anderson is where it gets a it
gets difficult to assimilate because you don't see in a static picture a dynamic reality and so if if it's coming and going uh and it's over time like if when I see Southwest and I see 800 I have the same reaction that that you're having.
like oh my god. But if you look at it in terms of time uh and then while that's happening enrollments are going down in some areas uh they will reacquire and come back up. So again as Lucas said I
mean we want to make sure that you're seeing the picture uh repeatedly over iteratively over time so that we can continue to calibrate this. But the intent is to is to not do what we've been put in a box to do with
our kids and that's to move them. I also don't want that instability with our teaching staff that because they work hand in hand. So trying to stabilize this is is the goal uh strategic goal.
>> Yeah. Director Cameron and then Director Carbone >> for um the Lake View area and maybe JFK2. Is part of the numbers um in student decline related to open enrollment out
of our district? Isn't that an area where we have a lot of kids open enrolling in like new Prague or >> Yeah, that that >> So maybe is that that could be part of this too? Okay. >> Yeah, Lucas. Um, a few meetings ago we
were when we were talking about expansion of the the middle schools. Refresh my memory, but I thought it was the mass of humanity in the fourth grade that was creating this lump coming into the correct the middle schools. If if that in the in the next few years passes
through, >> does that create relief for the elementary schools or we are we in the same pickle because it's being fed underneath by something else? >> Well, it's all it all depends on your kindergarten enrollment kind of it
starts with the kindergarten enrollment and that'll project out over time. We're seeing as a district our kindergarten enrollment is kind of gradually going up at a much slower rate now and almost leveling off um over time, right? And so
we don't see any surges, if you will, in our kindergartenner class uh that we saw in that we see in our fourth grade class now, which a lot of that was compounded by our the COVID situation and how that all kind of worked out. So, >> okay. So there so there might be some
relief after those fourth graders push through. >> Uh well, we're still going to grow. Um we're still going to grow in the middle school level. We'll still gradually grow, but then it in the out years it should level off.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Okay. So, it's important to highlight I I the top three uh you just saw on the previous slide. Uh but if you look down kind of this really talks about the
students of color, the free reduced uh population and where are we balanced within that 34.6 and 21.1. It just shows is that yes, we are balanced. We're you don't see anything higher than 20% uh
there in the in the slide. So that's what's what's key there. And then in terms of your special education enrollment, you know, where do where are those students falling out? That's where it is. It's pretty stable, pretty balanced um across the board. Our
highest being uh it looks like JFK there uh at 17.1%, but I even think that's a reduction from where they are now. So again, looking at the balance and where our students uh are are how we categorize those students and making sure we have that balanced
across the district. >> I have a question with the sped numbers. Sorry, >> it looks like all the schools went down. How was that possible? >> Let me see if all the schools went down. >> Um I don't know. That's a good question.
Um I will definitely take that back. I just noticed that. Sorry, I didn't see it before on the big screen. Yeah, >> I was more looking at at if there's any um any extra or, you know, out of out of tolerance, but uh yeah, we could definitely go back and I think you know,
we'll go back and take a look at that. That's that's the short answer to that. >> It's a miracle. >> What can I actually students of color too? So, >> I maybe I want to look at the slide a little longer to evaluate like >> I'll look at it. Oh, wait. Douglas has got the answer. >> Oh, okay. Great.
>> Push your thing. Push your thing. Push your thing. >> Push the thing. >> All right. Got the thing pushed. >> You're looking at 26 27 numbers. We don't have any special ed counts for kindergarteners at that point. That's why they're all lower. >> Ah, there you go. >> I see.
>> Students of color. Same thing. >> Same thing. >> We have no stats on what our kindergarteners are going to look at because they're not enrolled yet. >> Makes sense. >> Douglas has the answer. >> Yes, ma'am. Do you have any phone? >> Director Anderson and Director Thompson.
Um, >> I just >> I do want to I I do want to just kind of focus on one thing and and push back on me if I'm totally wrong, but it does seem like I know we're talking about this as balanced and I know we're there's a a balance to strike too here
in terms of the um geographic region that we are trying to maintain or trying to achieve with balanced schools as well. But it does seem like to me there's less balance on certain in certain schools or consistently lower
like in terms of free and reduced lunch or um and and then I also want to highlight that at those like some of those really tend to be much more cluster like this school is High View is a great example not a lot of high numbers in those regions and also like
pretty much everyone right directly around High View is getting into High View. whereas some of our other schools are spanning a much broader region to get those demographics. Um, I just want to ask about that because I want to be
mindful of, you know, one thing that I've certainly heard, um, given that the PTO's don't share their funds is how funding happens at much higher levels in some elementarymentaries or some middles
compared to others and how that impacts the student experience. And so, um, wanted to just kind of toss that out there and just try to understand that. >> Yeah. So, I I with the free and reduced, for example, we have a couple
concentrations of that group that we can't I mean, we can't tell them to move. Um, and they're really concentrated. So, if we put them in a specific school, that'll bump the percentage up really high, too high. And so we got to keep them in a specific
school because there may be less uh in that surrounding areas. And so that's really the problem with the free and reduced. We only have a couple clusters of that particular population. And so that's very that goes back to that criteria very difficult to manage. It may make sense to hey put that little
area in another attendance area but that will make the um free and reduced uh percentage go above 20% in that case. So we just have to be very cognizant of that. >> What does that mean to our district? Like if it goes up, is it illegal?
>> I I don't know. >> Yeah. So there's there's statutory requirements that we have to meet with uh um our our diversity across the school system. So, uh, I I can get you the exact, um,
percentage, uh, which I know we calculated into how we were looking at this. Um, I don't know if anybody on staff knows the statute. I don't know, Douglas, if you do >> definition,
>> the definition comes from the achievement integration website on the state of Minnesota. >> And I would have to dig into this right now. Now, I do know that if you exceed that 20% greater than your district average
percent that you do get put on a state watch list >> and you have to meet certain targets. >> You got to meet certain targets. You got like but but it's not illegal. I mean, you just want to make sure it's like >> I I'm I'm not going to claim it's illegal without looking at uh the ANI uh
>> direction on and and those are typically statutoily developed. >> Got it. Got it. I I I guess like I I appreciate you going over this and I know a lot of folks looked into this and putting a map together. Uh we went through a boundary change a couple years
ago. Uh let's all agree it was not optimal. I voted against it. Uh but fundamentally we've got to make sure that whatever we're building now is something that's going to set the stage for us to scale for the next 10 years. Like why I appreciate you wanting to come back every year saying here are the
updates. Great. But none of the boundaries should be changing in those updates every year. Like that's that's where we need to get to. So I get last two years boundary changes, people move, people change, and I I totally get that. People don't want to change again, and I
respect that. But in regards to as a board member what is in the best interest for our school district when we're going to make this next change, it's got to be a change that we are comfortable with for the next 10 years for elementary or at least the next five
at least for the next group of kids that come come through the come through the ranks as well as uh growth that might be anticipating. And so I I appreciate all the nuances of like if we move this or we move that because of XY andZ like in
my mind I would love the planning criteria to be wiped out and just tell me how many kids can go to their neighborhood school and what is the capacity of that like for example in Orchard Lake right like what is like there are some elementary schools that
are landlocked that we know there isn't going to be any further development that that school should not be at 50% or even se you know 75% it should be at 85%. I would like to see a a design where let's
move off to the side all the folks that have entered district. Let's move off to the race side. Let's move off the social economic side. I'm just curious to know like how many kids can go to their neighborhood school and having Orchard
Lake Christina and Oak Hills max at 83% have Cher View, High View, Lake Marian uh at a threshold where we know there's growth coming and and then and those are probably at 60%. East View could probably be at 80% going
westwards towards Prior Lake covering what Orchard Lake has. And then you've got Lake View going west uh and and covering what what what probably what Lake Marian has and then JFK has south room for growth for them. Once we have that metric and let me rephrase that
once I have that metric and then what that design tell me after that which schools are are based on their metrics on the soio economic racially isolated special education and intrad district
end. from there we should make adjustments. Uh that's what I would like to get to and see but in ris in the in their current model today like this is not built for in my mind for us to scale for growth and that that is not the um I'm not aligned right now. So >> it's not scaled based on the percentages
of fill that we have or not based for growth on on some other criteria. >> Well, it's not based for growth when I look at GFK. I mean, in the in the uh packet, you've got JFK sitting at what? Uh the numbers up. You've got that's not uh
that 79.3% >> 79. I'd like to see JFK closer to 7 65 or lower. When you've got Elco, New Market, west of Credit River, that's going to continue to grow. You've got Lake View should be sitting at about 65 70%. Lake Marian could pay you probably
at 85% with High View and Cherry View kind of being your flex schools for the east growth. But like that's what I see. Uh I'm not aligned with the current model. So >> So and Amber, just one second. But I mean my understanding is at the end here you're going to want some additional
feedback from the board to go back on refinement. Correct. Once you get through with your presentation, >> that is correct, sir. >> All right, Director Cameron, >> that was my comment. Can we keep going and save our discussion for the end? Make sure we have all of the points. >> Yeah, we can talk about if we can talk about if we're in agreement on
refinement once it's all done. >> Okay. All right. So, middle schools. So, again, just to reiterate, a large and growing population. We know that from our facilities vision discussions. Uh, and we also have less so a concentration
problem in the northeast, specifically uh, Century Middle School. So, you see that there to the left, that's the current, and then the projected over there to the right. So, really the solution is is is twofold. uh build some more capacity which which we are we are
on glide path to do that. Knock on wood. Uh and then also adjust the attendant areas attendance areas to give a bit of relief uh to CMS until we do get until we do realize uh that capacity. And so you will see an increase in capacity at
CMS and Magguire Middle School and then hold Kinwood Trail um you know steady if you will. And then again, we kind of anticipate minimal growth in Kidwood Trail. Not a lot of new developments there. Um, unless you know, kids just
move in miraculously over the summer, but in terms of developments, not a lot of new developments there. And so that's why we kind of hold that steady. It is a little bit high at 84%, but again, that that enrollment's kind of that's been declining over the years. And so we
think that'll go down uh as we work the enrollment processing. questions here. And again, it's not optimal because it's it's full. It's above 85%. But we definitely don't want CMS at at 93 or higher. Uh so we'll give them a little
bit relief and set conditions for uh 2829 school year. >> Yes, ma'am. Can you can you remind me what what is the change in capacity from um because I'm I'm trying to wrap my head around why we would want Kenwood to
be lower if we're going to see growth in the other areas. And so um with the expansions we approved >> what's the difference in the >> uh so you'll see an increase in Century Middle. They'll go up approximately 330
and then uh oh correction Magguire will go up 330 and then Century will be a little little over 500 >> capacity >> capacity >> not at Kenwood >> and then Kenwood not that capacity will remain the same. >> Okay. >> Except for better common spaces more room.
>> Oh yeah yeah Roger that. Yep. >> So they could handle more students. >> Yep. >> But okay. All right. Okay. Okay, so moving right along. Again, very similar slide here, but just showing how we are balanced with our different populations
of students. Uh, again, looking at special at our projections don't account for that population because we don't know who those students are specifically. Um, well, we do a little bit more in in middle school, but you know, again, we those will those will
refine themselves as we we work through that questions here. >> Hi, George Cameron. Um, I realize it's kind of keeping consistent with our current, but I I don't think that our free and reduced um population is very balanced. I think there's two that are high and one that's
pretty low. So, >> okay. >> Um, yeah. >> And and that's just because the students aren't there, >> right? >> And and you know, kind of if you look at like Century, for example, that's kind of landlocked a little bit and so we'd kind of have to cross boundaries. So, we're we're kind of limited what we can
do there. But we wouldn't Sorry, can I >> Yeah, sorry. >> We wouldn't anticipate new growth to necessarily bring us more free and reduced lunch students, right? >> Well, I I mean that's a good question.
Maybe, maybe not. I mean, just depends on who, >> right? So, that's I I guess I'm on the in the same boat that that disparity is not going to change. Um, it's probably only, >> right, >> it's going to stabilize or potentially get worse. Um
>> and I think related to it is like if it is like this if this is the best option >> the schools need to be resourced in a way to accommodate the difference here in student population. So not all schools would have the same necessarily staffing to address what we're seeing on this slide.
>> Okay. >> Right. That variation would need to be dealt with. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We had a we had a lot. Oh, sorry. >> I just want to make sure L Lucas knows that uh Douglas had something you want
to add. Go ahead. No, you can go ahead. >> Okay. I was just going to point out that not note that there are no Meuire students moving into other areas and yet their percentages are going down. So, it's not because we're moving
students of color or free reduced out of Maguire. It's because we're increasing the population of non- students of color and non-free reduced in, which makes the percentage go down. That's where the discrepancy is coming in.
Um, we had a whole bunch of emails and someone spoke tonight about these two neighborhoods that go to North that are going to Meuire to create >> Legacy and Baris Ridge. >> Yeah. Can we can you help us understand
that? just I mean I appreciate um everyone else from Meguire is going to South and um how that impacts uh middle school students who are then going to high school with majority of people they haven't been in school within three years.
>> Okay. What I don't understand the question >> I guess the question is why are we moving those two neighborhoods? >> Yeah. What's what's the student population that you're adjusting and what's the methodology there? >> The method >> Douglas come on up here please. Okay, turn that on.
>> Right. Got to be in the mic. >> Good evening. The methodology for that particular calculus was we went up as far as we thought was reasonable on the west side of the map, uh, as far north as we could
go. if we went any farther north, we would have to bus kids past Kenwood Trail in order to get them to Meuire, and we didn't feel that that was appropriate. So, that's why we stopped where we did there, but we still needed to move enough students to balance
numbers out for the anticipated increase in capacity. So, that's where the Baris Ridge and uh and the legacy move came from. >> I mean, what would the adjustment? So, currently they're slated to go to Kenwood. So if we kept them at Kenwood,
where would we be percentage-wise for capacity? >> That would bump them up into the close to the 90% range. >> So which is where we have >> Century and Meguire. Magguire right now. >> That would be, you know, come down. >> What's that? >> Then Magguire would come down because
we're pushing them back into Centur or into Kenwood. >> Sure. I do think I do know from my own personal experience of how my neighborhood is shifting that my kids will be bust past their current school to go to a different one. And so it's not that this isn't happening. Um and so
I do want us to think about um how that really impacts these middle schoolers who are the only ones going to Meguire versus, you know, Kenwood is a split school. That's how it is. And so, um, I don't think it's not happening elsewhere
in the district is, I guess, my point. >> I mean, how many kids were we talking about? >> I I would have to go back to the map and look at the exact numbers >> because if it's 5% of the kids, you're 5% north, you know, >> could we extend that that maroon part, and I realize it's then busing past
Kenwood, but that is what we if all of those students west are going to south, that to me makes a little bit more sense. I mean, I'd love to hear from others than having two pockets of North kids go to Meguire >> if if that's the priority.
>> I mean, I think we'll get there, but yeah, I'm in alignment with that. >> Director Baker. >> Um, I just want to caution the board in making decisions based on specific neighborhoods because no matter what decision we make, someone's going to be
unhappy and then we'll just continue to get emails from other neighborhoods that have been moved based on this projection. um when we change things. And so I think we got the last time we did boundary changes, we got into um those waters with we're going to move this neighborhood and then we started
getting emails from another neighborhood. And um I'm just going to I'll ask questions and I appreciate the clarification from district office staff, but I'm sure you have all went through those types of projections in your mind, too. But it's a tough thing and it's um I guess it stinks that we
have to do it again. Um, but it there's not going to be a win-win for everyone on this. >> Yeah. And we might be getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, but I mean, Century is going to have significant expansion, well, theoretically in a
couple years here. So, even if those neighborhoods had to go to Century in two years, I'm just thinking, I mean, unless we're going to completely split Meguire, which I'm not opposed to, but if we're going to do that, why not send more than just two neighborhoods there from North? You know, if we're going to
make it a split school, make it a split school. Um or if we can keep it, you know, a only south school and it fits within our, you know, numbers and projections on what we're looking at, why not keep it that way,
>> right? That's just a that's just another criteria that that again makes thing it makes extreme. It's already difficult and if we if we say, well, no split schools, then we're we're it's almost at the point of impossible. >> Yeah. What's our split at Kenwood right now between north and south?
>> 6040 roughly? >> North or south? >> 60 60% to north. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, to Director Baker's point, and thank you for making that, if if we were to do something like what you're proposing, Director Swanson, that would we would
then have to adjust other neighborhoods to accommodate. So say up in the north part of Century, you know, if we were to do it now, we'd have to take more out of Sentry out of the north to keep put the ones in the south part back into
Century. That's the kind of analysis that keeps going back and forth on this and how we landed where we were. Thompson, George. >> I again, I appreciate all this and and there's a lot of nuances to this. Uh but
we just like we just want to make it geographically logical for our kids to go to school. That's it. Like if they got to drive past a middle school or an elementary school to go to their school, that just doesn't make sense to me. So, so as long as it's geographically logical and is operationally sustainable
for us to do this, like that's how we should be looking at this. and and I'm listen I'm online and I'm not sure if this is accurate or not. So I'll defer to the administration to tell me like there is no legal state statute that says we can't that that we have to have a certain percentage of this, a certain
percentage of that, a certain percentage of this. If kids can just go to their neighborhood school, that's how that's what we should be striving for. So I'll let you guys chat. >> Well, just just to um not going to disagree with that, Director Thompson. just when you talk about ANI, you're
talking about funding uh and we have to comply in order to receive the funding. So, while it's not a statute uh that says you have to do that, if you don't do it, then you risk the funding. So, that >> we spent $3.5 million is what we get for ANI funding. And I think the last time we reviewed it, the funding was going
towards what uh um uh the liaison uh paying for some other miscellaneous things, but we have uh we canled AVID. haven't received feedback on if that was coming back or not. So that that's probably something we should re revisit and ask is the $3.5 million that we're
using actually making a difference. So that that's separate conversation. >> Director Cameron, >> um a couple of comments in response to um my fellow board members. Um, one, Director Baker, I I agree with you that we should caution ourselves to make
decisions um about specific neighborhoods. I I totally am in alignment with you about that. With this particular situation, I'm curious what percent of students, if they're were to go into the plan at
Meuire, would be North students versus South. And I do think it's important to like I realize we have a split middle. We're going to keep it right. and 6040 is a relatively even balance, but if we're talking like a five or 10% north split, I think that is really challenging for students regardless of
what neighborhood they're coming from. So, I want to think about that. To your point, um, Director Thompson, I mean, I love the idea of neighborhood schools. We don't have neighborhood schools. Like, we have nine schools in 86 square miles. And
um because of our student population, because of the size of our district, there may be times where you are driving by the school that you think is the closest or you deem the closest because of busing or because of X, Y, or Z. I mean, that's true of our family. Um and
so I don't think we can use the term neighborhood schools to describe a school system of 12,000 students with nine nine elementaryaries. Um, you look at how gigantic these, this is the middle school, but if you look at the elementary one, if you look at how gigantic these geographies are, they're
not neighborhoods. These are large amounts of land funneling to one school. So, that's my opinion that we don't have neighborhood schools >> that are all right by each other. >> Well, and they're all built on top of each other. >> Yeah. Georgia Baker. >> Um, perfectly stated, Director Cameron.
All the points that you made, those are some of the things that I was going to bring up. And I wanted to also um bring up the point that no matter how we try to redraw these boundaries, there are always going to be kids that are driving by a school, another school to get to the school that they're going to.
Whether it's because they're going to a different school for special education services or just because all of our schools are on IPA. Um I just don't think that we can put that framework around boundary redraw. I think it would make it impossible to complete.
Okay. >> All right. We'll go to the next slide. All right. So, here are the projected movers. Um, so I'll kind of try to go through this slide. I put the the elementary to the left and middle to the
right. Um so if you take a look at the elementary school 605 total movers uh with 228 of those 605 being multiple movers and then the percent the multiple
mover breakdown is at the at the extreme bottom. Uh and then kind of percentages of the different groups there are in the middle. Um and then if you look at the middle school and I apologize this is kind of hard to read but you do have the >> Can you say that one more time again? How many multiple movers are there?
>> There's 605 total movers with a total of 228 of those 605 being multiple movers. >> Where are you looking at on your graph? >> Uh so 605 top right hand corner total movers. If you go all the way down 228
uh down there at the bottom I don't think this has a laser point. >> Yeah, I don't think the port packets right. Okay, U, I did update this slide, so I apologize. We've had some some data issues. This is the current slide right here. I tried to make it a little bit
more simpler, uh, for the presentation. Uh, so I apologize for that, >> Dr. Kman. >> So, um, just so I'm understanding and also for the public, the bulk of the moves are happening related to High View. >> That's correct. Okay. If you look at that, that's like the 124 I believe that
and that that becomes the problem is most of these multiple movers are around the high view area. And so to say not to move the multiple movers, I I don't want to do that, but the problem is the geography and you know, we opened up
that new school, we put all the kids in there, and now we we have that problem and we just can't get around that. Um we just can't get around that. um or you're not going to solve the problem. And then middle school, a lot less of a problem. Um 223
with 24 being multiple movers. So definitely not um in terms of multiple movers, not a problem as big a problem. >> Director Anderson, >> how so Lucas, how does this work with
the intra district? I guess I'm just wondering, you know, um, with these multiple movers that would be prioritized in the intra district enrollment. >> Yes. >> How many and for how long would we permit that? >> We Well, it would be based on the
thresholds and the prior where we put them in the prioritization, which we haven't determined where it stacks. uh but based on the thresholds of 70 and 80% and where our enrollment is at that's where we and then where they fall in that prioritization and we could
provide that to them we would >> okay so high view could remain much higher for a per I mean not higher than the threshold but >> well we would want to keep that at the threshold to the greatest extent
possible now if if they have if they go above the the 70% % because of just natural residential enrollment. Uh and then there's extra space based on number of FTEEs and we could squeak a few more kids in there via that prioritization for introductory then we will absolutely
do that because it makes sense to do that in that in that case >> and families have to apply every year. So it could be the case that let's say you had a first grader at High View. Um let's imagine um or second grader
whatever who's they could be approved for intra district this year but not the following year depending on how the growth happens in High View. >> Correct. >> I thought you were once you're in you're in >> we would be able to do that. >> Once you're in the school you're in the
school until you uh you metriculate out of that school. Oh, so intra district stays throughout their time there. >> Yes. >> So then if we take some up to a certain threshold, but then a lot of growth
happens. >> That's right. And that's where we have we just have to be careful with that and that's why we're we're we want to hold that threshold as low as possible. >> Okay. >> Director Cameron. >> Um for a point of clarification with the middle school moves at 633.
Is that what that says? 22 223. Sorry. 223. I don't know what I'm saying. Um, does that mean currently enrolled sixth, seven, eighth graders? So, basically that many sixth and seventh graders are affected or does that calculate
incoming sixth graders? Do you know what I'm asking? >> Right. That will and if yes, that'll account, correct me if I'm wrong, Douglas, that'll account for the incoming class as well. >> So, they're not really movers. They're just going to be assigned a new school that they've but they've never been to a
middle school, right? Ever, >> right? >> Okay. >> And you could see that, you know, like Eve to KTMS to MMS, for example. >> You could see that where we kind of articulated that at the very bottom. You might have to zoom in there. >> So, how many is it by grade level here?
No. No. >> So, how many of the 220 two What number do you have? 22 23 are fifth graders. I'd have to get that for you. >> Okay. Because I think that's a little mis like they're not really movers. You know, >> you can see that chart can you look at
the ones that had the elementary schools on there >> and we debated back and forth. I >> keep forgetting the button. We debated back and forth on whether to include those in the count or not. >> We included them in the count because as far as the family is concerned, it's
another move. >> Okay. >> They were expecting to go to the school. Now they're getting moved. So we wanted to honor that and include that in the counts. So if you want to see which ones are the fifth graders, it would be the ones who like are going from Huddleston to Kenwood to Century. Th that would be
your fifth grade example. >> Okay. What's that? Can you just tell me the number? What's the number? >> I think it says four there for that one. >> Okay. >> So 49. I'm trying to get at like how many, you know, how many currently enrolled middle schoolers are going to
see a shift versus how many are just going to go to a middle school that maybe was different than what they planned but isn't really a >> a change for the student. >> Okay, we can do that. >> So, I mean, you have that data, but >> Yep. We'll we'll we'll provide that. >> It's 10.
>> If you add them up, it's 10 >> 10 fifth graders of the 23. >> Oh, of the multiple numbers. But what about the 223 number? Okay, that we would have to go back and calculate. >> Is it like a third? Not sure. >> I would have to go back and calculate.
>> We'll break that down further by grade for you. That's easy. >> Director Anderson, >> I think something that would also be helpful for us to or me I'll speak for myself for me to understand is um you know we don't have a consistent feeder system like we know you know in terms of
these three elementaryaries go to this middle school etc. But um and so it would be helpful to understand what the percentages of a school are for each elementary going to a middle. Um okay. >> Does that make sense? Like
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Does it seem I mean just from your experience with kids in the district that it seems less important at elementary for the kids and it gets more important as they go to middle school heading towards high school. >> I mean schools. I am thinking about this
um from my own perspective of when last year with uh or two years ago when we made the changes my kids were going to be part of less than 10% of East View that was going to go to Kenwood. Um I believe my kids can be resilient, but that's a really small percentage of a
school that's going to Sure. So, and when you break that down, you know, how many of those are classmates? Um so, um I think it's if we're talking about really small percentages, is there any way to kind of >> keep them together? >> Yeah. As opposed to having several
schools that have small percentages? I think that's that's a that's a big change going into middle school. Same going into high school, which is why I feel like those two neighborhoods, it's challenging. Yeah. >> Director Rackenberger.
>> Yeah. Um, in relation to um the neighborhood that uh director Anderson put up before uh the uh the legacy and the the the Bears >> Bears. >> Yeah. Um neighborhood. Um that does seem
to be somewhat of a special case because it does impact which high school they go to. Um, if you go back to the map, um, I'm curious how many individual students are impacted specifically just by that one neighborhood.
>> Um, because there is like a large um, section off to the leftand side in the western end of Lakeville that are impacted. Um um but that one little island um over by you know over by Meguire um I'm curious as to how many
people if that weren't to be a part of it how many people would still be going to Kedwin and how would that impact everything else >> you do that >> sorry >> maybe we can get get through this and then we can hit him with questions. Oh, sorry. >> I think we're closed.
>> What do you think? >> Are we good? Okay, last slide. Um, oh, so our commitment to families, uh, to communicate openly throughout the process, uh, you know, making sure, you know, through our regular communications that we understand what's going on here
in this forum as well, communicating throughout the process, uh, and all the other mechanisms that that our families have to communicate with with the school board and as well as district leadership. We really want to make a recommendation that avoids uh you know district-wide changes like we're trying
to do now in the near future. I think that we provided a good proposal that really balances um our enrollments at each school based on where we anticipate growth is going to be and where we anticipate growth is not so much. uh we want to review this annually so only
small adjustments can be made or we make we the school board assumes some risk in in going above a certain threshold. We acknowledge that uh so that we're not surprised on where we stand with our our growth. Uh we'll continue to monitor uh
our growth projection mechanisms, you know, uh and that goes to to coordinating with the the city planners, you know, making sure that we understand where the developments are, what the status is of that. Uh and then lastly, you know, making sure that we have a we create a supportive transition plan for
our students and families, you know, whatever the attendance area may be uh in the future that we have a good plan both at the school and district level to support those students that are moving uh into new schools. All right, so that was my last slide. Pending your
questions, ladies and gentlemen. Director Anderson. >> So am I am I running my numbers correctly that um once the middle school expansions are done century based on
like these numbers would be more like 66%. >> Correct. >> That's about right. I mean I I can I'll have to do the math for you and >> about two if we're talking about around a thousand students and it's capacity is going to be 1500
>> right? um whereas Kenwood is going to be sitting at 80. I guess I would like to understand what um speaking of, you know, how we're talking about the growth at Lake View potentially being very uh taking a long time. What do we think is
going to happen with Sentry and Meuire in terms of that growth? Because that's a big difference in terms of 66% capacity versus 85 at Kenwood. >> Okay, we can yeah, >> we can do that. I mean, we can make that analysis.
Director Baker. >> So, um, last time we went through the boundary redraw process, we had a lot of different, um, committee meetings where community members could attend. Um, and based on the information that you shared
on this slideshow, um, it looks like you just went off of that information that the community provided at that time. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. because I I also want to clarify and then also ask a question with that. But um some of the emails were saying
that um there were people that were calling around to neighborhoods asking them if they wanted to stay at North um and I want to clarify that the district did not do that. So absolutely not. >> I just want to make sure that that's clear. And then um my question would be
is there going to be another opportunity for the community to pro provide feedback because I mean we're getting lots of emails and that's good and I appreciate that people are sending those and I've been reading them all but um I don't know I I did appreciate as a board
member just attending some of those forums last year and and hearing from community members that attended that too. So um I'm curious if there's any options for that. There's no plan to do so at this time. >> There's a Well, there's a couple things
we are doing. And um to your point, uh director B, I'm sorry. Sure. >> Um to your point, the back in the fall of 23, um there was the the the planning phase for the
district started with regard to boundaries. And in the late fall of 23, there was a design team, there was an input team, and there was a public input process. And I think that's what you're referring to. So all that all that has is archived and preserved in the in this
process. Um, in late February through spring of 24, um, I think that on or about the 27th of February, um, there was an approved final K8 attendance area adjustment. um it was different than the
administration had recommended and that's part of the process and it's not an impuging statement. It's just factual. Um then in March of 18 we did do a recommended comprehensive changes uh and the decision was deferred and
then again in July of 25 um we did do the adjustment that we're living under right now which was really only noncurrent students moved and that created high view at 105 and century at 90%. So, this is an this really is a
long and ongoing process that is not solving the strategic problem. And going back to uh director Thompson's statements around this, I think the strategic problem has to get resolved for our teachers and for our students. Um and uh if we stay in this small
incremental iterative process, um I think it's it's just going to further frustrate everybody um associated with this. So I I just want to make that point about um about that piece. The other thing we we want to go to uh and
we we have a schedule to go to schools and talk about this um further. Uh we are going to have a opportunity here and I don't know the date off the top of my head. I think January 8th is uh a
process uh or an opportunity for the community to come in uh and give us further feedback. Obviously, we're getting a lot of feedback on um over um email and one of the one of the um
concerns and I think board members uh issued this concern as well as some of those emails or many of those emails was the ability to read the map. So, we're going to put interactive maps uh online so that uh people can actually go in
there and better uh zoom in and out and and look better uh at those maps. Um we wanted to obviously come back to the school board as we were directed to come back to you to talk about and share with
you um a plan that would do what director Thompson has said and um more level set the um the entire system so that we don't have to do this iterative process. So, um I I know Director Thompson said we we have not hit the
mark uh uh in his mind yet, and I appreciate that. Um but it it would be it would be most helpful if there was some consensus on the board that could give us that refined direction or guidance or criteria that we're we're missing right now. Um we we put it
together based on the guidelines that the school district uh and the school board established back in the fall of 23. there was a document called a guiding change document for um creating boundary adjustments and and I think
that was um um that was there. So I I want to just try to get to that um because we're the last thing we have interest in doing is continuing the frustration with this. Um we want to get the strategic problem solved and put
stability back into our school district. And I think that's the the most important objective that uh that we should pursue. >> Director Cameron, >> thank thank you and thanks Superintendent Bowman for that. Um one
very logistical question I have is and I know last year when we approved the kind of holdover plan, we had a plan for open enrollment pathways. So with this new plan both for in intra and inter right did I get that right? district
enrollment, does a student follow what path? So, if you're if you're at a if you open enroll from out of district and you're at a elementary that goes to north eventually, do you stick with your peers
or do you continue to go to our old plan which was south? So the they will have to open enroll again and it'll be a space available at that next level >> for every right >> for the middle and high school. Okay.
And then similar to in intra district. Okay. >> I think um two other questions I just wanted to raise because we've been getting a lot of these questions and so this is more just an opportunity for the district to explain process. Um so one
is I think some people are seeing students being moved from for example high view to east view and east view to high view kind of in their in some people's minds it's just like switching bodies and making both kids switch um so curious about how we thought about that
why that is happening um and then similarly um I think some people are seeing kids having to be moved out of currently enrolled students being moved out of buildings to hold space for new builds
um rather than zoning new builds like we did last year for elementaryaries where there is um going to be more space. So I'm not saying I have an opinion on this right now. I just want I think it's important to explain how these decisions were came to be. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. Can I just uh so on this on the last one that you articulated um >> we have different internal terms for those a tapestry or a blanket quilt or whatever because for years in order to avoid um doing any uh major boundary
adjustments. Um the the choice was and the direction from the board was to essentially do what you're talking about a new development. Okay. it's it's geographically here and it would go there, but we're going to move we're going to put it over here so that we're
not disrupting. Right? So, we did that for years. You can correct me if I'm wrong on that, Douglas, but my recollection was that we did that for a long long time. Um, when you br into the mix, that was where large
change was had to happen. Uh, and so we wanted to level set that. But if it's the will of the board to do the tapestry solution, you know, um we can do that because we've we have experience with that. Um but
it it it definitely doesn't accomplish, I think, the long-term level set that I think Director Thompson has articulated and and other board members have said this to us as well. So, I'm I'm not trying to just leave it all on on uh Director
Thompson's shoulders, but we're hearing that and we're trying to do the strategic level set so that we don't get into that long-term iterative change and continue to frustrate our community. >> Superintendent Balman calls it a
tapestry. Back then, we called it the fruit salad. There you go. >> So, I don't know if you remember the fruit salad map. And so say the option of let's only move those who haven't been moved before. That gets us back to the tapestry to the fruit salad map,
whatever you want to call it. That's that's what we wanted to do the last time and we want to continue to do this time is to provide those contiguous boundaries that just make geographic sense as director Thompson was pointing
out earlier. Okay, we that's that's the reason that we're we're going that route rather than the other. In regards to the High View being moved out and now being moved back into High View, it's a very small neighborhood where they were split
and we weren't aware that that was actually part of a development that shouldn't have been split. So, this was a correction to that. If we if the priority is no, we don't we we don't want to move those over cororrecting that wrong, we can we can flip that
priority. >> Director Thompson, >> I I I think the question that we've got to ask ourselves on the board is like, do you want to make a fundamental change where we don't have to make changes 10 years from now or do we want to make incremental changes? >> I don't want to do this again. Well, I
would have to later. Never mind. And so >> I mean it's sorry guys. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> The I mean the only thing I would say is I I don't think any I I certainly don't want to go through any boundary adjustments. Um I mean this is the second time in our term so far. So it's not not a good experience for us or the
community. Um but we have no idea how Lakeville is going to change in 10 years. So to to say I think we set for try to set for several years but really going up to 10 years it's like we have no idea what's going to happen with some of these developments. The fundamental
problem is we can't control who moves into or out of our attendance area. >> If I could control that, then then we wouldn't even having this discussion. But I can't we can't control that. And so we have to do the best in terms of trying to set it up for long-term
stability and then if necessary, when necessary, make those adjustments to make sure that our schools are balanced. Right now, I think the proposal has it where there's enough room so we can absorb some of that growth without
having to make an adjustment every year, but I want to get into we need to get into the idea of being deliberate and intentional about how we look at our attendance areas because we are still a growing community and we're still going to grow for several years and we don't
want to ignore the growth and then have another major shift. left you know in two years or 3 years. >> Can I ask uh where did you guys how did you start this from a methodology standpoint? I mean did you start on just focusing on elementary? Did you start
with high view and say okay we need to reduce >> we started with the criteria >> but I mean which school specifically did you guys start with because I mean there >> yeah a lot of little changes >> high view is the biggest problem and so that's kind of where we started and we
wanted to keep things connected and logical and try and keep to to what degree necessary or that we could that kind of neighborhood school approach. Okay. Hey, we've got a lot of appendages out there and curved attendance areas. Can we make it more logical and
connected with our subdivisions? Uh, can we do that? Okay, that kind of works. Now, let's look at well, you know, what type of of student do we have? Well, we can't put those all those students over there because that'll throw off our balance. So, let's move them here. Kind of same thing that that
uh Douglas talked about. So, that's really kind of where we started. and we didn't want to make like wholesale shifts and start over. So we took the current map and say okay how can we make this better and move the mi the the
least amount of students is possible. >> So and I just for the board I mean my my preference would be and I'll full disclosure my elementary kids are multiple movers based on these projections and we're are like we are like a little carve out two culde-sacs
carved out from the neighborhood. we were attached to the last to the neighborhood south of us, which was the legacy neighborhood. Now we're being removed and attached to the neighborhood north of us. Um, so yeah, and again, I'm looking at what's best for the
district, but I get it where people are complaining about being multiple movers cuz it's it's going to be a challenge. I feel like we have enough map where we can accomplish all of this and not do that. um or at least not to a as large of extent as we're doing it. Um I'm all
for you know maximizing capacity at you know Orchard Lake and Chich uh OE even and then leaving space under um you know Cherry View and and uh High View for growth on the north side and then also Lake Marion and Lake View on
the south side. I'm just wondering if we could try to focus on I mean if people came from East View to go to High View and now we have a High View capacity problem, can we send those people back to East View, you know, as opposed to sending them to Cherry View? >> Okay, we can we can certainly take a
look at it. I could couldn't answer that. >> Um or, you know, there are v different variations of that obviously if it's East View, Lake Marian, and now to now to High View, which is my neighborhood. So >> So is is the criteria to minimize multiple movers? >> That would be my preference. That's what
I'd propose to the board on generally speaking >> and and we also tried to do that but when you look at the chart all the multiple movers are in that high view area like almost all of them and so if we you almost can't get away from that
because then you won't be solving the high view problem. >> You certainly look at at moving them back to high view or not correct back to east view. Well, because they all came from either East View or Cherry View probably. Right. >> Right.
>> Yeah. Which are both very low right now >> percentage-wise. >> Right. And and we're trying to move some of them back out of high view, but we can look at we'll go back and do another analysis and see if there's any any potential there. Director Thompson,
>> can can I would like to ask can I see a map with no criteria other than how how many students would go to this school within the the appropriate block that's geo that geog that is
geographically logical and that what does that look like that like I would like to see that as a baseline and then from there make tweaks along the way. Is there is there anyone in favor of that proposal on the board? >> You don't have to.
>> I mean, I I that would probably go against uh trying to maximize capacity though, right? I mean, you're going to say how many kids can maximize capacity. >> Maximizing capacity. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. with adding maximizing capacity of Orchard Lake, Christina, Oak Hills,
and then leaving and and more than likely probably Lake Marian, I would uh JFK, I would assume, because no, I'm sorry, Lake Marian because it's underneath uh uh High View, but leaving capacity for Cherry View and East View. I'm sorry, Cherry View and High View along with Lake Marian and uh
JFK, right? >> Or Lake View. >> Or Lake Lake View and Lake View. Yep. And then and I would assume East View could be at capacity as well, but it would defer to the administration. But but I want I would like to see if you've got what I want to know from the board I mean from the district is if you have no
constraints, how would a normal person would actually draw this out and then from there now we end then then we'll add what would our school district population lovers do we need to oblige by or want to move because we don't have to. These are some of the the the the things that we've
imposed on our on ourselves in the criteria list two years ago was a list of like 50 things. And so I would like us to like start clean. Here's how many p kids can go to this school. This is the best geographical logical way for them to get there. Keeps Orchard Hill,
Orchard Lake Maximize. And then come back to us and say, "Do you as a board accept the demographics of that school?" Yes or no? And then we go from there. Director Anderson. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. I mean, I have a lot of thoughts
about that. Um I mean, I think I think the challenge is um multiple I it would be interesting to know what the demographics would look like in that scenario. Um I don't agree with leaving. I mean, we're trying to create >> um school experiences that are going to
be similar across schools. Do you want uh would you be in favor of of getting that or no? >> How I mean the challenge right now I think we're facing is we're we have a January 13 or 13 January due date. Um and so that is pretty critical for our staffing
>> and we're going to make the same mistake again. I mean but that's my I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, I mean I I think we're if if Douglas were to tell us that's not a complicated analysis to bring just for for educational purposes. I'm not opposed to to people having that information, but I
think right now there's been a lot of time and effort put into this and we're up against a due date which does feel reminiscent of two years ago. Um, and that's where we are and I don't think we have the opportunity to start from scratch of making adjustments. So, I I
do not agree with us not balancing the schools. Um, I don't know what the balance looks like in a more geographically sensical. Um, >> can I can I say one thing just on the the due date? Um, and I apologize,
Lucas. >> I mean, if we go beyond January 13th, we go beyond January 13th, you know, to make the right decision. >> Is it going to cause challenges on staffing? >> Yes, >> sure. But isn't it better to get it right >> when in my opinion when we're talking
about how much difficulty we've had hiring special ed staff hiring you know hiring staff I mean for the high demand jobs that is critical for our student experience in the next year. Um, so I don't
I I feel like we have a due date for a reason that's put forth by our administration that we should try to stick with unless >> Director Cameron, >> I'm wondering if we can go back on your PowerPoint to the slide plan overview elementary, I think it's number 19,
because what I'm seeing and um, Director Thompson, to your point, six of the nine schools are in the range of the capacity that we would want to see. So at at if if they're full. So
Cherry View, East View, JFK, Lake Marian, sorry, all these acronyms. Um Lake View, Oak Hills, and Orchard Lake, they're all between that 70 70 to 80%.
So they are up they the way this has been designed is that they are almost at ma what we would consider max but it does give that cushion of that 5% in the event like okay we we actually have to put more kids here than we were anticipating without it feeling where
where we're not having to use um non-instruction space for students. So that leaves us three schools that we know are like the high growth areas right to fill. And so I feel like this plan is maximizing the schools in a way that reflects
um where builds are going to be happening. But I do appreciate um Chair Swanson your I your question about for for the especially for the High View students because ultimately we have we
have to take students out of High View no matter what. like they're at 106% almost right and so some students are going to have to move out of high view and it hurts me to say that but it is not a sustainable I mean when I toured high view like these are not great
learning environments um especially for special ed students and so if there is a way for some or all of those the kids who who are being proposed to move out of high view could
return to the school in which they came from. >> I'm not saying I don't know if that's possible, but I think it's a it's a interesting question. >> Yep. Let's look at the we can do the analysis and look what the percentages is for then what it turns out for East View and and Cher. We can definitely do that.
>> I'm curious about that. And then the other thing I want the board to consider is I know um double double movers or multiple movers have would have priority with inter intra district enrollment. I'm also wondering if we would want to think about and I don't know if this is
possible given the numbers of allow of fifth graders of single movers having priorities and eighth graders so that in their last year at that particular school their families could decide if they want to in if there was space could
intrared district enroll stay there at their school. So it' start with multiple movers, then the next priority would be fifth and eighth graders and then and then the rest of the single movers is a I'm wondering to like make the decisions about >> Okay.
>> How we can certainly work the intrad district prioritization however we see fit. I mean that's that's on us. >> Director Thompson, >> just to wrap it up, are you guys in favor of having this move forward or
not? if not because our next meeting is January 6 which gives us only uh 12 13 seven days until January 13th. So you've got technically two meetings and technically can we go beyond that? Probably. So do we need to have another meeting on J on December 30th to kind of
recap but like what is the rest of the board thinking about this proposal and what do you want Lucas to do different? So, so if I may, what I got now is see if we can return those that have to leave High View back to their original
school as an example. They were at Cherry View, went to High View, now we're going to send them back to Cherry View, what that looks like. Do that for essentially the the High View population. So, we'll do that. Uh, and then you we wanted to look at a no c I'll just call it the no categorization
option as well as to your your comments sir. That's what I have right now. >> Mine might be too much for us. So don't mind >> Yeah, I kind of think it's what they've done, but >> I would like to comment on that. I when I there is no state law that says we have to look at those demographics when
we're redrawing boundaries, but I want to exercise extreme caution with that because you would be opening us up to legal liability for discrimination if we have a building that's racially isolating or social economically isolating. Um those are things that we
have to consider the consequences of those decisions which I think would be a legal liability. Okay, I will scratch that. >> Yeah. And I I mean, I don't think Leville School should be on the watch list for MDE if we can avoid it. I mean,
that's my opinion. >> Yeah. Okay. Got it. >> But I'm I'm not aligned in moving kids just because we need their diversity in a different school. >> Well, yeah. I mean, you're not going to grab a pocket of kids from the Southwest and and move them up. Well,
>> not necessarily. If you look at the lines, I I don't think it's as big of an issue. But I mean, I we are doing we are swapping kids around though. I mean, we've got a pocket of kids going from Lake Marian on the south side of uh well, I guess it' be on the west side of
IPava, you know, where we're taking kids from High View and putting them into East View. So, we're just like moving kids here from that school to this school. Um which again, maybe there's justification. you guys thought about it, but it doesn't. >> Yeah, it just seems like if if Hi view
is the problem, let's address H high view, right? And then and this why I was asking your meth methodology leave spaces open. >> Can I just say one thing about that? High view is not the only problem. It's the biggest problem. The bigger problem
is the strategic problem and level setting the system to get the long-term effects and to you know there's class sizes involved with this. There's teacher situations involved with this.
It's it's all of it. And how do you there's not a perfect solution that's going to satisfy everybody but we want to get based on the criteria. if you can give us criteria where we have missed the mark that we can go back and look at. I mean, one is uh a generic, if I
may use that term, a generic layout. Um I I think there's some I've already articulated what I think the issues are with that but if that helps in the decision process and I want to facilitate that um to the extent that we possibly can but it the problem is not
just high view it's the entire layout and our ability to set the condition for the future and we have there have been many efforts at this that have not
dealt with the strategic problem and we have to deal with that uh with that problem in order to set a condition for all the other things that you have asked us to do as a school district. Um
some of those have come out again tonight. But if we don't do this and we just solve one area, it will be back because it will necessarily have to be. So I just want
to say that out loud again and hoping that we can focus on criteria for us to evaluate or further evaluate. I absolutely want to do that. I want every community member to be satisfied. but I
know I cannot achieve that. So, how how do we do what's best long-term for the system? >> Director Baker and Director Thompson. >> Um I I just again want to caution the board with um these statements that are being made about race. Um we are a
district that is labeled racially isolated. um those things have consequences and if we take actions as a board that move against that we could in essence lose funding from the state or they could come in and say now you're required to use 15% of your budget towards that because you weren't doing
it. So again these things are important. Um you can't just ignore those laws because you want to redraw boundaries to make it more simpler. Um those are just things that we have to consider in making equitable decisions for all students. Director Thompson.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I heard earlier that these maps were designed so that we could have free reduced lunch, social economics, racially componially uh metrics because we had to stay behind below 20%. Like those were those are
phrases I heard during this meeting. >> Yes. >> So what I'm asking is uh remove all that. What would be the most logical makes sense if you if you are a mile away from the school you get to go to that school if it's like I would like
I'd like to make a motion to see that kind of model >> or we're just in discussion so there's no motions but yeah I I mean it'd be interesting I mean would it take a lot of effort to produce something like that >> I'm not going to do it Douglas
>> director >> take a lot of effort >> director What's the point? >> Can we just identify like what we need to do? >> Can I'll just say uh if if the board wants us to do that, we we will respond
to that and and provide that. Um I I'm absolutely not opposed or trying to be opposed, but I just want everybody to understand that um the strategic problem needs resolution and and I I'm just begging for that. Yeah, I would I'd
rather see us making adjustments to what the current proposal is and going from there because I I mean I don't even know how much it would change anyways. But to that point, do you have any issues with the current map that you'd like to see refinement from? I guess
would be my question to the board. >> Director Cameron, >> wonder if you can go Oh, if we can like go down the line and just see if there's consensus. But my my main two things is to Chair Swanson's point, could we could we move multiple movers back into the
school they came from rather than a third? >> And looking at the area that um I forget the name of the neighborhoods, the the Meguire issue where those two neighborhoods are being zoned for for um
Meuire. Could they be stay at Kenwood or go to Sentry so that um they're not isolated from their north peers? >> Can we can we just say that's legacy embarrass just so that we're all very precise in the Okay,
>> I'm in agreement with both of those. Yeah, >> Thompson, >> can we move the uh the blue that's going to Cherry View and have them go to Orchard Lake uh west of 35W? >> Oh, I'm looking at the elementary map. >> You mean
>> East View? >> Uh yeah, there's a there's a group that's going to East View west of 35W. Like >> they live they it's over by uh the Old Country Buffet. Not I'm sorry. That's one of my favorite places back in the day. >> Old country. >> Cracker Barrow, I meant to say. Or um uh
Slumberland or whatever that area is. Uh like they literally have to drive they they literally have to take a left and they're right there at Orchard Lake. >> Oh, there we go. Somebody's working it now. >> That's >> Yeah, they're they're like literally
half a mile from Orchard Lake Elementary School. that that might be the um that might be our our trailer park that has the free and reduced lunch. That's the issue with that one. >> But that's why I'm a little confused about like some of the demographic
pieces is that area is staying at East View, but the free and reduced lunch and the students of >> go to like those those demographics are decreasing at Eastview. They're not counting kindergarteners.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, you just dropped the number of students because they're missing a whole grade, >> right? >> How would that affect Orchard Lake? >> I mean, >> if if what you the the blue up there, >> which section are you talking about?
>> The west >> the west of 35W >> that little blue part >> that's who you that's your trailer park that has all the free reduced in. If you put them in Orchard Lake, you're just going to spike the the percentage. >> But they like they
>> Okay. What about the top left west of 35W? That's going to Oak Hills. Like they just have to they're already on the other side of 35W. Why are they not going to Orchard Lake? >> Brian, I think what you're Sorry, I don't mean to. Is it okay? Brian, I think what you're highlighting is that there are different neighborhoods with
different characteristics that met the goals of the priorities that that we set and the state sets. So, you're picking out neighborhoods now probably that are highlighting why they're grouped with certain schools. >> I I am looking at it geographically. So, these are my recommendations. These
are my questions. >> So, you are highlighting all the mobile home communities is what you are targeting right now. Just to highlight that. >> So, first of all, I I didn't acknowledge them as mobile home. Well, they are just want to make sure we're clear. mobile geographically, the left side of 35W. So I I don't know why you guys are implying
all these things like when I look at 35W where we are in 185th Street uh over by Brackets Crossing, all those people have to drive all the way either jumping down 35W or going down 50 and then get going down the down the street to get to Orchard Lake. Could they go to East View
instead? I I don't know why we have to have why we would want folks over in the Brackas Crossing area to have have to jump on the highway to go to Orchard Lake when they can just would it'd be safer for them to just go right on 185th, go to
Lifetime and then go to East View. Like that's another example. >> Yeah, Douglas, you had a comment on that. Good. I thank you for the opportunity to to speak again. I I'd like to bring in uh principal um
of of East View >> Taber Aken. >> Taber Aken. Thank you. I don't know why I was blanking on his name. I've known him over 20 years. Um in any case, he was on all of our meetings and all the input. And one of the things he made
a point to say to me is that that part that is on the west side of 35 is a tremendous asset and valuable to his community and he doesn't want to see them moved. >> Okay. >> Um similar I think Wade would have a
similar opinion of those west of 35 in his boundary as well. So, so again, this goes back to fundamentally in my mind if if um I get that we're trying to make these changes and and not to be too
disruptive, but over the past two years, we've made a a ton of disruption to our community and and how do we ensure that our district is set up to scale for growth when more homes are being built, uh new students are coming in, and and
and that folks know that they can go to their local school >> or close by. Um I I so there will be more folks probably upset with our future design and that and that's the that's the decision
as a board member that that in my mind we have to make those tough calls and so if you want to make these minor changes and based on the proposal it so be like that's that's the will of the board you guys you guys get we have you guys get that vote I am thinking it strategically
long p long picture like I get I get it like some folks might be a value part of of a particular school. They will be a valuable part to the to the other school but what is it so that our transportation or busing logistics uh it
just makes it easier for communication. You got folks that are within neighboring areas that would go to uh to a school amongst their neighbor and friends. Uh, I don't know like the the it's a tougher decision to make. More folks in
our community would be upset and more than likely, but you are doing the job of setting your school district up so that when growth occurs, we can accommodate. That's my point of view. >> Director Cameron, >> I guess I'd like to hear from
Superintendent Bowman or um, Director Yoho, like how do you respond to that? Do you think this is set up for long-term growth? >> Well, I I think I said earlier that I do um think that this achieves the uh
strategic objective, but I you know, it's it's going to be frustrating to many people. Um but that was true in 2023 24 and it will be true now. But, uh, I think we h we have great schools
across the system and I want to lean into that and into our our teachers who I think would uh handle the transition of the students into our schools very well.
Um, is it ideal? It's not ideal. Um, what's less ideal is doing this again in a year and again and again and again. That's not ideal. And I think this achieves that if if if
we can trust the numbers. Uh, but I also think you have to continue to calibrate and see what's coming. uh the data that we have, the data that's provided going to our
community planning entities, I think are represented well here. The some of the nuances that I think have been brought up here, we can go back and look at and absolutely want to go do
that. Um, but I think we achieve the best that we can with all the many different variables that are in play here. We're achieving the strategic objective, which is setting our condition for growth long term.
>> Chair, can I call the question? Um, I know this isn't it's still under discussion, but I felt like we had a majority of the board that was going with the two points that Director Cameron brought up. So, I'm wondering if we could just end the
discussion and move forward. >> Yeah, I mean, there's no vote on any of this. This is just discussion purposes. And obviously, you know, with us moving towards a potential January 13 vote, I don't want to cut anybody off. I guess my only other concern and then if anybody else has one um would be do we
need to create more space at Lake View? You know the 82% projection I know you're saying that it's enrollment's reducing or looks like it's going down. Um, but it's still I don't know that just seems high, especially if we're looking at 1400 units going in.
>> I will >> in that development. >> Take another look at it, sir, and see if we can make some space somewhere else. >> I mean, or if you have more information just supporting the Okay. >> declining enrollment at that school. Got it. So, >> any other questions for them for further consideration?
Is there I guess I'd ask is there any criteria that we have there that's an absolute you need to drop that out of there because I think that's kind of been suggested. Director Cameron, >> sorry. I know I know we're trying to wrap it up, but I do think Director
Anderson brought up an interesting point about the middle schools that once the builds are done, which I realize is two years, right? Two years out. Do you anticipate us looking at those boundaries again or are we going to hold
two around in the 60s and one at 85? I do not ever want to move the boundaries, but we will continue to look at it and make adjustments as Oh, >> the intent is not to move the boundaries again, but I would offer that again
>> at Kenwood in that particular area there could be some unexplained or unexpected growth and we'll just have to account for that. But barring that, my intent is not to have to move those boundaries again >> even though Kenwood Trail is o would be over the
recommended occupancy. >> Well, it's it's on it's on the top and that's something, you know, two years down the road we need to take another look at and we may have to make a minor adjustment. Um, and that's just a matter of fact. And and I I don't ever like to
use the hope method, but I'm hoping that that trend kind of Kenwood Trail uh attendance area is stabilized or or decreases slightly. But the problem is I got to provide some relief to to Century Middle School. And so that's kind of why we're we're in that pickle. Uh but I
don't I I would like to not move the middle school boundaries once we have that that capacity. But I don't want to say that's a never because we may get, you know, some unexpected growth in Kenwood and we'll have to make the move. That would it would be malpractice not to do that. So the intent is not to do
that. >> But I got to leave it out to win if there's some type of unexpected growth there. Director Anderson, >> that that is where I would just like I mean if we're going to have capacity capacity for 500 extra students, I just
wonder if we can provide actually more relief to Kenwood in that moment and move some of those to >> Yes ma'am. The intent was to provide relief primarily to Century because they are at like 93% now. And so that was
really our biggest concern, but I can we can certainly drop it down to 80, but though that extra 4%'s got to go somewhere. >> Um and so it'll go back to Sentry and to to uh Maguire. >> Yeah. And I mean that's something too if
you're giving if we're giving you know a heads up like hey look this neighborhood might not be moving now but in two years if this build goes through you're likely going to go to Century you know >> again we'll have to you know we'll have to look at where the the enrollment lays. That's
>> I mean I guess to um Paul's point earlier um in terms of when we think about margin of error around our estimates and we went through this with high view like the estimates were wrong right and so >> um is it better to try to reach that
suggested capacity with Kenwood in the event like you said that something happens where it's a little off and we're still only sitting at 70% at Sentry let's say >> the the difference is high views a known was a known growing area. Kinwood Trail
is there there's not a lot of there is no new growth per se in Kinwood Trail. So the likelihood of being unexpected growth is smaller and we've seen a decrease in and enrollment in past years. So that's kind of the factors that led us to say okay let's hedge our
bets a little bit with at 84% to try in an attempt to reduce the turbulence. But it doesn't seem like 80 like what I've heard from people coming up here is really 75 to 80% capacity is kind of the ideal right so we're overshooting that by four right and really merging up to
the point of like this is no longer then now this is a capacity issue >> right again and I'm trying to you know I think 84% is a lot different than 93 or 95% with >> they're going to get that relief no matter what right that's where I'm wondering if more >> maybe
>> well if obviously we have adjustments coming All right. Thank you, Lucas. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> Um, you guys want to take five minutes? >> Keep plowing through. All right. >> Sure.
>> Sounds good. >> We're going to go in recess for five minutes. >> Polling stations. Let's go. All right, I think we're back on. We are good. Um, I would recommend jumping over board member reports if everyone's okay with
that, unless there's something that you're dying to share with people. All right. Uh, Superintendent Bowman did want to share something. >> Yeah. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I just want to take a moment and acknowledge that uh out in our community uh among
our students, staff, and families uh there was some fear today um based on the neighboring districts uh having reported threats that uh were made against their their schools. And every day I know our families put trust in us
as a district to ensure the safety of all of well their children and our students. Um, and we want to, you know, we also have family members and and other community members that uh come into our facilities and we do take this responsibility seriously um across the
system and I just wanted to reiterate that Lakeville Area Schools was not one of the schools that was named in the threats today. Um, I know there was some concern about that. Um, at this time it was uh the Apple Valley Police Department and the Burnsville Police
Department uh have been able to take uh three juvenile suspects into c custody related to the threats that were communicated. So, I just wanted to update the community on that. Um, and just also say that uh we do have practices and protocols in place for
preventing and responding to threats. Uh we do have a threat assessment process uh in our district and we do have standard respon response uh protocols. Um our students and staff are trained on the standard responses and practice them
regularly. So one of the most important safety measures we have in place is our anonymous tip reporting system. And we encourage everyone to see something and say something, do something. If you see or hear about a threat, report it right
away. Um, this does give the district the best chance to investigate, assess the situation, and mitigate any safety concerns quickly. Um, if you ever if there's ever a threat to safety in our district, the first priority is
investigating and mitigating the threat. Uh, we want to do that judiciously and uh, with elacrity and dispatch. Keeping our schools safe requires an ongoing partnership with our community and I do want to thank everyone for their collaboration and support uh around this
matter today. >> Thank you, Superintendent Bowman. All right, recommended actions. Um I believe everyone's probably had a chance to review their board materials on a couple of these. Um, starting 7A program
of studies. Uh, we received a list of classes that were discontinued and some classes that are being added. Are there any questions? Um, if of Miss Georgie. If none, I would entertain a motion to approve the program of studies. >> So moved.
>> There's a first by Director Anderson. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Director Cameron. There being a first and a second, all those in favor of approval of the program of studies? Oh, any discussion, Director Thompson? >> Yes, I I do want to share that uh the program and studies uh does allow
students to participate in uh AP classes going into next year. Uh but there will be a policy meeting this coming Friday to discuss AP classes. Uh and if they will be continued to be weighted or not. Uh so I just want to make sure that that is aware. We will bring that back to the
board as uh for for you guys to decide uh if we want to keep things uh um equal or not for all the various classes that might warrant uh rigorous standards. So >> yeah, and there'll be um we'll likely have our principles here from the high
schools with their recommendation on that as well. >> Y and that be for a following meeting. >> Yeah. Director Baker, >> I'm wondering if the teachers will get feedback on that too. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Any further discussion? All right.
Seeing none, uh, there being a first and a second, all those in favor of approval of the program of studies, say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? It is approved. Um, I know everyone went through the audit very thoroughly. Um, I would entertain a motion to approve the audit or do you have
>> Oh, we we have we have Chris Kenopic here from I'm sorry CLA to kind of give you an overview and uh touch base on the if you remember at the time we had some guidance that we hadn't didn't have in place yet. So, they we couldn't actually finish the audit. So, he does have a
small presentation if >> okay >> want to go with that. Thank you, Chris. >> Sounds good. Thank you very much, Bill. Um, so I do want to thank the board for allowing me just a few minutes here tonight to really just provide an update since I was last here in October as to
where we're at with the audit. Got some good news for the entire board. The audit is officially done and issued. The uh federal government once they got back out of shutdown actually issued that compliance supplement. That was one of the pieces we were waiting for. They actually issued that I think the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. So a little
Thanksgiving present for all of us that are auditors. Um really we I think the board materials may have included our our presentation from the past, but really I just wanted to highlight just a couple of things that um part of this presentation is really let you know what changed from
when we were here in October. Um as I mentioned the one big change is everything's done and out the door and issued. So we're done. We met the deadline for the federal single audit. We met the deadline for UFARS. We also met the deadline for getting the financial statements submitted to MDE as
well. So that was all done on time and um completed as we wanted to. Um when we were here in October, we did issue there was we were looking at potentially one material weakness in your in your single audit. Um the district was able to provide additional support for one of
the two items that we had identified as a potential deficiency. So that actually decreased in severity down to what we call a significant deficiency. So actually improved on that. So, I just wanted to let you know of that um kind of that change in that. The other thing I did want to point out as well um as
far as the financial statement results and the numbers that you saw in that presentation, all of those numbers are essentially the same. Um revenues, expenditures, fund balance numbers are all the same in total. There was a reclassification done in two of your
different fund balance categories. So we actually decreased one of the restricted fund balance amounts and increased your unrestricted fund balance. So out of all of the numbers from back in October, that was the only change in any number that was in the financial statements.
Otherwise, total revenues are the same, total expenditures are the same, just a reclassification between fund balance. So other than that, there was no other changes from the presentation that we did back in October. >> Dr. Thompson.
>> I think with that change, our unassigned fund balance is now at $14 million, putting us at about 7% uh of our total expenditures, close to our 10% goal. Uh I think the uh the trigger was at 8 and a half I think is where we uh where we
landed last at the unassigned fund balance policy. Uh so hopefully at the end of our 2025 26 school year, we will be closer to that number. No pressure, Bill.
>> Any other questions? Yeah. Any other questions? >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. Yes. Have a good evening. Thank you. >> All right. With that, uh, I'd entertain a motion to approve the
Well, are we just accepting the audit technically? accepting >> accepting the audit report. >> I'll make a motion to accept. >> All right. There's a motion by director Carbon. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second by director Rikenberger. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of acceptance of the fiscal year 25 audit report. Say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? It is approved. Uh 7 C I I still not sure if I'm clear on this.
Do we have to have a resolution regardless of what we're doing? Just saying that we are >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh because we're eliminating some polling stations anyways, right? >> It's because we have to approve this the
polling stations that we are going to go forward with. So it could stay status quo. It could adjust as you see fit. Uh, last conversation with the multiple different ones, those all seem to get I
I guess my conclusion was that's rejected. So, we brought some more. We could do whatever the board's will is. I would encourage consolidation. Um, so I >> All right. So, we have to the board has
to approve a resolution regarding polling locations for the special election regardless of what we do, but um open it up for what that's going to be. Director Cameron, >> I'd like to make a motion um to approve combination one um four polling
locations that was recommended to us by the city of Lakeville, Scott County, and Dakota County. This is the recommended um action from those groups to the board. >> I'll second it.
>> Give me one second here. Okay. >> Where are the four locations? Can you clarify? I'm just >> Um Yep. It's St. John's Lutheran >> which would have four precincts at it. Trinity Church, which would have one, two, three, four, five. The water treatment facility, one, two, three,
four, five. And Hosana Church, one, two, three, four, five, six. >> All right. So, there's a motion by Director Cameron, seconded by Director Baker, uh, to approve combination one as set forth in the board packet. Um,
>> all right. We'll take discussion on that, Director Thompson. uh these four locations I think does uh move forward to the intent of the consolidation effort. Um all four locations uh currently are in the
northeast of 35W. Uh let me take that back as one of the central location number two which is Trinity Church. So Lakeville South and then the other three locations are all within Lakeville. There are no precincts. There are no polling
locations west of 35W at all. uh and there are no locations uh south of 215th Street uh with this combination. Uh so while the intent of the consolidation is has been has been met, uh I think going
down this path, we are alienating 75% of our population. Let me rephrase that. Not our population because a lot of folks live in Lakeville. It's more more dense there, but 75% of our school district's boundary does not have a
polling location during these offcycle events. They would have to drive to the 25% of our population of of our our of our school district population. And in my mind, that is not uh in the spirit of our school district consolidation
efforts. So I would ask my friends I would ask my fellow board members to pass on this because that is not good. >> I I just want to add something or had a question. Director Cameron, did you say that it was supported by Scott County?
>> Yep. It says it was here. Let me >> because we we received an email from a city council member. Um >> that's not the county. >> Yeah. But city council member I can't remember if he was from Elco. >> It was Elco. >> He is it was Elco. Yeah. and highly opposing it. >> This says, quote, "The election staff
from the school district, the city of Lakeville, Dakota County, and Scott County recommend combination one for the following reasons." And it's, now I'm paraphrasing, operational efficiency, balance voter distribution based on density, cost savings, site capacity,
and voter communication. >> Yeah. So, I just want to share I mean with the rest of the board. I mean the communication was and I had followed up with uh the city council member that you know he thought the voters in Scott County in Elco New Market would feel you know disenfranchised by removing any
polling location or all polling locations rather from Scott County. So just so we're clear on that. Um if the if the voting people who are in charge of that agree with this that's fine but I'm just saying this is what the city council member said. So, Director
Thompson. Oh, sorry. Director Carbone, I think you had first. >> Yeah. And when we had this discussion the last time, I I expressed concern about Scott County and about the fact that um in in the last two elections,
the one last fall, uh the person the third and fourth place people came with a margin or I should say a difference of only 17 votes. uh this past fall I think it was 250 or 300 votes something to that extent. So
again in in my mind when you're talking about thousands of votes that's a very small amount. Um when you when we campaigned last fall and and I know everybody has campaigned on this DAS when you drive down to knock
on doors and to walk neighborhoods in Scott County El Mar. Sorry. Um, Credit River and uh, Elco New Market. The drive that you go down going into
those neighborhoods takes time and there's distance. My concern is that those people there, it could be just enough of those people who don't want to get in the car and drive that far all
the way up into another county to vote. And and like I said, 17 vote margin one time, 250, 300 vote margin the next time. That's enough to change an election. no matter who the candidate is, that's enough to change an election
because somebody didn't want to get out to vote. And and if I can just say one more thing, Brian, um I know I know I know everybody said, "Well, you can mail your vote in. It's not a problem. When you look at people who get mail-in votes, they get the ballot, they look at
each other, and they say, "We have to vote. We have to send this in." They put it in the pile. You know, the pile everybody's got. and three weeks later they forgot to take it out and mail it in. So there's still, even though there's mail-in ballots,
there's still that potential of disenfranchising an entire county. >> Director Thompson. >> Yeah, I I thank you for sharing. And I I understand there's a political lens to this, but at the end of the day, if you are a resident of school district 194
and you're paying taxes for your school district and to send your kids to go to that school, uh I don't think that's fair where if you happen to live outside the 25% where is more more dense that you now have to go further to go vote on
any school related topic. uh if I live in Elco, whether in Credit River, whether down in New Market, like like I they still pay the same amount of taxes. Well, maybe more if their land is more based on square acreage. But, uh again,
the the the lens we got to look at this is that every individual that lives within that 75% of our boundary still pays and still should have an equal voice and vote uh to the things that go on within our school district. And so
when you now eliminate their polling locations and have to have them go elsewhere uh but no one else has to within the 25% of our school district uh boundary. That that doesn't make sense. That that's that's from my perspective. So uh I'd like to amend the motion and
add the following four polling locations. Credit River City Hall, New Market Area Town Hall, Eureka New Market City Hall, and Eureka Town Hall. >> Is there a second to the amendment? I'll second it. >> All right. Any discussion on the amendment,
>> Brian? Oh, Dr. >> Gman, >> I think I'd like to point out that I don't think that the county line should dictate where our polling places are. I think distance to polling places should. So, I
I don't think it's a county issue. I think it's a distance issue. Okay. So I think when I look at Google Maps, when you look at where people used to vote to go to Trinity, it is like two more miles than what a
the northernmost person in our district who lives in Burnsville, which also does not have a polling location, has to drive to Lakeville. So I don't see validity to this. I think um this is again this has been recommended
by election experts in two counties and our in Lakeville City and so I'm about making sure elections are run fairly and um accurately and if this is the recommendation from the experts I I would like to support that. >> All right. Do you have comment on the
amendment director Anderson? >> Um I I don't know if it's on the amendment or the overall I mean I guess it's related to the amendment that I don't think we need those additional polling locations. I feel like this is some what has been conveyed to us is is a resource kind of concern and some of
what's being thrown out I think we could certainly study in the next election like is this impacting voter turnout in certain areas um because we're throwing out a lot of hypotheses about what could happen but that doesn't mean that that's actually going to happen and to me the most important thing is that we make
many opportunities for voting which people can mail in ballots or they can show up to the district office for many days for early voting And I would anticipate that most of those voters come into Lakeville for something during that period of time. So it's not like
we're trying to reduce voting. We're trying to make this a more research or research uh resource efficient kind of process for the staff that cover this. Um so I would be in agreement that we stick with the four. >> I' I'd be more in favor of just one
Scott County location, you know, as opposed to four. Um but have I mean having heard from you know city council member down there I mean I think it's yeah representing a group of citizens I don't think it's should be dismissed as easily. Dr.
Thompson. >> The the reason I suggested four is that combination one. When you look at the precinct locations within our boundaries, you've got one up in Hosana. Then you've got one, you know, a I don't even know I don't know how many miles that is, but it you've got one south of
that in number three at the Lakeville water tower. Then you have one that's on St. John's. And then the fourth one over at Trinity Church. like those all seem to be within very reasonable distance to be driven for those who live in the top right hand quadrant of the boundary. But
if we're talking about distance, you've got folks that are living all the way down in Elco driving all the way up to potentially number two, which is Trinity Church, then then it's not, you know, distance-wise fair. So, I propose the four different locations because the
first one would be over at Credit River on the west side. You've got another one down at mid at New Market which is in the middle. One down at Elco and then the other one would be on the right side which is over in precinct one. That way there's some sort of equilibrium of
distance that folks would need to drive. So that's how I was envisioning why I selected selected those four. >> All right, Dr. >> to the distance point when you look at for example Elco Market City Hall to Trinity it is about seven miles. When
you look at the north burn Burnsville precinct, I forget what it what it was, which is on the west side of 35, that is um 4 and a half miles to Hosana. So, we're talking about Yes, it is farther. It's like three miles farther
for someone in Elco to go vote than someone in Burnsville to go vote. >> And again, this is being recommended and I agree with Director Anderson. we have an we have a or you know we have an opportunity to evaluate this in May right with our levy. Um and so we in a
very short amount of time we could determine if this is a good idea to do the recommendation or to decide you know what looking at the levy results we want to adjust this >> any reinburger. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um
I want to reiterate a couple things um starting from the discussion last week that what started all this is the fact that is a cost issue. the fact that um what prompted this is one of this one of the items about this is that Scott County uses different voting machines
and that the cost of um managing both Scott counties and our our machines are you know at the cost um I'm my personal preference in all this I think you know reducing the number of precincts down
from 20 down to four or five uh make a lot of sense it's easier to manage easier to coordinate Um there is a balance between that kind of that kind of management to be more efficient and more more effective. Um and um the will of the voters and the
franchise, you know, making sure everybody still has their vote and everybody um remains um able to able and accessible for voting. Um I of the of the proposals I've seen so far as far as when I look at the maps as far as I've looked at the uh individual
um uh polling places, this one looks the best at first. Um I still to me it's still the best option so far. I would prefer >> Brian's amendment's the best option. What's that saying? Brian's amendment or the original >> No, no. the uh the Amber's um accommodation. I can see why Dakota
County, Scott, why everybody approved of it. I would still prefer to see another polling place. Um and I would want it um as a a part of the other population center of our of our school district, which would be down by Al New Market. Okay.
>> So, if you would uh if if um Director Thompson would revise his um amendment um to maintain the four uh four precincts in combination one and
uh an additional precinct um location, polling location down in Elco. I think that would solve all of our problems and we come to some level of agreement. >> Combination two. >> Director Thompson Director Reenberger, are you are you
saying uh number two, combination two is your preference over combination one? >> I am looking at the map of combination two and that doesn't quite look right. >> It has three polling locations in Dakota County,
>> right? But um I was >> and one >> So you're thinking a combination of combination one and >> yeah I was thinking more along the lines of uh northern southern um >> breakdown of what was uh down in Alco um
as >> actually at the Algo location is what you're thinking >> right well instead of having it everything west of 35 being as part of the you know credit river alcohol in the I I was a northern southern boundary because that's basically what we're
arguing about. We're arguing about it's seven miles for somebody from way up there to go down to vote down in >> Elco or vice versa. So I would you know the second combination when you look at the map it doesn't quite make sense.
>> There's there's a number one with a circle around it or a what is it? Pentagon was hexagon with six one two three. Yeah. Hexagon. Is that the location that meets your meets your expectations or are you thinking maybe further south? >> Okay. >> Just trying to understand what you're
thinking. >> Just so everybody can understand what I'm talking about here. >> I I think the issue that I have with the Scott County location is what was shared with us by the election judges that they don't have the same equipment anymore and that we would have to take over
responsibility for that. Um, so the reason that I suggested the first one or agreed with Director Cameron's motion is because it has the furthest south polling location that we can have. So it's not as much of a cool,
>> right? It's not as much of a drive. Um, it would be no different than if we put it in the middle and the people from the outside of the Lakeville boundaries drove in. I mean, it's it's the same distance if you're driving all over Lakeville to that. Um, I think I want to
be mindful of the the staff and the um trying to navigate like the different uh machines and what that would do um for navigating that that election. So, >> let's So, we've got the amendment on the
table. We ready to vote on the amendment to the original motion? >> All right, >> yes, Brian's amendment to the original motion. So, >> uh, no, it's actually seven. >> Thought it was eight, but then we had four additional. >> I would add four on the on the left side
that are part >> Oh, yeah. Eight. >> All right. Uh, so all in favor of amending the motion, the original motion to add four additional um voting locations on the west side of 35, say I. I. >> I.
>> All opposed? >> Nay. >> All right, it fails. Um, back to the original motion. Um, I would move to amend the original motion to add the location in Scott County that's on combination two, but keep the
original four locations. They're on Dakota County. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Any discussion, >> Director Thompson? >> Okay, hang on. Just I want to make sure I understand this combination two. Okay.
>> Combination one plus >> combination one >> plus the >> plus the point in combination two. >> Combination two. >> This hexagon one. >> Oh, got it. Got it. >> I'd like to ask why why why just one in that area instead of one further south
to Elco? I mean, what what's your reasoning behind just the one in its location, which is in the New Market area, town hall? >> Cuz it's it's better than none. >> It's better than none. >> Okay.
>> It's a >> I will second that then. It's better than none. >> And that's I mean, we don't want to disenfranchise voters. We want everybody to have their say. Um, we want everybody to be able to uh
contribute. Um, a lot of when you look at the maps, a lot of that is open area. There's not it's it's less sparse in in the the southern precinct, but there is a population center down there that should be considered. And that's what I would say. >> Director Thompson or Director Cameron.
And I think um where this number one spot is, Brian, it it's the same distance that someone like if you're driving from Elco City Hall to this to it's the New Market Town Hall.
It's the same distance that again the northernmost um residents would be driving to Hosana. It's the same distance. I know it looks because it's a the red area is so gigantic, right? But it is it is about five miles for each of them.
So I think it's a great location because it's taking into account where people live and making the voting centers within a reasonable drive. >> Director Thompson, >> Director Reikenberger, would you be opposed to one down in Elco? When I
think about all the people east of 35W, they've got to go all the way up to number uh Trinity Church. I think that was the next location. Would you be opposed to just adding two locations on the west side?
>> Um, you know, okay. Um, what I'm what I'm envisioning and and part of this is we're going to have including another polling place, we're going to have to specify which precincts and what which what are included in there.
I am I am what I'm what I'm looking at is when I look at the map, the southern portion of those two districts could both vote down in Elco. Um so that you don't need to, you know, uh uh go I mean
because that's the argument. It's the distance from the southern polling places into what would be South Lakeville. It's like you know keeping you know the polling places relatively close. We just had a big huge discussion about geographic locations and keeping
things relatively close to where they are locally. Um that's what I would be considering. >> Take the one away, move it further south, and then combine both east and west of 35 precinct to go to that location. >> Yes. >> I think the challenge is that we can
only use existing polling locations. And so if so the question is of the existing polling locations um uh uh which would be number 20 those in number 20 go so if you go to uh page I'm looking at the the
board packet but uh polling location 20 is the Elco New Market City Hall and that's where uh and then polling location number nine is the new market area town hall which is the number one that's on that combination grid. And so when we look at polling number 17, which
is the is on the far right hand side, they don't go to 20. They currently go to Eureka Township. So your two best options really are if you want to help those in the southern half of our boundaries, you either have it at Elco New Market City Hall or you have it on
the far east side on the bottom right hand side, which is precinct 17, the Eureka Town Hall. Those are your two options. And so of the four that I recommended, those were two of the four that I suggested. And the one that Matt recommended is the one out of the four that I recommended as well. So I guess
it's up to you. >> But I would Yeah, I we I don't think we need four. Um, you know, and special elections, you know, that's >> we don't need four on the Northeast either. I mean, >> but that's where the that's where there's way more people. You know, we're
looking at the population centers and we're trying to structure this so that there's roughly, in my opinion, 2,00 to 2,500 people in each individual precinct voting, which would be about 12,500 people, which are roughly what voted this last special election. And that's
my mentality is making and and just to give you an idea as why that number is like important because in presidential election years that's how many people vote in each of these individual polling places >> when we have 20 precincts. >> So you know thinking of it this way if
if if we take you know some of these southern precincts some of these and have them vote at Alco New Market I would be amendable to that. >> Kim just so we're clear is there any issue with um you know cutting We'd have to keep existing precincts,
wouldn't we? >> Uh, but I mean, we could Can we draw the lines wherever we want? >> Well, I don't recommend it. This has really been vetted by population and by their voter turnout. Typically, >> was 18. >> Eureka Township is in Dakota County, so
we can't >> cross Scott and Dakota together. So, when you're talking about if you want to look at combination two, Scott and Dakota, if you're interested in keeping Scott County voters voting, I would look at combination two. I would also know
that not all of these polling locations work for larger numbers and they were specifically vetted to say, not only can that location handle a higher amount, what if it's higher than we think? But we can't go the opposite. There's certain places that won't handle a
larger number. >> Okay, so we know that >> pretty carefully rolled out not by geographic distance only, but by the number in the population, by the number of actual voters that have turned out over the course of the last few years.
>> So you're saying we can't have Dakota County residents from the south side of the map go over to Scott County to vote at Elco Market. >> Correct. So, you're either looking at like the combination two that had Scott County separate, >> which I recommend going to New Market
Town Hall, not City Hall, um, for various reasons and keeping the other ones together as three other locations. We've put together multiple locations. You can pick any of them from the past that also had Scott County
separated if you were looking for more. >> Okay? But both of these account for locations that handle the crowd of people that we hope will come and either offering Scott County separate or together. But >> so I think we're back at the or my
original amendment then which would be the combination of combination one plus the additional polling location from combination two in Scott County. >> Which one was that? which
>> it's the one that's in precinct 19 right now. >> So, combination, >> if you're looking at combination two at L1, the little one marker, >> yeah, >> we're essentially adding the additional Dakota or Dakota County location,
>> Lakeville location, >> but we can't. >> No, no, no. Because combination 2 only has three polling locations in >> Yeah. So, No, no, it only has three in um in Lakeville. >> Looking at combination one, right? We
can pull Scott County into Dakota County because then they could program the election. We can't pull Dakota County into Scott County. >> Yeah. >> So that's why combination two works if
you want to keep Scott County separate. So I want the three lo or the four locations from combination one to remain the same and then adding in the Scott County location from combination two. >> So having only Lakeville South and as
one and the three >> Scott County ones. So creating five >> what one Scott County? Yeah. Five locations. >> Yep. Except in combination one combined precinct two. Right. That's the Trinity Church location. That's the one we're trying to add right to to option two.
Yep. >> You would have to remove precincts 19, 20, and 18 would go to Scott. So that would only leave precinct 4 and three, which is like a thousand people voting at Trinity Church, right?
feel like these plans were thought through in terms of the numbers and the locations and like I I mean if there's if there's compromise to be had on the on this board the combination two is a is a fair compromise in my mind.
>> I would withdraw my motion and amend it to combination two then. >> Okay. >> Wait. It's the the motion is currently combination one. >> Uh >> so that would have >> well an amendment to Yeah. That's it's >> we vote that >> this is correct. Let me uh yeah, we'd have to we'd have to reject combination
the first vote instead of just changing it completely. So, all right, let's vote on the amendment to the combination one. Um just to clear that. All right. >> Thought you withdrew it. >> Yeah. I mean, we can vote it down.
>> So, because there's been a second and it's been up for discussion, so it's on the table. >> You have more comments? Before we vote it down, let me rephrase that. Are we in alignment that we're going to vote it down? Because I don't want to like be bamboo. I don't want to say I don't like
are we in alignment to voting it down and going with combination two? Is there is there a general consensus that people like combination two? >> This is just the amendment. So, and then we have to vote on combination one. >> I Yes. >> before. So, >> I will only say that I would prefer
combination one based on all of the information that we have received from Kim Ellson and the Dakota County Elections um >> person who is here with us. But if the if we're not going to get that through
um then combination two is what makes the most sense as a compromise for the board. So, Matt, are you withdrawing or are you not withdrawing? >> Uh, well, it's up for vote already because >> there's been a second. And so, yeah. So,
there being no more discussion, voting on the amendment to the original motion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All oppose say no. >> No. >> No. >> All right. So, we're back to the original motion for combination one. If
there's no more discussion on that, um >> I do. >> Um and since we're gonna I guess we haven't coupled it, we'll have to follow up with a vote on the resolution too separate. >> Matt, >> yeah, Director Thompson,
>> I'd like to amend that motion to add uh Northcross Church and keep Trinity Church, which is one at the South High School. North is at the North High School and then eliminate the other three so that we only have two polling locations.
>> One at North and one at South then it's fair. >> Both in Lakeville. >> Both what? >> Both in Lakeville. >> Both in Lakeville. >> Both in Lakeville. >> You're just making a huge argument earlier. So I'm just clarifying your position. >> I want one at north and one at south and
then we're good. >> All right. The motions better. Is there a second to the motion? >> I second it. >> All right, there's a second. Any discussion on the motion? >> That is fair equally across the board. Everyone has to drive. >> All right, Director Rekenberger.
>> Yeah. Um 6,000 people showing up on election day, which is a lot of people showing up at one spot to vote and spending a lot of time in line waiting to cast their ballot. >> Director Carbone. >> Yeah, I'm Brian. I'm confused. Did we
Did you just go north of the Mason Dixon line? >> The The reason I flipped I don't say flip. The reason I am in I'm in I am in favor of this is that the current combination has all four locations in Lakeville in up on the top right quadrant at Lakeville scattered with
zero down in the bottom of our boundaries. And so if that's the case that because I think Director Anderson and others are in favor of combination two, I think the most appropriate thing to do is have one at North High School, one at South High School, easier communications. Um it's in Dakota County
and we'll have to figure out the manpower and how to make it work. >> Yeah, they're not at the high school. They're at the two churches next to their high school. >> All right. Um, all in favor of the amendment say I.
>> I. >> All opposed. No. >> No. >> All right. Back to the original motion. Um, Kim, I'm going to combine this. I mean, this is going to be the vote on the resolution. Well, I guess I guess it wasn't phrased that way, but we'll have to come back. So, and add it.
>> Once you decide on one, then I make that exhibit A for your resolution, and I can do that tomorrow. you'll just say that that motion once it's passed will be what is considered exhibit A on the resolution. >> So we we technically have a formal resolution that's part of the board
packet and then this would be exhibit A to the resolution if approved. Um are you guys fine with me merging that in as part of the vote so we don't have to vote on it again? >> But what about my motion? We have not voted on my motion. >> That's what we're voting on right now. >> Okay. Yes. All right. So, combination
one, uh, as part of the resolution combining polling locations, uh, and going with combination one because it's a resolution, we'll take a vote, uh, a roll call vote on it. Miss Alison point information. >> Yeah, please before you go, Cam, hold
on. >> We're voting on combination one and the four. >> No, just combination. Combination on combination one just on one combination >> which is the four up in the northeast of Lakeville. >> Correct. That's what we're voting on. >> Correct. That's what's on the table now.
Right. Correct. >> It's not in the northeast of Lakeville. It's in it's in whatever the geographic area is. It's four up in in the Lakeville. Okay. Got it. >> Four in Lakeville. Prosper. >> We're just talking different words, but
it's the same thing. >> All right. >> All right. >> All right. On combination one, Matt Swanson, >> no. >> Brian Thompson, >> no. >> Tony Reichenberger, >> yes. >> Carly Anderson, >> yes. >> Paul Carbone, >> no. >> Amber Cameron,
>> yes. >> Kim Baker, >> yes. >> And the resolution is approved. >> All right. Uh, last 7D resolution relating to authorizing the issuance of school building bonds and calling an election. Um,
Superintendent Bowman, did you have We do have the resolution in our board packet. >> Yeah. >> Um, I did have >> a comment or question. >> Okay. >> On the language. Um, >> sorry.
I can pull right back here. Waiting for the chair to get the right document up. All right. Um, so there's a resolution relating to authorizing the issuance of school building bonds and calling an election. Uh, did we need to approve the language
that's actually going to be in the on the ballot right now? Was that part of the discussion? >> It's on page four. >> It's on page four of the resolution. Do you want me to read it out loud? Well, I guess my question um should we be removing the acquisition
language? Provide funds for the acquisition and betterment of school sites. >> Funds for for the acquisition and betterment of the school sites. That's Are you thinking that's land? That's not land. >> I mean, that's what it sounds like to me
when I read it. >> No. So it's what it's saying is be authorized to issue its general obligation school building bonds in an amount not to exceed 139,600,000 to provide funds for the acquisition and betterment of school sites and act and
and facilities. Um >> because if it were just 139,600,000 to provide funds for the betterment of school sites and facilities including the construction equipment. >> I see I I see your point there. Um, I >> just don't want to confuse our voters
that we're buying any land, right, for school sites. >> We are not purchasing any land. Um, >> I don't know if we can strike that. Um, because we are not doing any acquisition. Um, let I I would I would say strike
that language um for the purposes of the vote. Um, and we can make sure the ballot question gets adjusted. >> Okay. Any other comments on the resolution by anyone?
>> Anyone have any issues with striking the acquisition language from the proposed ballot language? All right. Otherwise, I would uh move to approve the resolution uh with the removal of the acquisition language from the ballot question. Uh,
is there a second? >> A second. >> Second by Director Anderson. Uh, any discussion on the matter? >> Again, because it's a resolution, if there's no discussion, I'd call for a roll call vote.
>> Kim Baker, >> yes. >> Amber Cameron, >> yes. Paul Carbone, >> yes. >> Reber, >> yes. >> Carly Anderson, >> yes. >> Ryan Thompson, >> yes. >> Matt Swanson, >> yes. All right, it's approved.
Move to adjurnn. >> Yeah. Yes. So moved. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed?