all right gav before I start talking right good evening I will now call the February 20th 2025 special meeting of the minona school board to order let's stand and say the Pledge to the flag to the flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible Li and Justice uh may I have a motion to approve the agenda so move may I have a second second any discussion changes
additions hearing none all those in favor please say I I any opposed motion passes we have an agenda first item on that agenda is the approval of Delton Avenue property
purchase superintendent law chair Leo hin members of the board one of the priorities that came out of our facility task force that we'll be talking about in the study session tonight was whenever possible the district should consider purchases of land adjacent to our property for the purpose of meeting
the needs and recommendations of the task force ironically during the time that the task force is considering property came available right next to minona high school on Delton Avenue that is very advantageous for us for a variety of potential future needs tonight Mr bis
Executive Director of Finance and operations is going to discuss the purchase of that property and make a recommendation for board approval thank you superintendent law Mr chair and members of the board um the 184 7 Delton Avenue property uh was uh
offered to us uh we negotiated with the owner uh we've been had our eyes on it for a while um but uh they were ready to sell and uh so we negotiated a price of $365,000 uh plus up to $5,000 of site and home cleanup uh the um uh objective
if uh you prove the the acquisition of this property is that we will immediately start working on um clearing the site uh well once we take possession we'll take possession on April 30th giving the owner time to move and relocate um and uh but we will
immediately start working on uh getting the site ready and then trying to construct a few extra parking spots on the site we figure we can get about 20 to 22 sites on the spot about the same size as the parking lot that we built on the uh the lot that was just adjacent to that we purchased four or five years ago
and with parking at a premium uh those extra spots will be very welcome so uh thank you for considering uh the approval of the purchase of this property thank you Mr Bourgeois any questions or discussion uh don't see any questions
I'll just make the comment that I do think we have uh for years had the view that our property is being landlock it's advantageous to uh add to that property whenever we can without breaking the bank or within market so um we have a
motion in a second all those in favor please say I no we don't have a motion may have a motion so moved thank you Chris may have a second second Dan now no further discussion all those in favor please say
I I I I any opposed motion carries thank you all right may I have motion to adjourn to study session so move uh second cry Chris all those in favor
please say I hi any oppos all right motion passes we're adjourned e e e e e
e e e e e good evening welcome to the February 20th 2025 minetonka School Board study session we will get started our first
item on the agenda is the facilities Task Force update superintendent law chair Leo Helen members of the board this is the third month on a rooll the school board has been reviewing the facility task force recommendations a month ago in January we had the meeting
where Executive Director of Finance and operations Paul BW shared pictures and prices of all the projects that were identified as top priority by the task force the board gave some feedback and our commitment at that meeting was to conduct another Community survey about
specifically the projects and the community support for various potential price points the first item on the agenda tonight is a remote presentation from Peter Leatherman of Morris Leatherman surveys sharing the results of a survey that was given in our
community between January 21st and February 5th to about 600 residents on the various aspects of that facility project he is presenting remote Mr Leatherman all right everybody got
me all right and let's make sure the technology still works and share the entire screen share and then the PowerPoint is it up for everybody Peter yes it is thank you all right perfect well it's a pleasure to be here virtually with you
this evening uh to go over the results uh to go to the methodology we spoke with 625 randomly selected residents across the community uh the projectability of uh 625 is always plus or minus 4% in 95 out of 100 cases the
margin of error is determined by the size of the random sample not the percent of the population so uh for those that are curious a 625 in motanka 625 in henpen county or across the state will always be plus or minus 4% interviews were conducted between
January 23rd and February 5th average interview time was 9 Minutes nonresponse rate was 6% uh and I'll put up some demographics where you just see the profile of who Took the survey uh 55% were cell phone only households uh 10%
landline only households and then the remaining 35% had both landlines and cell phones continuing with the demographics um we first ask how long has the uh respondent lived in the school district you can see you have 36%
that have been in the district for 10 years or less while 34% have been in the district for over 20 years a typical resident has lived in the community for about 14 years 15 % indicate they have a
preschool child 30% have a schoolage child and then 68% are empty nesters and once again empty nester does not imply an age it's lack of presence of a child so we could have a 24 yearold uh in the sample without a child they're
classified as an empty nester so approximately seven out of 10 would be um non constituents shall we say of the school districts and it services 177% are renters 35% own homes under
450,000 while almost a majority own homes over 450,000 uh Republicans outnumber Democrats by seven uh by four points with 20% independent uh women outnumbered Men by 4% um the key factor in school districts
over the past two election Cycles in 23 and 24 have been the macroeconomic ICS um of the household um the financially stressed in minaka even in last summer survey that we did um was lower than what we were finding across the state
and it continues to be uh the norm right now uh in this first quarter of 25 is about 45% indicating they're financially stressed um you're about 10 points lower at 36% it's it really is an important distinction um that that 10 points is
help the higher that number goes um what it creates in school districts is more people that would support they simply can't afford to support um so you're in a better position than the vast majority of school districts across Minnesota the
cavad on this is we're still higher than we were before the pandemic back in the good old year of 2019 uh we had about 25% financially stressed so we're still a little bit higher but it's in a much better position for the macroeconomics
of the household um and then finally the age of the respondent we had 211% at 18 to 34 while 37% are over the age of 55 a typical resident comes in at about 48 years old and then you can see the
geographic distribution 37% in the city of minaka 41% in Eden Prairie shwood Victoria and Chanhassen and then the remaining 23% in the other uh uh cities in the school district um any questions on methodology or demographics before I
get into the survey results all good so far so good okay excellent all right so some atmospherics that we rechecked uh for the district we didn't do as many of those uh key atmospherics that we did in the summer survey but we
wanted to check in on a few um the big question on the quality of education at the outset um you can see that we're at 91% favorable excellent and good 8% only fair or poor um so that 91% this this
has been dropping across the state uh we're at about a norm of 80% right now um and so it's you're you're 10 points higher than the norm and then but what differentiates school district is the excellent rating um you can see you've
had the drop every District's had it uh since the um you basically since the pandemic um you're at 37% rating the district excellent on the quality of Education uh stable from 24 uh for a comparison though the norm
excellent rating has dropped to 11% so you're almost four times the norm on the excellent rating overall much better shape um than the vast majority of school districts um what's the most serious issue facing the district once again this is open-ended they can tell
us anything and we collapse it down into categories uh you only have three that hit double digits you don't have anything at the 25 30 35% level uh which would be a significant concern uh the three that hit uh double digits lack of
funding at 16% high taxes which we're going to go into more depth uh in a little bit and then uh large class size is at 133% uh then we have a series of things in single digits lack of discipline staff shortage uh down the list um but
at the bottom it really is a key indicator uh the nothings they're different than unsure these are boosters um they see no issues with the district they rate the quality high they Rate Financial Management High um at 23% is
among the highest we have over the past couple years the the norm on the the nothing in school districts in Minnesota has dropped down to about 6% so you're four times the norm on that some specific perceptions that we've rechecked
now first off does the district spend taxpayers money effectively in efficiently basically unchanged from 24 um we have 75% agreeing with that statement the norm on that right now was 58% um and this you could see the drop
from 20 three and then also on the next question does the district ask ask for a tax increase only as a last resort a drop uh to 71% this is the impact of taxes that we're going to see in a few slides do
they trust you to do what's right for the children absolutely almost nine out of 10 do you do a good job of involving the community 81% unchanged from last summer and this is really an important question in life of all the work that the
facilities uh uh committee has done um that people do feel that they can have a say uh that 81% is about 10 points higher than the norm of 69% right now so it's really important that the community feels that if they can have a say uh the
district will listen are they satisfied with this this decision making that's up 6 points to 82% um and then the bottom question on this is really an important question um when you're looking at potential funding
requests we ask folks the schools are a good investment and would you support a property tax increase to protect that investment the key on that question is the disagreement those are the core no
and you can see an increase from last summer we're up to 32% uh right about the norm that we're seeing right now you were very low in 24 in school districts um but once again You' got this big Spotlight coming up on
the slide for the tax perception of taxes in place um and so that's the core opposition at the outset and once again we haven't told folks if it's an operating Levy a bond referendum if it's $5 a month or $5 a year um they're just
against a property tax increase at this point so it it does show some caution uh for plan uh for a funding request an overall assessment of financial management uh 66% favorable 32% unfavorable Norm on
that right now is about 52% so on some of those key factors that we look at the the quality of Education the financial management the decision making all of those of the districts in a very good position for a funding
request there would be no show why I call them symbolic no votes uh potential relating to the school district is the district adequately funded this question is changing in
25 um were you had a 5% increase which is on the edge of statistical significance last summer you had 47% agree with that statement you now have a majority agreeing with that statement at 52% um and part of it is you know it's
the political uh discussion that's happened a lot of discussion of what St Paul has done over the past couple uh banian budgets um that have impacted people's perception but what also has impacted people's perception is taxes
and now keep in mind that not everybody is aware that taxes are split between the city the county and the school district um but do they think that their taxes are high average or low the dark green is their perception of total
taxes the light green is their perception of school taxes you have 70% indicating that their taxes are high and that's a 16% increase from last Summer's survey on the school taxes it's
62% and that's a 10-point increase um this question is tax hostility it started to grow two years ago uh when people the assessment of people's homes increased and they didn't
realize that was going to impact taxes and now we're seeing it since November 15th when people got their tax statements uh for fiscal year 2025 um what cities and Counties have done have impacted people's perceptions and you can see it's actually impacted
perceptions of the school district um and spending uh only asking as a last resort because a lot of people aren't differentiating they just see their tax bill go up um so this is a cautionary note and every district has it right now
um the impact of what cities and Counties have done you know the good news this chart tells us is they're not blaming the school district because their perception of total taxes is higher than the perception of school taxes that's the good news the bad news
is you're pretty much the only show in town that people get to vote yes or no on a property tax increase for How do they rate the buildings and Facilities um this is unchanged from the summer um they think that the question
is do the buildings and Facilities meet the needs of educating today's children um it's a soft yes we have 84% saying yes only 133% saying no so a discussion on facilities in the school district um
you know the discussion is not they think the facilities are terrible um it they think they're good but how are these improvements going to make them go from yes to strong yes um and then linking them back to what they value that we know from last summer surveys uh
is specifically looking at programming and curriculum and those offerings that would be available uh with additional improvements to those facilities um this is sad for the facilities committee um we we ask folks
are they following the discussion only 5% are following those discussions very closely 40% somewhat and 59% say not really or not at all um so I think it is important in communication and discussion as you
start to formulate what the plan is um to put out there that this really did come from the community and the discussions and the work that was done by the facilities committee if they heard there's a
property tax increase are they for all are they against all or are they persuadable um you start out in a very good position where we have 30% saying they're for all 26% against all it's a plus
four um meaning you have more support than opposition um the clients we worked with over the last two election Cycles um if they were successful the typical uh District was minus three which means they had 3% core opposition position
than core support so it's a good place to be at the outset people are inclined even with concerns on taxes the key is obviously going to be the 44% that are persuadable um uh on this question honor Let's Make a Deal
question if they heard the district's asking for a property tax increase um what's a reasonable amount at the outset not knowing the specific uses well first off 30% say nothing um and so that is under the threshold of
35% we have 12% at $4 177% at 8 21 at 12 and then 13 at 16 or higher um the typical resident comes in right at about the $10 a month Mark at the outset now this it is important on the
specifics of what is being asked for which is why we go through this list and break this out and as do you support a property tax increase for each of these eight purposes um what leads the list leads the list in every District right
now and that's Safety and Security and that is not a discussion we don't ask your a question in your survey we ask it in numerous surveys does the district provide a safe and secure learning environment 90% of people will support it do you support a property tax
increase for Safety and Security 80% will support it we're in a POS position with Safety and Security that folks you can never be too safe they are willing to invest in it and you have that with 81% um there's a typo on this slide it
is middle school science labs at 66% in second position expanding K cafeterias and kitchens 61 modern flexible learning spaces 65 Middle School shared spaces 62 indoor athletic facilities 59 breakout
learning spaces 6 2 and new gym space 58 as a whole there's nothing that I would say is a red flag that if it was on the package um it would potentially hurt the potential passage of the package um that
would be something that has 40% support 60% opposition um so all the components um are supported it comes down to the tax increase and the what we asked on the survey itself um was $142
million Bond referendum they were told on a $500,000 home it would be $9 a month on a $600,000 home it would be $11 a month so it's right in that $10 a month on the average home it's right in
The Sweet Spot and you can see we do have 64% support 34% oppos uh keeping in mind that you had that core opposition that you know we had 30% say nothing um the specifics of it um did not grow the
opposition um they went into support we follow up with folks and ask uh the reason for their position 24% said the cost is reasonable 177% say education is needed 12% each said the changes were
the improvements were needed or they had children in the district um not surprising at this point over the the course of a campaign if the district does move forward um the discussion of need will be The Driver um especially in an off-ear election where what will
bring people to the polls is the funding request from the school district um nobody wakes up on Election Day and says the cost is reasonable I have to go vote Yes they get up to vote if it's needed uh on the flip side where's the
opposition coming from their taxes are already too high um and then 10% saying they have no children poor spending the cost of the package is too high and 4% not needed we did test um a few
arguments in support and opposition um what led the list is the time uh question uh statement and the specific wording was the last time the school district requested a voter approved bond to enhance facilities was
in 1996 almost 30 years ago 36% said much more likely potential impact of 71% what's in second is it is important to provide all students in the district similar facilities programs and amenities 68% potential impact many of
the athletic facilities such as the wrestling room and gymnasium space gymnastics space were built between 40 and 70 years ago 33% much more likely 65% potential impact the purpose of the
bond referendum is not to provide more space but to maximize the quality of space for residents and students 60% potential impact and interestingly um the competitive um it has similar impact but it's it's it's not very powerful and
overall it is not a powerful message motans are very parochial um this is our school district we do what we do to point to other districts they dismiss that that's that's their culture um so the the statement to remain competitive
with neighboring school districts we need to continue to offer facilities and amenities attractive to students and their parents uh comes in at the bottom of the list if we look at specifically the persuadables that we saw earlier in the survey the most important um
arguments that's they say that makes them much more likely to support are the time arguments the last time was 96 and the 40 to 70 years ago on the athletic uh uh facilities the other arguments
basically operate in a vacuum um you already support it might make you support a little more intensely on the opposition side um not surprisingly what leads the
list is uh the inflation with inflation and the cost of living increasing many cannot afford a property tax increase 64% say it makes them somewhat uh more likely to oppose um followed by local
property taxes are going up too quickly homeowners just can't afford additional taxes for Education the budget cuts facing the district not as impactful um and that statement is the school district is facing budget cuts in its operating
budget now is not the time to invest in building and facilities and then finally the state legislature argument the state legislature increased funding during the last few years so local taxpayers do not need to provide increased funding uh only
47% so at the end of the day the key Arguments for facilities are the time frame arguments the uh the key arguments that would be against the facilities uh referendum um would be the macro level
and that's what's impacted school districts last year 41% of school districts were successful um in their uh funding request and so most of those districts that failed they failed because of inflation the cost of living
and property taxes and it had very little to do with the specifics of what was being asked so I will stop the share and I'm happy to answer any questions you have thank you um anyone the board have
any questions for our guests um I have a question I was assuming this based on reading the last couple slides the reasons to support and reasons and opposition are those bifurcated meaning only the people who said they were opposed or likely to oppose answer the reasons and opposition
no every everybody was asked and so that's why like on those arguments the competitive it is an effective argument for a supporter so so it does strengthen support it's those persuadables that are
going to be the key in any election and so that's what we're looking for you know basically what happens is you at the end of the day when they hear the specifics they hear the dollar amount the core opposition is the core opposition and it grew very little based
on the specifics of the plan Peter Peter you surveyed 142 million if if you were looking at this information and the board was looking for advice on 142 million would you be supportive of pushing this out the data would indicate that you
could do it um I understand that there's discussion on scaling it back um in this environment I don't think it's a bad idea um the key number I I you know on the bond the $142 million Bond
referendum we had 64% support um I always at this point want that number to be above 60 and the reason for that is this is what I call a pristine environment there's been no
campaign there's been no vote no there's been very limited discussion what we typically see from a survey that is done in the first part of the year and they go on the ballot in November if I have 10 clients two will run an
outstanding vote Yes campaign um because it's not only an information campaign it's a get out the vote effort they will maintain or go higher than that 64% but the other eight school districts
if I'm looking at the data will drop by about eight points and that's why the 60% threat threshold is so important the the I do support I think to scale back because of
the factor of taxes um and what's happened in the cities in the counties um many people are left with the only option to help mitigate a tax increase is to vote no on
a funding request from the school so that is a dynamic in play over the last two years that you know this is my 31st year of doing this um that was not in play more than two years ago um so I I
think the the facilities committee came up with a good package um they the components that we tested are supported it is within the range of where the the level is comfortable where folks are comfortable
um but you do have the macro level issues you know maybe the economy is going to get better but I don't know if we can count on property tax hostility getting any better um Peter just a quick question
I'm trying to get to the slide um I I I agree with you from that standpoint but if we were to look at phasing this in you know I do agree that the the facilities task force put a good plan together and as we look at scaled back
versions this board or future boards may want to look two years four years down the road and one of the I forget one of the slides was like uh reasons to support was the last time was in 1996 and that was our
highest um it's hard to project what two years or four years from now that you know the prevailing winds of uh property tax and all of those things but you know wouldn't that say that we should go for more now or or versus trying to piece
this out over you know a longer piece of time it it it really I the older I get the more conservative I I become on this issue um it really it becomes you know a question do you risk the
whole um do you want something or nothing that you kind you kind of have to weigh it out um I I mean like I said I the district has 64% at this point the
tax amount the the increase we tested matches up where the tolerance is it's a good plan um it's trying to project out nine months from now where people are going to be at um because over the course of
the campaign September October cities and counties are going to be setting tax levies and that's going to then be in the paper it happened in Rochester this year um where the city increased the levy and that became an
issue for the school district um and they basically had to Bell the Cat on it um with with the city um that you know don't hold us hostage because they did this we have to
do this so we're closing schools um you know I would say that if you do scale it back those needs aren't going to go away that were identified from the facilities committee so what happened if I think if I go back and think to 2008
200920 you know leading into the recession the first couple years of the recession I basically what districts were able to pass at that point were for facilities were absolute half to Haves and the nice to haves were
tabled but they were tabled in a narrative so the community it wasn't that the book was closed in communication you set up the chapters to the book we're going to do this now um these needs aren't going to go away but
because of the current state back then of the economy um we're going to wait a few years so I would you you know I it it's kind of the you know are you a poker player or not on this one uh with factors that are out of your
control thank you yeah thanks it's a great answer any other questions thank you very much Mr Wonderful have a good night everyone thank you very much all right before we move on to the next
part of the facility Task Force update I've been reminded that I missed the opportunity to mention that we passed the time for citizen input we didn't have anybody who signed up to give citizen input is there anyone else who wanted to address the board uh in a matter of concern seeing none we will
continue on with the facilities Task Force update superintendent law chair Leo howerin members of the board um after the last board study session in January and feedback from the board and
um awareness of the fact that we need to keep an option open to generate funds for operations Mr bis um went back to the drawing board with the recommendations of the community task force and came up with another option that will be closely aligned to what we
just heard from Mr Leatherman about being sensitive to tax impact so tonight he'll be sharing options can see now option A you never saw that was 192 million um and that was priced out by the uh Benchmark surveys option b was
what you heard initially this is our third run at meeting the recommendations of the taxk force but really being sensitive to the impact in the community Mr bis thank you we just try to tie everything into what I call
better I just don't want to swallow it the lights on so okay um anyway and so kind of related to that I brought out some slides that I've used in the past piloting the super tanker because we we we when you you make a lot of decisions
that you don't even see uh the impact of until or the results of until 12 months 18 months later setting a budget where do we end up with the at the year end um do doing an enrollment uh number are we going to make it are we
going to hit the cap are we going to exceed the the Des desired Cap all that kind of stuff so we have to have to use a little bit of radar and look over the horizon and for 18 years we were sailing in pretty pretty open waters you know uh but but the last several years our Waters have been getting a little bit
tighter uh this is the uh boser straight and uh busiest in the world after the Mala straight out in Indonesia all the stuff from China comes to the rest of the world but uh you know you have to be very careful in terms of how you're
navigating so I'm showing here you know we we have the the impact of the legislature or the non impact of the legislature right if they do nothing or if they if we have we haven't had success in getting our operating referendum cap increased student needs taxpayers all could consider ents well
and this is the tightest point in the hosper straight it's a 45 de angle we're approaching that angle and and for us it's the operating referendum and we've been talking about that since 2017 and at the time we said we need to change it we need to get it increased by 2023 so
that we could do an increase and have it continue on without any Interruption and we're at the point where we're actually uh going through the interruption in essence of not being able to have enough revenue and so we're doing $5 million of budget reductions operating referendum
cap increase for this District in the long term that's the ball game that's the ball game and if we do get get lucky if we roll yatsi at the legislature yet this year and we we roll uh you know Roy yatsi and we get A500 or $600 amount or
$700 amount we could use all of that per pupil uh referendum increase the impact of an operating referendum is going to have on property taxes is going to be uh probably in the 78 or9 million per year range and what we're looking at here in
this is it's going to have a net impact of about a $1.8 million uh in terms of this option so uh you as it's a strategic calculation that you have to make we need to keep we need to keep our options open uh as as Peter letherman
said there's been a little bit of a you know property tax you know push back people are feeling a little squeezed in that regard not necessarily because of what we've been doing but because of what I'm just going to use the term the government we're all part of the government and we we're the only place that they can say no so I just borrowed
a a line from uh Reverend Jim Price from back in my Rochester days he uh he was a the first uh minority Schoolboard member on the board and uh Baptist uh Rochester Baptist Church uh Minister and uh Jim Reverend Jim would sound a lot like
Martin Luther King But he sounded actually deeper like Barry White but uh he uh always brought us back if the school board was getting into an issue and they were kind of going around and kind of nibbling on the edges or going off on tangents he'd really just kind of sit back and and he'd put his hand up
and say Mr chair we need to make the main thing the main thing and it just would make sense and he'd bring everything back and he'd Center it so in that regard which project can have the most impact on instruction and student learning while we leas capacity for
future operating referendum and still try to be respect not that we're not but I mean but being having it back in the back of our minds always being respectful to the taxpayers of the district who are you know providing the resources for for what we do so these projects are kind of s uh winnowed out
from the ones that have the most direct impact on student learning uh the total estimated cost is about $83 million and the Epic security system about2 million so $85 million and it would be 80,500 squ ft of new construction and 32,500
feet of heavy renovation that's a lot and I I I've said this to superintendent law just kind of as we have a property tax base of for about 7,000 students but we're supporting 11,200 right um but at a 7,000 student District in that regard
our um you look at us compared to oio this would be like 85 million would be like a 245 million or $255 million bond for AIO or for an NOA which is five times our size it' be like a 425 million I mean so 85 million in this district is
a big lift it's a big dollar amount so um again we we just kind of looked in also identifying these also where where have we done prior Investments you know we built $12 million of additions and we put steady long-term maintenance into all of our
buildings uh but uh what what have we done uh before we got to this point in time and you can see what I used is is the facility study that we did in 2020 I used the maximum capacity numbers from that study because the operational capacity of a building can change depending on what programs we're
operating and how many what how much class how many class size you know what we want our class size to be and uh uh so it can kind of fluctuate around but the the study maximum is just a fixed amount that we never go up to it but it just G gives us something to measure
against for this purpose and you can see that we we uh did did uh pretty you know pretty significant investments in most of our schools deep Haven at the elementary level has gotten the Le amount of investment and then the two middle schools which is not surprising uh they you know as they were mentioned
a lot uh with the facility task force and then so the new construction just in total dollar amounts the high school's gotten a as it should the line share so to speak about $39 million now included in that is that building next door which is about 20 million but that's part of the high
school um and then uh uh the the elementary schools in terms of having additions uh and uh again deep Haven and the two middle schools had the least amount of new construction expenditures and then just for the sake of the of closing the loop here long-term facility
maintenance this is more kind of even across the board which it should be um and uh bigger amounts at the middle schools and and the most amount at the high school and of course the bigger the bigger schools have a more uh larger dollar amount so this is a uh proposal
for uh hard to read but these are the the items that go into this proposal or this option I should say um and so most of these have not changed from what you saw in the last one uh so I'm not going to get into a lot of detail on all these
again but this is at the middle school middle school lease we'd be still be looking at doing the uh the the Bus Loop which is one of the things if if we do nothing and then we have we still have to find a way to fund that thing because the traffic is so bad um but also then
uh doing uh purpose built science rooms to provide additional or you know better learning experience for the science uh program and then a fourth gym station uh f for fied to be able to take it out of the so we' be going
from the fourth gym St being this in the storage closet here to actually here and then a performance venue adjacent to it and the same thing you'll see at is going to be at West so this is kind of zeros in again uh into the sections and showing where we would put things and
what things would look like the other thing that we would be doing though it's a little bit grainy but uh this is a a picture of the Loft because we would be converting um this area of the media center adjacent to the media center because we can move the science rooms around and we're keeping a couple of the
science rooms that were converted but we are uh would convert into kind of collaborative space a loft style space and then we would also be doing some uh some small group Flex Flex rooms uh in oh that's a better picture um in in the
uh uh area where we were take that had been some of the smaller science rooms that we converted that would be able to have been moved into the other the the new construction and then uh again here's the gymnasium area and we're looking at um you know the little better picture getting an idea of the type of
seating that would be on the uh uh the uh stack bleacher it's bleacher seating but it's not bleachers it's actually seats with with cloth cushions it just have flip up on them and that's what it would look like so we're still spending about $28.7
million proposed to be at at minona Middle School East Middle School West identical except flip-flopped and a little bit of a Twist because of the layout of the site and the location of the water tower um but we would be doing uh additional science
uh rooms and the uh gymnasium and performance venue uh and we would also be doing Flex space in the middle um and it's not showing we should have a bubble up on the uh up on the media center at the top we would be doing the flex Bas there also so uh again just to give you
idea what what it might look like and uh the same bleacher seats so we have our location on the site from a 3D perspective and this would be about 23.4 million the biggest difference between the two is because of the uh need for the additional bus carral and helic and
the cost of that and just a few images again that you saw last time of the uh middle midd school gym and performance venue uh there'd be a it's a little bit hard to see but the the performance venue can actually be walled off so you can actually have uh activities going on
in the performance venue in the stage area uh while there's still things going on in the gymnasium uh that's what it looks like at full at full uh extension uh 750 seats and then um again just a
view from the top and so I said that's Bob Dillan there getting ready to he's warming up for a show uh and then we just added some images where we actually took the actual layout in uh pictures from the uh this is from Middle School East but we cleared out some of stuff digitally uh but it gives you an idea of
what it would look like as we turn that uh the spaces to the east windows to the outside and um um and basically some glass wall partitions very much like The Loft at the high school but uh those would actually open up so you could actually have a large
group activity or some type of Collaborative Learning going on in there but if you actually then needed to actually open it up to the media center you could become one big large space so just another little um little bit closer zoom in on that that image sorry so then
we're back at deaven again and um at Deep Haven looking at a gymnasium sliding the playground out uh with a retaining wall and uh doing the same uh the same uh small group rooms so just kind of clicking through
here and um we're at about a $12 million cost at that site uh at Clear Springs Elementary uh their their two primary things actually on the list were uh staff restrooms and staff restrooms are actually in all the
all the buildings uh and then small group spaces so this is a a small group space uh their third thing was a motor room uh we're actually looking at an option that we might be able to put a small a small addition on the motor room this summer actually and meet that need without having to do a big addition out
the back but this is so it's a much more cost effective but still meeting the needs because they they asked for additional uh small group spaces and so that's what we're providing and it's the same number of small group spaces in compared to Prior options um just kind of zooming in there
so about $1.3 million cost there excelia Elementary School uh as opposed to pulling an addition out the front we're looking at putting the small small group spaces out the back and reconfiguring that area uh it's a a little more uh the construction is actually going to be
less expensive for those small group rooms and again none of this prohibits as as superintendent law or and um member palian mentioned it's like if something's not in here it doesn't mean it can't ever be done it it it could be part of a part of a plan part of an
ongoing plan so we we we U again putting these these additional small group rooms we trying to get it at least a half a dozen small group rooms at every building and that's to be about 1.3 million there at grovelin uh we're doing small group
rooms but it looks a little bit unique because to do the small group rooms um uh in that it's it actually makes sense to push a classroom out and put the small group rooms at that area because there's shorter small group rooms mainly on that side there's a lot more small group rooms on the kind of The West Wing
area and so we would still look at doing the um music room but not and and leaving the two large classrooms where they are that were near the music room that we're going to get relocated we would still build the additional hallway circulation uh under this
proposal and uh so that's kind of what it would look like a little bit closer in uh because they they're talking about because of the shape of the building uh the congestion at at uh recess time and at lunchtime this would still allow for that kind of circulation to take classes
or put traffic away from from the uh um the lunchroom area so just kind of zooming in so that's about oops sorry that's about a 38 million um cost estimate and then over at minowa this is kind of into
that Equity of of facility thing minowa had their their current Media Center which is the uh shown as like small group space right here it's about 2,000 square feet and for all the other schools that have about 900 students in them uh which is Gro and uh cic Heights
and Clear Springs their their media centers are anywhere from about 3700 ft to 4,000 and so this is actually the grovelin footprint added onto the north uh and uh it's about 4,000 square F feet but then we would put the the uh small group rooms in the courtyard which is
actually a little bit more efficient construction and we can actually fit a few more in there but that would then just leave the existing uh Media Center we wouldn't have to do anything to it but they would have like a a large group instruction space kind of as a as a byproduct of that so um just kind of zooming in on on
where we would be doing work there and then that would be actually about 6 million because the media center is about a $4.4 million cost and then at Scenic heits uh they asked for for staff restrooms and uh small group rooms and on the prior prior
proposal we showed putting a music moving a music room out and then converting a music room in this situation rather than we leave the music room where it is their second music room and we put it and we just put these small group rooms in the courtyard so it's a a little more cost effective but
we're getting six music rooms and and additional staff restrooms and so that's about a 1.1 million cost a very efficient place to to put things together at the high school we are are then we would be looking at just concentrating on uh actually literally
the the the uh the the the number one on the on the list when we went through there with with the principle was to be able to have the council area renovated and updated uh and uh then we cafeteria space making that larger and an additional serving line so that they
could students have a little more time and a little bit of more flexibility to get through uh that's an operational issue during the day we note on there a couple of future places where there's spaces for some small additions if we come in under budget uh if we get about $25 million do under budget it'd be possible to put a mini Loft in the lower
leand corner we come in5 or $6 million under budget on all our projects we might be able to put another um couple of larger Loft spaces uh in that other future spot uh so there's um there's always things that we can do um and uh
so that's where we're looking at um again the renovation and cafeteria so again we're focusing on mainly things that directly serve students um in terms of instruction and in terms of better operations during the school day to
assist in in instruction and in the operation of the school so um but that's still it's about a $5.6 million investment in in high school so total project cost with the Epic security system the Epic system is still about $5 million but um at $85 million uh I've
calculated out that we will be able to get additional interest earnings of at least $3 million to cover the rest of the Epic security system so we would be able to put that into the other schools and so if you look at the earnings interest earnings on top of that there's another $3 million that would go into
the security system um to make sure it's it's deployed across the whole District so if you look at the list the prioritization list um all the items in green are what's included uh the in in
this particular option again the U you know one of the things that um principal Ericson asked about with Loft St spaces was he'd like to be able to get his Loft back um and that might be something that can be done depending on if they make programmatic issues of do they really
need recurrent uh space that is used for the physical health center for fiet or not um It's relatively lightly used so uh you know but that was one where it'd be a no cost option uh but all all the other items that are on the list the other uh 10 or
so items on the list those are the ones that make the difference between 142 million and 85 million and uh so those would be things that could be run as a u uh as a as a follow-on you know bond issue at a
future point in time if you're looking at this as kind of more strategic but these are the things that would support uh support instruction you know we've talked about with our long-term facility maintenance and what we've done is trying to prepare for 2070 2075 you know 50 years out and so these are things
that with the way we are looking at right now would go a long way way towards continuing to to improve that support go ahead uh what did the numbers represent like 2.8 versus 1.7 it's it's
weighted ranking oh okay so what happened is everybody on the task force was asked to rate them as three2 or one and that's where they came out at um so again you saw this chart and again just the the uh tax base uh 71% is
residential homesteaded and uh another 18 19% is uh residential non-homestead which is our uh um either people with quotequote cabins on the lake but for here it's it's more um snowbirds so they're residents of other places most
of the year and then they're up here for 5 months of the year but very little commercial industrial but what we're able to do is in terms of tax impact the other thing is is in in working with with um be it's like leaving leaving some tax capacity
the $142 million bond issue if you recall that had an escalating payment we had issue so much debt at one time and the payment escalated over time and that and that just held the tax impact to 7% by itself on the on the levy for next
year okay this is a 2.64% next tax impact uh for year one and so if we a year from now if we have to do an operating referendum we haven't hit everybody with a s or 8% increase for 142 million and then come back with A8 or 9% increase on an operating
referendum this is a much more modest level and so it kind of gives you a little more flexibility in terms of asking for that that other big ass that we really really really really need but the other thing about it is is is this also leaves some ability then as opposed
to have the the debt payments escalating it it actually gives us the ability to layer in other debt so if we do a bond issue two or three or four years out for additional additional facilities you can layer it in and get to that first waterfall and layer it in behind and get to that
second waterfall just like we've done um with you know the the salmon collar here for this particular $85 million Bond bond issue so it it leaves you flexibility for the future but making a significant impact right now so the
difference in $85 million is uh $4.99 for the medium home price the uh net net new Levy is about is 1.8 million like I said if we have to run an operating referendum it's going to be four or five times that that we would be asking for all at one time because we
need that money all that money every year versus a bond issue um so it' be a 2.64% increase for on this coming F year the uh other blue line is that's the actual average home price in the district the average home price would be
paying 8.41 per month $100 $11 per year $500,000 home would be paying about $60 a year about u in $4.99 a month so putting this against the uh um the
survey these are slides out of the raw survey data and it shows you how who's willing to pay and so you can you can see that um if we're looking at $5 per month on the median um $5 per month is
is uh is basically 34s of the 12% uh that are in that that $122 per month range so the the difference between that and $8 a month so we got five five n% there 177% are willing to pay
$8 uh 21% are willing to pay uh 12 and then 73 and three so 60% of the people are willing to pay at least $5 per month and again if if you look at that again I kind of describe it below three4 of the of the 12% difference is uh actually
between eight and four between 8 and $4 levels it's 9% that's how you get it so 51% if you add all those up above that from from the 33721 17 that's that's that gets you to 51 and then another nine gets you to 60%
so 60% of the surve of survey respondents are willing to pay $5 per or more per month uh again the median home price of $500,000 so uh basically 48% of the survey respondents so this is survey respondents so there might be a little
different difference between that but that's the median but 48% of the people will be will pay $5 or less so of the people who are saying hey I'm not willing to pay more than $5 or or paying $4 uh 48% of those you know there's they're going to be paying a
significantly smaller amount than that $5 mon amount per month um if you look at that 400,000 is paying 390 per month 4676 and uh 300,000 is paying $2 per month
so just a current well as of June 30th of year yearend uh closings these are school districts around us that have uh outstanding bonds and uh and our long-term bonds as of June 30th 2024 in terms of power value was 177 million if
we would go ahead with this $85 million uh it will get us up to about 248 uh, or $248 million I make a note of the long-term facility maintenance plan we still have to continue doing that um actually 1990
in 1996 bonds are actually paid off on February 1st 20126 that's the bonds from the last uh bond issue that we ran for building Bond purposes everything we've done since then has been for operating referendum and capital project referendum this is if we layer in the um
uh the current 10year long-term facility maintenance plan uh and then if if I can time that right I might even be able to have it actually drop a little bit the second second year uh and kind of space that a little bit more but the point is is so we we we jump up there but compared to the 142 million where we
were doing a three trones and having to add on debt for three years and it kept going up to 298 million it stays at that 200 just under 250 and starts going down so this is our construction schedule for these projects you recall last time or under option b the
construction schedule is almost four years long uh this is basically a a more a tighter construction schedule so everything would be done by January of uh of I'm Sorry by June of 2028 so um
uh yeah uh so basically two and a half year construction schedule um from the point of of approval in in December of this year in theory basically You' go all of 26 all of 27 and then by June of 28 so 2 and A2 years everything would be
completed uh that's just how the schedule lays out it's the next two is hard to read but uh you got to blow it up even on your computer so but it just shows you how we would be running those out so if you look at the projects for future consideration the other projects
identified by the facilities pass Task Force form the nucleus of a long range plan uh the other thing about it is is you can we if we get some if we get a drop in interest rates we have the ability to restructure some bonds and we might be able to have a future building Bond referendum but we can start
shipping away at some of the ones that might be a a closer priority utilizing lease Levy and operating Capital funds uh there's also some opportunities with some uh like we did once before with Community Education where we can use Community Education funds get some uh
special dispensation from the legislature and and and invest that back into the community ed program so uh and the other thing is if projects bids an actual construction cost on the core projects coming under the C estimate um we could look at okay what's next on the list and add some additional things in
because you were you you you word the question to be uh for the acquisition and betterment of facilities including and you list out some of the projects that's the way that the question reads so you leave yourself that flexibility uh so just excellent how
excellence in how we live when I say we that includes the community so modest tax impact is respectful to the taxpayers um we're working on trying to provide better service to students in many ways excellence in how we lead leaving leaving some capacity for future
operating referendum leaving capacity for future building Bond issues if necessary or if needed um and these are strategic improvements in facilities excellence in how we learn the spaces will be designed for instruction and provide you know we've got a good environment this helps to optimize it
even more in terms of optimizing the learning environment for student learning better than being in hallways or storage closets purpose-built science labs and the uh again the purpose built spaces will facilitate learning by providing for you know optimal learning conditions across the district so that's
another proposal for you to consider and good luck with your deliberations thank you Mr Bourgeois um board members any questions comments from Mr Bourgeois or each
other Megan um I actually just had a question uh I had a Community member Reach Out out and ask about the bus Corral at um mme and I didn't know the answer uh there was some concern about uh reducing the Green Space there on the
fields because different sports use them and whether or not it would still be a hill like it is currently or if it would be like a retaining wall um and then if it was a retaining wall would kids crash into it or if it was a hill would it be
not usable cuz it on a slope and so I just wanted to clarification on that uh we would basically have a it would be a retain uh because if it was a hill you'd make much more of the space on you um you know um we have baseball fences
and things like that that you have around and you're going in for a lip in a gymnasium and you stop beforeall you know so it's really not much different than that but the the criticalness of the of the bus Corral is really there's not a lot of options for making the
traffic better it's in a perfect world we'd have another and we'd buy the whole cesac next door and put the bus over there you know but 10 houses are you know probably a million and a half a piece so yeah
it's we're we're cursed with small sites but we have to make do the best we would make sure that all the baseball dime the current baseball diamond would move over and you know yeah that's the best we I wasn't yeah I was not saying that we shouldn't do it I just wanted to get
clarification because that question did come up um and it's always a cost benefit analysis right like it does the getting the traffic out of the neighborhoods which is one of the huge complaints that we hear is kind of traffic in those neighborhoods and if that is helped by this then it probably
is worth the benefit so thank you Dan uh thank you Paul thank you again and thank you for all the additional work that this has seen since Tuesday CU we talk we talked about this we had a finance committee on Tuesday morning and
it was not our best attended because the windchill was 40 below and we had a two-hour late start so uh but we did have some parents there giving input on this and this has been tweaked even since Tuesday to reflect you know building parody across the elementary
school level and um I really think I think slid 62 with the the net tax capacity over time is really the most important slide in this presentation um and that was persuasive to the folks in the finance committee
because having having the drop off and having more tax capacity in the future allows us to do an operating referendum for operating expenses and were we to ask for too much then we'd be tapped out tax-wise as a community and wouldn't be
able to go back to the well again so I think the the consensus in in the room was that this might hit kind of a sweet spot for what we're able to do thank you yeah let me Echo uh those comments
because I know this has been a lot of work it was a lot of work when the facilities task force was doing it and they spent a lot of time and hours and uh I hope that those members our of our community realize how important we still feel work was it's not that we're chipping away at the priorities they've
identified it's that I think we are all struggling with um how to how to how to make that turn through the straight right we we need enough enough capacity to hopefully someday address our
operations and uh my personal qualms are more of the fact that I I like I love a lot of the projects in this study but I think in my heart of hearts i' rather have the operations money first I just can't get it
so um but um Chris yeah well well said uh everybody um my question is maybe a little bit of uh timing because as you said let's make the main thing the main thing the main thing is the operating referendum that is the most important
thing that we can that we can do to impact students uh it's not buildings it's not gyms it's not parking caral the the priority is is the op in my opinion is the operating referendum and so you
know the timing of this at at any size I I still think you you know like chair uh Leo howerin said was you know we want to have that first and so let's say something happens this legislative
session and we I think we need to move forward with this and because there is a long period of time that we talked about before getting this through to get it through the state and these are all priority projects right I mean um you said it very well is
all of these things are priorities and and U do we need to do it now do we need to do it four years from now uh or or in the future so like when would we know the timing of those things and could pull this back if because or would we run both or you know I asked a lot of
stuff there sorry I think I can make it simpler um the board has until August to decide to put this on the ballot and we should know by August if we have the ability to do operating Levy or what that would be um nothing about approving this for review and comment commits you
to having to put it on the ballot you just have it available and you have it available probably for over a year I um so we your decision points will be you know what do we know in June and what do we know in August June hope hope we know from the legislative session hopefully
in August uh we know a total package can we do an operating piece with this or can we do nothing do we wait a year so that that would be my question for the board is with what you know now are you in a position where on March 13th we
could redo this presentation publicly and approve it for review and comment or is there something else you need to know because we also have we can go until the second the study session in March but based on what we have today it aligns with what Peter Letterman said it is
scaled back it keeps keeps room open for an operating Levy is there anything else you need or do you want to talk about it again at our first meeting I I know I'd be confident bringing this up at the March 13th meeting I think we've had like a lot of
really thoughtful presentations like going through all the iterations of this and it's gone through it's gone through the finance committee numerous times every iteration as well so I think it's really thoughtfully done I think it's in a good place to pass on to the state to
sign off and I think Peter's point that he made earlier tonight is really well taken that if we do see ourselves wanting to do like a second tranch of projects down the road build that into our storytelling while we're pitching this to the community to say you know these are the things we really need to
do now but we could make these improvements to to make the experience for our kids even better a few years down the road I can't say this enough two things that I want the public to hear we can't currently ask for any additional support for operations based on statute so
people would say why you're talking about buildings if you need operations we every Avenue we have to generate funds whether it be local optional revenue or voter approved operating Levy those are set and capped at the state we've been advocating to to lift those
for almost a decade in the meantime we're considering these facilities you can't use facilities money for operations or vice versa so these are distinct funds um and sending it for review and comment is not the same as preparing to run a vote it just sets us
up to have the ability to make that decision a later time Megan uh I was going to Echo some of that I think um I there are some things I like about this option versus the last
one um um I really like that it prioritizes the buildings that haven't seen the ongoing since the last building I mean the middle schools have come up repeatedly as a high need and I think that this plan still respects that um I
would not want to remove it from the table right now as an option you know I like if if we didn't push this forward into review and comment then we don't have the choice to do it if we go forward with it then we still have those decision points like you were saying so
I think this does a good job of kind of um weighing that balance of the must haves versus just the nice to haves and it doesn't eliminate the nice to haves down the road or when there's extra savings but it does prioritize I think
really well and that's why I asked what the numbers were because it did it it kept in all those top ranked ones from the task force and um so I appreciate the work you did on it and it does feel like it kind of strikes the right balance am I ready to say like let's go
for the referendum right no because we just don't know like we don't know enough right now but like like I said I just I wouldn't want to remove the option Sally so I have a question about submitting for uh review and comment to the state I seem to recall from a prior
discussion that we said we could ask for a higher amount obviously and then choose whether or not that's what we go for in a referendum is there any downside to asking the state for a greater amount actually
um um did some followup work that was what that was what the as aspiration was but in looking at the what was needed and then getting the updated version of um the um Manual of what they want
they're they want us to actually have the question and provide that and they want us to provide the list of projects because and it makes sense when you think about it because they get these things all time and they don't want to spend time saying oh this is all great all great and none of it happens and or
or it's not going to happen they look at what is being intended and they want and the commissioner needs to give his voice on that so we don't have the option of um for lack of a better term doing like a setting in a menu which a buffet menu
um so we have to send in the specific thank you yeah I think my concerns are uh really in what's going to happen between now and August right I mean there's a lot of uncertainty in the economy in the world economy what's going to happen to steel
prices and construction prices I'm not expecting them to go down so you know I think I think we need to put something out for uh notice comment with a sort of understanding among ourselves and in a story to our community that this is
still something we are are actively looking at we will be going to the community to get feedback for because we need to um we need to make sure that we are always being careful with the Public's money and you know we don't
have the ability to just tax them we only get to ask them but we want to make sure that we're asking them from a position of strength where we said we've looked at every option we've looked at this very carefully and this is what we'd like to do and in in also in the estimates that we have we've aggressed the
say aggressive modestly aggressive but we've anticipated construction costs going up about 5% a year and and the average bid date is actually in late 26 so we've got about 18 months of inflation on average we'll we'll hit a few bids before that we'll hit a few
bids after that but uh so we do have inflation built in because we're anticipating exactly what yep any other questions or coming we will plan to bring this back March 13th for a similar presentation and a board approval to send to review and
comment thank you thank you okay uh we'll move on in the agenda we the next item on the agenda is policy review superintendent law chair L hin members of the board tonight we'll be reviewing two policies related to crisis
and safety there are two driving factors for this policy change one our previous policies became outdated with language and and the types of things that people were concerned about with school district safety in the uh early 2000s and two there were some statutory
changes in uh 2023 and that are coming into place so tonight uh Executive Director of Human Resources and legal council Angie flowers will be reviewing these two policies and cleaning up um what we have in policy that is related to how we respond to crisis and
emergencies Miss flowers thank you superintendent law good evening Mr chair and members of the board is this working yeah okay all right um so what you what you have before you I'll start with policy
803 The Warning Systems and emergency planning so most most of what you see here are housekeeping changes to align language with our current practices our security coordinator Scott gerlier and
Dr Jackie Getty executive director of communications put a lot of work into these policies so I just want to acknowledge them for their for their work on that um so the recommendations made by our security coordinator are reflected here and these changes are in
accordance with that so the first change that you'll see is literally starting with the title we change plans to planning because it's not a static process and you'll see that we've updated the words plan in the b in the body of the
policy to to reflect that it's our procedures if you look at under Provisions specifically emergency response procedures um if you drop down to letter B we added inclement weather and uni re unification to the list since
those are matters that fall under this policy and which we have prepared for so just a lot of cleanup language on procedures throughout on that first piece immediately below if you look at letter C you'll notice changes for where the
procedures can be found we now have emergency procedures guideline booklets available in every building and we lastly Redline the procedures listed because it will be dependent on the issue and the buildings all have the procedures if you go to page
two you'll see that we State Building level procedures must be aligned with District emergency response procedures for instance our high school um may have additional procedures than other buildings because their needs and student needs would be different um and
just with building as we're looking at the planning and design of building the way that you keep kids safe and have those procedures would just be different so this is again just ensuring that they're in alignment with District procedures our security coordinator reviews those with the building and the
principles just to make sure that even if they're additional that there everything is still in alignment and consistent below that in letters d and e we updated language to show that students will get relevant information and parents will be notified of Safety
and Security efforts via various forms of communication and lastly in provision five emergency procedures we added our new security and Emergency Management coordinator and we struck out the specific language listed for security
purposes and the expectations for communication are spelled out again in our procedures so most of our data will live in the procedures any questions no all right thank you moving on to policy
806 there's a few more changes in this one similar to policy 803 a fair amount of language cleanup beginning with a title we added emergency to it so that it now reach crisis and Emergency Management a more accurate description of what this
policy is the changes under the purpose reflect that this policy is guidance and not a stepbystep outline of procedures you'll also see that it's more specific that planning is done
with school leaders so we can ensure plans are suitable for that their particular schools just like in the previous policy the general information section letter A again emphasizes building level needs and consistency with the overall
District procedures it also notes our commitment to train staff annually about crisis and Emergency Management procedures next if you turn to B one the revisions State we will work to keep students safe in all situation instead
of only stating certain evacuation situations the other changes reflect that work with building leaders and consistency across the district along with working with special education leaders to determine what needs to be done to keep all children safe including
those with different abilities and more to um below that at the bottom of page two if you look in subsection 1 a top of Page Three bottom of page two we updated our language to show lock
down hold and secure along with the definitions of those terms um that is the language that is recommended by experts and that is the current language that we are using you'll note that a hold is defined a as a situation that doesn't arise to
the level of a lockdown but student and staff stay in place such as a medical emergency a secures an external threat so doors are locked and a lockdown is a significant threat within the building it's important that everyone understands
the language incl including our community in the next paragraph the language regarding special education and student safety was deleted because we addressed it earlier with the policy for our natural disasters
procedures that's on page three letter C the language was stricken because the announcements regarding Sheltering in place those may come in a variety of ways just depending on the situation and for school emergency response teams item two the expectation
is that everyone knows their roles and who to contact so that those were what those revisions were about um moving on to page four if you look at paragraph B right above preparation before an
emergency in that same section we clarified that the security and emergency coordinator is the main contact since that is a recently new position and preparation before emergency has some more Language clean
up ensuring that our staff uh staff communication is occurring below that in A2 more language cleanup still ensuring that parents are aware of this policy and that students are given specific instruction for
drills below that in facility diagrams and site procedures we specify that there will be site emergency procedure booklets at each building and page five letter C emergency contact information we already State we will
have telephone numbers for local agencies and it'll be updated annually so we're no longer listing them out um or it might or it will require an annual update to this policy as those change moving on to page six early
School closure procedures letter e we communicate via phone and text and so that language was added versus I believe the radio other ways that we were doing so that's how most people are receiving
their communication so we try multiple methods and we struck out media procedures because we we have a very talented Communications Department that works closely with emergency security coordinator the superintendent and
serves on that crisis and emergency team so we're confident with the things put into place uh for the grief counseling and the sample procedure section that follow on to the next page we already have processes for those in place and don't
have them listed out here because again it allows a flexibility and we would not attach those procedures to a policy for safety reasons and those are all the changes for 806 any questions I don't see anyone any
questions oh Chris just a quick one on communication I think you talked about um and and I think we talked about it before so I might be repeating but how important the hold lockdown and secure things are for people and I know we had
some of that in the high school and I'm pretty sure we talked about it but like with this policy and the communication that comes out like I'm all for the policy it's more of like how do we communicate some of that stuff out or principal is going to start adding that
in that kind of thing good news when we did our winter weather update this year we defined all of those things in a letter to all parents so they knew the difference of each of these things we'll do that on an annual basis so people know it but we we have defined this for all of our parents
about what each of these things mean means um at the request of parents and listing sessions and uh they parents all have it but we'll continue to do that annually and I'll I'll just add that we've noticed parents actually using the
language so it's catching on great anything else thank you and everyone else who worked on all these revisions it looks like a lot it work thank you okay moving along to the next item
is of Self Insurance Fund proposed rates I'm back welcome back we missed you this is a little bit quicker than the last one okay um of course last year we had a uh a tough year in terms of our rate
setting and we had to do a 19.8% we were having some heavy claims um a lot of serious claims Cancers and other things um so but just a a quick synopsis of where we've been at our average prior to this coming year through fiscal 25 we
even with our large increase we have had a um 4.1% average uh in premium increases per year and you know you can see there's some some years or with a small group you're you're going to have spikes like that um but
um this is um those those same numbers versus the the trend uh in U in a given year the health insurance trend of of the the nation as a whole in the uh medical world they call inflation Trend
so um it sounds kind of cooler um but if you this is if you took our uh premium increases in along the that's the blue line and then taking the trend and using the beginning year of our health insurance fund as on an index basis as as 100 so it's like with
inflation and they use a CPI they're still going back as 1984 is 100 we have for here we have 2002 fiscal 2002 is our first year um that's 100 but if we had not made any changes and we or we were uh getting sick and incurring claims
like the rest of the country we our our premiums would be much higher than than they are so we're up you know on a on a on an index basis about 246 versus 711 so we've been doing pretty well in that regard and Self insurance has been a benefit to the
district the purpose of this slide is to show um that uh through fiscal year 24 and we're right about there for fiscal 25 but uh the main thing is is the black bar and the green bar our our year current year Well 24 in the prior year
but we have people who come to work for for us and they stay and of course as we all gain in wisdom we also gain in the need for a little bit of uh uh maintenance uh so we are uh um we have we have a lot of people on the on the right side of the compared to the
average group of business so that makes us a little a little more expensive but this was last year um just a couple of things that we we really having hard time with and again cancer was the one where we were so far above that black line compared to the Orange Line we were we had some some
cases and those are expensive cases I mean in some respects that's the main reason for having having a health insurance it's not to pay for every you know bottle of aspirin or or every single shot you get necessarily but uh it's to make sure that if you have something really bad happen to you that
it doesn't wipe you out um doesn't wipe out your your family so um again some more stuff from last year just to show so this this next slide is um just it's historical all the way back to 20 3 this is our cash
balance that we operate on to to pay our claims in cashes King you need a lot there's a lot of throughput every month in in claims several million dollars so you don't want to have your cash cash down at $2 million level or $3 million level because you might have some months where your claims would come in higher than that and you wouldn't be able to
pay them so you need to operate with a pretty hefty cash balance for S insurance so at the end of fiscal 24 we're at about $8.7 Million worth of cash that's about 40% of the total expenditures for the year and that's
that's about as you know kind of we want to be on the low end or that's the low end of where we want to be so but we were in good shape in that regard and then um the uh uh this is actually then on uh a cash basis our revenues coming in and
how much we had either in terms of surplus or deficit in red and uh we again we had a couple of bad years we had some three really good years where we actually had $5.6 million in Sur pluses but we had about $4 million of deficits and uh following that kind of
the follow on to co where everybody started going again to the doctor and uh some things that might have gotten worse because they waited uh so we um uh had about $4 million of of uh of deficits for those two years and and we couldn't really continue on and have that pattern
go on for a third year so was another reason why we needed the 19.8% increase uh we finished our fund balance at the end of the year this is with the in R of about $2 million $ 2.74 million for what something called claims incurred but not
reported uh that's for a self-insurance fund if if you're ever going to for lack of a better term decide you're we're going to not being self-insured and we're going to like go out of the business and just buy it on the open market like everybody else um you have to have enough money to pay for the
claims that are incurred and still ongoing after you would like close the door so to speak so that's why this this uh acrel fund balances lower than that 8.7 million but these are still still healthy uh acrel fund balances also so
for FY 26 uh we're doing better FY 25 it looks to be break even that we're back to break even so the 19.8% was the right move as hard as it was uh for fiscal 26 uh coming up the the trend inflation rate uh per seagull
uh Trend data they are are professional firm that does that for the industry medical is looking on a national level at at doing going at 7.9% and Pharmacy which is prescriptions at 11.4% um we have a we have a big bump
bump in uh the uh GP weight loss not the glp diabetes but glp weight loss um but uh and and basically if we went at the the way we actually do the uh that the actuaries do the uh projecting for what
our rate should be is they take 20% of the pharmacy is about 20% of our cost and medical is about 80% of our cost so if you put those two waiting together it we would be at 8.6% for a medical increase if we were going at the
national Trend but we've had some of our our serious cases settle one way or the other we're going back kind of to our normal pattern for some of those other years so um you can see that at the bottom the actuaries recommended 5.25% for fiscal year 26 and then Dental uh
the trend is 4.5% and uh they recommended 3.28% we did have our meeting on Monday or sorry Tuesday of the um of the self- insurance committee and uh it was a unanimous vote 11 11 in favor of setting
our rates for next year at 5.25% and 3.28 so that's what we'll be bringing forward on March 13th for your approval because you are the trustees of the self insur so yeah we're we're back to getting through some Rough Waters and
it's Steady As She Goes so to speak thank you questions comments Mike all right we'll look forward to seeing that at the uh March meeting okay thank you let me shut this down and get
out of here all right uh okay next item is the review and proposal for a job embedded professional learning days superintendent law Mr chair members of the board um giving some background data on this topic menona used to provide late starts
and early releases as a way to do staff development through the Innovation process and with with the uh react legislation setting requirements for hours of required staff development the board approved uh full day staff development that was placed in the
calendar in the spring leading into the 200 uh 232 24 school year and then again last spring for 2425 the calendar that this board approved a year ago for 2526 still had late starts and early
releases we are making the shift tonight to change those to full days of staff development and later this spring when we make a recommendation for calendar all calendars moving forward will include full days rather the night starts and early releases tonight
associate superintendent Dr Amo and director of teacher development Sarah white will be providing a summary of our staff development and recommended days for the next school year Dr Leo thank you superintendent law Mr chair members
of the board uh we're happy to be here tonight with this opportunity to sh share the successes from our professional development during this current school year as well as the pro priorities and proposals for the 2526
school year are we working yet see if we can get it going well if the screen was working you'd see on the screen the beliefs that we have around professional learning so we'll see if we can pull those up otherwise I can highlight them
briefly oh it's coming you want to take a two-minute board bio break here and come back when settled uh sure we're not going to formally adjourn the board meeting but we we'll take a little break to get
the for members listening to the community we're taking a two-minute break as we're getting this presentation set up for board members to uh take a bio break e sorry for the members of the public
watching we're going to resume the board meeting okay well on the screen you will see the beliefs that we have around professional learning when creating our opportunities uh for professional learning days this year these beliefs
really guided our practice and our plans this year our professional learning focused on key priorities based on both legislation and Schoolboard goals and the assessment practices and Designs support both our mtss processes and
responses as well as instructional practices to support middle school programming so as you are aware all teachers responsible for reading instruction participate in professional learning experiences
customized from inat tanka um by core learning you'll hear additional details about this intensive work later this spring secondary classroom teachers and Elementary Specialists had a combination of common learning and learning specific
to their levels and to um their roles uh front of the district and assessment expert Nicole dimit worked with Educators on both August 26 and November 1 to connect the work of the PLC with our work with
mtss Tyler mberg empowered Educators with tools to harness AI on January 6th specific to the Middle School um and to support middle school programming Educators at this level participated in the learning that's on the screen uh the
warm demander in middle school which is developmental relationships and action engaging the Middle School learner and then uh tier one instructional moves for the Middle School learner they also had time to reflect on the middle level review and plan
forward um you'll see that at the high school there was um a more concentrated uh focus on artificial intelligence of course our high school students are intrigued and are actually really just looking for guidance uh so they spent a considerable amount of time
throughout the course of the three days um looking at how artificial intelligence can support the work of the teachers and how that might influence the work with students they also um really focused on their developmental
relationship survey data analysis and response Educators responsible for social emotional social and emotional learning participated in learning designed to support them in expanding their skills in supporting the social emotional and behavioral needs of the
students that they serve special education director shanana Ley um different differentiated learning for itinerant and other special education teachers with unique and sometimes individual roles um our deaf and heart of hearing teacher um our
blind en Vision teacher um occupational therapists adaptive PE teacher teachers so really focusing on learning that is specific to their jobs that will support them in their work curriculum director Steve urbansky
collaborated with Elementary specialist Department chairs to identify professional learning specific to their positions um examples of the topics explored during these days also are on the screen and finally Health Services director Annie bar Benson created
learning opportunities for nurses connected to early Warning Systems culturally responsive practices and school nurse specific learning okay um at the conclusion of the January 6th professional learning day Educators
completed an exit ticket survey that reflected back on 2425 and reflected for Ward to 2025 26 when asked to identify highlights of the year three main themes emerged the first is that teachers really
appreciated the opportunity to collaborate and work with their grade level or same subject colleagues from across the district embedded time with their plc's to process and apply their learning was effective second Educators appreciated
both the effectiveness and relevance of the learning the instructors both internal teacher leaders and administrators and external Consultants were regarded as engaging and knowledgeable finally Educators appreciated that the learning was
specialized and comprehensive so looking ahead to 252 six um as Sarah shared we asked teachers several questions as a part of that exit survey in January and as you know
historically and as superintendent law stated we had two late starts and two early releases um that was the professional learning that we provided staff on an annual basis um and that pilot has been very
successful and so we asked our staff what were their thoughts about moving forward and what we heard from them was that they strongly prefer those full days of professional learning to the
late starts and early releases and anytime you informally engage our teachers or our professional staff with you know what makes learning optimal it's really about being Focus focused and having the time if they were gearing
Up For Students or thinking about wrapping up their day and making sure students got where they needed to go it took away from their learning they also really appreciated how strategic we were in when we offered professional learning
and we'll hear a little bit more about that in addition to our teachers though strongly preferring it 100% of our administrators said full days much more beneficial and much more productive great use of teacher time and staff time
overall as we look at uh priorities for 25 26 we again will want them to be aligned to our district goals state requirements student needs and the priorities that our Educators have
identified and identified through the survey again that we gave them so on the screen are the needs that teachers identified as well as the needs that our administrators identified and we'll talk a little bit about those on the next
slide so here is teacher ranking of that professional learning and social emotional and behavioral learning practices and strategies were their top priority followed by curriculum implementation and this is one that we've talked extensively about because
it's really that time to collaborate both as we're seeing changes and both in what we teach but also in our students and how they're receiving their learning uh student engagement in instructional strategies or student
engagement instructional strategies so how can we make sure that our students are having the best opportunity in their learning and then finally uh closely behind was culturally responsive practices our administrators identified
several of the same areas tier one instruction extension and intervention and that certainly ties to our teachers engaging instructional practices um social emotional and behavioral learning practices and
strategies literacy instruction or disciplinary literacy high priority area and then again culturally responsive practices so as superintendent law stated at the beginning um we have a
proposal about how we should move forward and we do think we're at a point and we've received enough feedback to say it's time to permanently eliminate those late starts and early releases we'd like to see uh professional
learning full days incorporated into the calendar as a regular practice we'd like to designate up to three days each year knowing that you know right now we have sign ific needs we're seeing significant changes both through
legislation uh we're seeing the standards are up for renewal in every content area uh either in recent years or in upcoming years and we know that we have a lot of work to do toward our board goals but there may be years that
we think one or two days is the right number and so just leaving that door open um and so for the 25 26 school year though as we spoke with principles as we spoke with teachers we feel that the 3 days is still needed particularly as we
look at some of the initiatives literacy probably being in front of mind so as we look to identify where those professional learning day should sit we really look at where are those best options where can we create um time
frames that work best for all of our stakeholders and I'll talk a little bit more about that but as we do that we also look at balancing days in the quarter in the semester um and looking at the number of disrupted weeks in a month is it
familyfriendly can we minimize our staff that are gone because if we make it too familyfriendly many of our staff also have families um and then we looked to our different stakeholder groups to see what was most appealing to them and what made sense so as we looked at that we
asked our teaching and learning advisor that's made up of parents students teachers and administrators and we've had a great parent turnout so we felt good about getting that feedback um and you can see some of the dates April 7th is the date right after spring break
that Monday after winter break and the day after mea were the most popular for that group principles and administrators uh looked at that's a hard one to see that Monday right after winter break as well as uh Monday March
9th looking at after uh conference day most teachers aren't gone and traveling or doing other things um we then also asked our teacher leadership the MTA leadership team um and they do a group
that has representatives from every school that uh Sarah was able to meet with and talk with they also liked that Monday after mea the Monday after winter break as their t picks with Monday November 10th as their third
choice and then we had a chance to ask the PTO PTA leaders and again they looked at those breaks mea uh they looked at the semester break and they looked at the day after spring break and so as you look at the top
preferences of each of those groups uh not one date made the top three choice for all stakeholder groups um we we also have really looked at while we put out the days where you know we can create those longer weekends or
those opportunities we also know that one of the priorities for us is to frontload in that first half of the year so that teachers can do the learning that's needed and then carry that into practice during a large portion of the
year that all being said um we should also tell you that in that same exit Sur surve on January 6 we asked Educators about where to place professional learning during Workshop week and while there were two distinctly popular areas
one was at least 50% more popular and that was the Monday August 25th so that's our first recommendation our second recommendation wasn't on the list it's November 6th which is the Thursday before the end of
the first quarter teachers have a teacher work day on that Friday um originally we looked at the Monday after thinking they could get their work done and then that Monday would be prime for learning however we um have teachers work or have the option
to work remotely on teacher work days um and then we also looked at the days in the quarter and the balance and so uh as we looked at the dates and as we worked with our administrative team collectively we identified November 6th
with the 7th being that work day and then finally that January 5th um which is a non would as a non-student day right after winter break kind of that soft re-entry for our staff um it's
important to note that in this calendar when you look at that August 25th date we actually take the last student day out of June so June of 2026 and place it at the beginning of the school year on August 25th and so
students end one day earlier in this proposal teacher work day is one day earlier that one's a little bit wonky because it doesn't seem quite as logical but um that really is how we get those three days built into this
calendar so with that I think that's all of our information all right questions comments I guess I'm just looking at uh what does that do for overall length of the instructional year it looks like you've shown us the calendar but we have y room
for all the required educational days yep we would have 170 student days um that allows us to meet the state statute at each level with hours of instruction it's our secondary students with the th20 hours
that you're always bumping up against but um with that we still would have room to have have a traditional snow day and then um use e-learning for any subsequent snow or weather related closures so that gives us plenty of room
at each level to manage the calendar and provide teachers learning needs as well as students Chris not really a question just a comment thank you to both of you I I know this is a lot of work just
trying to arrange all this and and fit it into the calendar but all the work with the the professional development and and learning that we've done you know as we have started this a couple years and really investing in our staff and teachers and adding a lot of that
hours we ask a lot uh the um the state has asked a lot of of school districts our community and really providing that time and making that useful and yeah this is a a great proposal and a great thing to to move forward probably permanently is what what we're asking
for so thank you thank you any next steps the Board needs to be thinking about this topic will come back for the first meeting in March on the 13th for board approval of this calendar and then we'll publish it right away okay thank you very much oh Megan um I
was just going to throw out I I like the shift from the last day of June um to the August date uh because I think also that makes it a little easier assuming we still have graduations on Thursday nights to not have School the Friday after for kids who have siblings
graduating or you know I don't know it just kind of seems like it wraps the year up more cohesively versus having graduation and then school the next day so seems like kind of a good trade-off to me thank you all right that wraps up the study
session for this evening and the board will then adjourn to a closed session