Good evening. I'm going to call the District 60 Board of Education school board meeting to order on June 23rd, 2026 at 6:00 PM. And I'm going to ask our secretary to call the roll of the members. Director Ferrell. Here. Director Ibarra. Here. Director Mays. Here. Director Pannunzio. Here. Director Teboe. Here. With five present and no absences, we have a quorum to conduct business. Will you all please stand and join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. We'll now go to our agenda, and I'll be asking if there are any board members or if the superintendent has any suggestions to correct or modify the agenda at this time. And I do have a suggested modification to move item to follow 12.0. That would be right before 13.0. Is there any objection to moving that? It is the
Urban Renewal Association report that is on our agenda for tonight. It will just be heard a little later. Any objection by board members? Hearing no objection, that will be placed on the agenda as noted. So now we'll go to the adoption of the agenda as was just amended. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Just a clarification first. I'm sorry, President. Yes, go ahead. President Teboe, I also was going to ask to see if something could be moved on the agenda. Well, certainly, yes. What would you like? It may not work for various reasons, but let's see. Let me find the number. Number three on action items, the administrative leadership appointments and
reassignments. I was just wondering if it was possible to move that up earlier on the agenda, possibly, I don't know what the best place is to move it up, but I just always feel badly that they have to wait till the very end of the meeting, and sometimes it's a very long meeting. So I don't know if that's- Certainly ... it may not be possible, but- It is possible ... I'd like to see if it is. And so why don't you say that again. We want to be sure everybody's here too. Just to move the administrative appointments up on the agenda. I'm not sure if the... Maybe after gifts to school? Say where that is again. It's 12.3. Item 12.3. Thank you. And Dr. Kimsey has a-
Thank you. I was doing it off the cuff, so I don't have the number. Yeah, let me find it, and then Dr. Kimsey, we'll discuss that here real quick here. Yeah. So, we truly appreciate that, Ms. Pannunzio. And so in anticipation we would have a long meeting, we shared with our candidates that they could come a little later, so they're not here yet. But we love that thought. Dr. Kimsey, I'm wondering if in the interim, if they come in here, we have all of them. I think we'd want to do them all at one time. Then maybe we could, if Mr. Teboe doesn't pull his gavel out and hit me,
interrupt what we're doing so that we could do them, because I think that is very important. Certainly. It's usually we wait until the very end, and I think the public should know these wonderful people that are going to be working for us. That's a great idea. As we determine their attendance, as long as they're all here, we can then adjust the agenda at that time. But I would like to have a motion to adopt the agenda subject to the amendment that I offered, and with the prospect of the amendment that Director Pannunzio has offered on condition that the individuals appear at one point prior to their regular agenda item appearance.
I'd make a motion we approve the agenda as modified. Excellent. And a second? Second. Is there any discussion on that? Hearing no discussion, we'll have the secretary call the roll on that modification. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Pannunzio. Aye. Director Teboe. Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that motion carries, and so our agenda will be modified as noted. Now we move on to gifts to schools, and I'll have our superintendent, Dr. Kimsey, let us know how many gifts we have tonight.
Thank you, President Teboe, directors. It's my honor and pleasure to announce $91,202 worth of donations. So bear with me. I truly believe it's important that we put them on the record with our community. So Dick's Sporting Goods donated $5,000 to Minnequa Elementary School. South High School Alumni Foundation donated $6,600 to South High School for a new mascot.
ENT Credit Union donated $300 to the South High School baseball program. Association of American Educators Foundation donated $489 to the Centennial High School Physical Education Department. Embroidery Plus Quick Print donated six boxes of school apparel valued at $5,000 to the D60 McKinney-Vento program. And of course, that program helps us with our displaced youth. Ted Hernandez Incorporated, DBA Spectrum Community
Services, donated $2,500 to the South High School JROTC program. Catherine Thompson donated $500 to the South High School National Honor Society. Departed Golfers from Pueblo County Memorial Association donated $1,500 to the Centennial High School boys and girls golf programs. Hoop Dreams Nation donated $2,494 to the East High School girls basketball program. Pueblo East High School Alumni Foundation donated
$3,500 to the East High School DECA Speech and Debate, FCCLA, math, science, and technology programs. Pueblo Central High School Foundation donated $6,957 to the Central High School boys wrestling program for new uniforms. Gene S. Clark donated $1,000 to the Central High School girls track program. Pueblo Central High School Foundation donated $1,225 to Central High School to start an aviation club.
Pueblo South High School Alumni Foundation donated $500 each to the South High School JROTC band and cheer programs, and $600 to the media center for laminating supplies. Trees Please donated a blue spruce tree, notebook set, poster, canvas tote, bucket, and stickers valued at $170 to D60 Online School. Boettcher Concert Hall donated two admission tickets to the Colorado Symphony, valued at $250 to
D60 Online School. Chick-fil-A donated 170 Be Our Guest coupons valued at $1,020 to D60 Online School. East High School Foundation donated $597 to East High School for catering. And there's a final donation that I'm really going to shout out. We just received a donation. Where's Ms. Iams? If you'll raise your hand. Her hard work on leading our CTE efforts
has resulted in a $50,000, no-strings-attached donation from the RM Watts Foundation to our D60 CTE programming to support the training of students for careers in manufacturing and construction trades. And that was not solicited. Just showed up in the mail one day. The board is asked to graciously approve these gifts as listed in your board materials. Thank you, Dr. Kimsey. Is there a motion to accept these gifts?
I move that we accept the gifts that have been outlined in tonight's agenda. Thank you, Director Mays. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Ibarra. Any discussion? If not, we'll have our secretary call the roll. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Pannunzio. Aye. Director Teboe. Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that motion passes and is declared adopted, and we thank all our donors for those wonderful gifts. And I would like to see Ms. Iams after the meeting, so maybe she can help my family get some kind of a donation.
It's a large family. We could use something like that. Anyway, thank you very much, and congratulations to all of you. And now we're moving on to recognitions. And Superintendent Kimsey, I think we have a recognition for an outstanding track and field champion. We do, and it's my distinct honor and pleasure to invite forward Ms. Ellie Nail, our district athletics and activities director, who will do the introductions and share about this athlete. Got to promo the sponsors. That's Mr. Falleta behind me. So good evening, Board President Thibeau, Superintendent Kimsey, members of the
board. Tonight, we're here to celebrate a champion, and actually a repeat champion. And if all goes as planned, we will be welcoming her back next June as another champion and an Eagle Class of 2027 graduate. So we're very excited about Reagan. But before we get to her athletic accomplishments, the board should know that Ms. Reagan Falleta is a leader among her Eagle classmates. Both Mr. Terry and I have had the privilege of working with this outstanding young leader over the past three years. Reagan is deeply involved in her school community. She leads by example and models the highest level of respect in every
interaction with others, often finding new students to sit with at lunch. It's amazing to watch her work. So that same character does carry out to the track. So simply put, Reagan is a role model, an ambassador, and she is freaky fast. I'm very proud of her and how she has represented East and the district. So to reintroduce you to this talented young leader and now three-time state champion, I'm going to ask Mr. Joe Terry to come on up and do the honors. Good evening. Dr. Kimsey, President Thibeau, members of the Board of Education,
there's an acronym in the track and field arena that we call PRs, personal records. There was a lot of them this spring. Not only were Reagan's times PRs, but they were also nationally recognized. So we have one of the top track and field athletes, not only in Southern Colorado, but on a national level. And the really cool thing about it is what Ms. Ellie Nail said, she's only a junior. But her accomplishments definitely are a reflection of her countless hours of training and her dedication to excellence. She has represented our school with great pride and serves
as an outstanding example for all of our student athletes, and we could not be more proud of her. And to talk about her individual accomplishments, what she accomplished this year, I want to give the honor for our head track and field coach, Coach Tony Valdez, to come up and speak and let you all know what she accomplished. Thank you, Mr. Terry. Board, Superintendent Kimsey, thank you for having us. So Reagan Falleta, also known as The Flash around Pueblo East High School, is a repeat champion, as Ms. Nail has told us. With a time of 14.52, she was able to be a repeat state champion in the 100-meter hurdles. With a time of 42.34, she
was able to claim her first championship in the 300-meter hurdles. Her times were so impressive at the meet that she was invited to go to Eugene, Oregon, where she just got back from competing at the Nike Outdoor Nationals, where she was able to compete against some of the best in the nation, which I'm pretty confident after she completes her career here at Pueblo East, she's going to be able to do that at the collegiate level. So super proud of Reagan. Ms. Nail touched on her academic excellence, her ability to be a great teammate in the hallways at East as well as at practice. So, she's a coach's dream. Really happy to coach her. Makes all of us look good. So once again, Ms.
Reagan Falleta. All right. Well, congratulations again, and we'll move on to the next item, which is recognition of the 2026 Colorado Kids Create contest art contest winners. Is that right? Mm-hmm. Superintendent Kimsey. Thank you, President Thbo, board directors. It's my honor and distinct pleasure to invite to the microphone Ms. Cindy Smith, who will give us our introductions for these very talented and creative students. Thank you. And good evening, President Thbo, Superintendent Kimsey, and members of the board. I have a special visual art recognition to
present to you tonight. This group of students are the young artists who were selected for publication in the 2026 Colorado Kids Create Art Contest. This is sponsored by Colorado Kids Create Incorporated. It's a nonprofit organization sponsored by the Colorado Education Association, and their purpose is to write children's books about Colorado and the West, which are illustrated by Colorado students. Book sale profits go to art supplies for Colorado teachers in collaboration with the Philip J.
Steele Foundation. And this year we had six District 60 students that were chosen as winners and are now published artists in one of those two books, entitled "Wildlife Conservation in Colorado" and "Art in Colorado." These students would not have this opportunity if it were not for the dedication and passion of our art educators. The students that we recognize this evening all come from Centennial High School Design and Innovation Academy, under the instruction of Mrs. April Vickie, who many of you know has a
reputation for continually providing our students with extra opportunities like this one to showcase student work beyond the local level. She is not able to join us this evening, unfortunately. She's attending a PLC conference with other fine arts leaders in Denver this week. But I just wanted to take a moment and shout her out and make sure that we thank her and give her a round of applause for her investment in her students. Okay. The students' artwork, when I call their name, they'll be displayed on the screen as they come up and accept their certificate. And at this time, I would like to invite Dr.
Kimsey and the board to come forward to congratulate our published artists. And then I'll also invite up our Director of Magnet Schools, Drew Hirshon, to assist in presenting students with their certificates and their books. So students, when your name is called, please come up. Mr. Hirshon has your certificate and a copy of your book. That's for you to keep, and then you may move down the line so you may be congratulated. And then at the end of the row, if you just want to stand off to the side, because we'll have a group photo at the end like we did with our last recognition.
So our first art winner is Simon Gonzalez Gallegos. He's an 11th grade student and received an honorable mention award for his art. We have Jordan Carrillo Garnier, a 10th-grade student who also received an honorable mention award. Our next award winner is Isaac Straight, a 10th-grade student who also received an honorable mention award. Our next art award winner is Patricia Varner, who is a 10th-grade student at Centennial who also received an honorable mention. Our next award winner is Melanie Bojorquez, who is an
11th-grade student and received a fourth-place award for the contest. And our final artist tonight that we are recognizing is Kyleah Pleasant, who is an 11th-grade student and received a second-place award in the art contest. A big congratulations to all of our student artists. All right. Congratulations again. We have some outstanding students in District 60. Now we're going to move on to our public hearing on our proposed budget. So at this time, I'm going to announce that this is a public hearing
at a regular meeting of the Board of Education to receive comments on the fiscal year 2026, 2027 proposed budget, and I'm going to officially open the hearing for comments. It is now somewhere 6:23 PM. Has anyone signed up to give in-person comments for or against the adoption of the fiscal year 2026-27 proposed budget? We received no comments. Has anyone provided comments via voicemail or online, Mr. Sprouse? President Thibeau, we didn't receive any comments there either.
Thank you. Is there anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposed budget for this coming fiscal year, as noted? Anyone here wish to comment? All right, hearing no comments either in person or voicemail or online, I'm going to close this hearing at this time, which is 6:24 PM, as noted. So now we'll move on to our next item on the agenda, which are public comments. And I think we have a few individuals signed up to do that, and so we'll have you join Mr. Sprouse at the table. He'll help you get directed with the microphone.
And we'll start off, I think we have three individuals signed up. It's, I believe, Valen Sarnoff. Is that correct pronunciation? Please join us at the table. I'm not sure if I've got that last name right or not. Oh, good. Thank you for joining us. Hi. Good evening, esteemed board, President Thibeau, and Superintendent Kinsey. I greatly appreciate the board's effort to address student cell phone use. I am thrilled by the recent policy updates to include a bell-to-bell policy. Thank you so much for hearing and addressing your district and your
community's concerns. Many schools that have adopted a bell-to-bell policy report improvements not only in classroom focus but also in face-to-face social interaction, school climate, and student connectedness throughout the day. After New York enacted a bell-to-bell policy, 83% of the schools surveyed reported significantly better student engagement, and 75% of administrators stated that the policy directly improved the teachers' ability to teach effectively. A school district in Florida enacted a bell-to-bell policy and noted a 5% to 10% drop in unexcused absences.
D60 has historically seen some of the highest chronic absenteeism rates in the state. A 5% to 10% drop will change lives. A bell-to-bell policy also reduces inconsistency and conflict between students and staff by providing clear, simple expectations for students, staff, and families. I hope you may consider additional policy related to emergencies. Encouraging cell phone use during emergencies can distract from instructions, cause location risks, encourage misinformation, and increase cell network overloads. I would ask that you consider including language around allowing communication only from a secure location.
Since the policy specifies devices need to be kept in students' backpacks and out of sight, I would encourage the school board to look into data on districts that implemented bell-to-bell policies with device lockers. As a parent, my hope for my child and the children of Pueblo is a safe, distraction-free school experience that encourages them to be the best that they can be. Like D60 says, "Be present and be powerful." Thank you so much for your consideration and for hosting this today. Thank you for your comments and for being here with us tonight. We appreciate that. The next individual that's signed up is Brenda Smith.
Please join us at the table and thank you for being here. Good evening, everyone. Let me know if any of this sounds familiar. Parents don't parent, teachers are lazy, administrators are paid too much. As we live and breathe, the entirety of education is being blamed for the downfall of society. We have two choices. We can continue this blame game conversation, or two, we can do what is actually best for kids and work to fix a broken system. As educators, we don't like to hear that our system is broken. However, we need to get over the shock, accept the hard reality,
and work towards solutions. So now you are all probably wondering, who is this person standing in front of us so brazen? Well, believe it or not, like all of you, I care deeply about public education. With over 20 years of experience in special education, I now serve as a special education advocate. Over the past year, I have worked with several families here in Pueblo District 60. Along the way, I have met incredible individuals that truly care for children and put their best foot forward day after day. But I've also seen things that concern me.
I've seen communication break down, I've seen families wait weeks for answers. I've seen special education procedures that should be collaborative become unnecessarily adversarial. I've seen paraprofessionals expected to support students with significant medical, behavioral, and communication needs with little training and wages that make it difficult to recruit and retain qualified staff. And I've seen students whose dignity and basic needs were not consistently protected. None of those things happen because people don't care.
They happen because systems break down, and systems are what boards govern. Tonight, I'm asking you to lead. Lead by making meaningful communication with families an expectation, not an exception. Families should never feel they have to hire an advocate simply to be heard. Communication doesn't improve by chance. It improves when leadership sets the expectation, models it consistently, and holds itself accountable. Lead by investing in the people who make positive changes possible. Our teachers and paraprofessionals are being asked to meet
increasingly complex needs every day, and this isn't only because of special needs programs. All of it is harder. Yet the average pay of paraprofessionals working with our youth is lower than a teen who works at McDonald's. Teachers make more decisions in a day than a surgeon, yet society refuses to see them as a professional. The classrooms of today are not classrooms of 20 years ago. Our staffing models shouldn't be either. Think differently about recruitment. Use social media to tell the story of why Pueblo 60 is a great place to work. Partner with colleges and universities, create career pathways, offer
incentives, specialized certificates, and meaningful professional development that make talented people want to build their careers here instead of somewhere else. Don't just fill vacancies, build a workforce. All of our children deserve to laugh with classmates, attend assemblies, participate in field days, celebrate school traditions, and build meaningful relationship with their peers. This doesn't happen because of compliance. These special moments happen because adults choose to make them happen. When schools and families truly work together, children thrive. Leadership isn't measured by how we respond when everything is working.
Leadership is measured by our willingness to acknowledge what isn't working and to have the courage to fix it. I believe Pueblo District 60 has the potential to become a leader in education. However, only you can turn that potential into reality. And if my experience can help in any way, I would welcome the opportunity to be part of that work. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments and being here tonight. We appreciate that. Thank you. And we all received your typed statements with your card. So thank you for providing that as well. Our next individual who has signed up to comment is Alexandra Aznar.
Thank you for being with us, and we're happy to have you here. Good evening, board members and Superintendent Kinsey. My name is Alexandra Aznar, and I am the parent of a District 60 student. And all year, I've been closely following the deliberations of the Phone Policy Task Force, and I'm very interested in this topic. Two weeks ago, when the first reading came out of the proposed recommendations, I must say I was disappointed because I found them insufficient and ineffective, because it was recommending phone use for middle and high school students during non-instructional times.
And there's two reasons why I felt that way at that time. One, because instructional time only policies are really challenging to enforce. When phones are allowed during passing periods, at lunch, then the burden falls on teachers to police the policies and precious instructional time is lost during those transitions. And the second reason is because instructional time only policies really undermine the social emotional health of students. I've heard from young people that they report not being able to let their guard down when phones are present because they could be
constantly filmed or photographed. And I think there's so many important elements at school of engaging with peers and really building those social skills, and it's important to not have heads down during lunch and have a completely quiet cafeteria where students aren't engaging. So since then, there is growing consensus nationally that, and among Colorado school districts, that bell-to-bell, i.e., away for the day phone policies in schools are really the gold standard. They're the most effective for students, teachers, and schools in terms of reducing
distraction, building school cohesion, and fortifying students' social and emotional wellbeing. And we've seen districts in Boulder Valley, Mesa County, Denver, Colorado Springs, and Aspen have all adopted these policies. And I'm really heartened by the revisions that I've seen in the draft policies within the two weeks that it looks like we're leaning towards that gold standard, that bell-to-bell away for the day policy. So I really appreciate, again, the time and care, and thoughtfulness of this board and the Phone Policy Task Force, and I really hope that we do the hard but necessary thing and establish that policy.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments and again for being here. We appreciate that. There are no other individuals signed up to make public comments. Were there any either voicemail or online comments, Mr. Sprouse? We didn't receive any today. Okay. Thank you very much for that. So then we'll move on to 6.0 in our agenda, citizen statements, and we have no citizen statements to present tonight. So now 7.0 is the communications from our board members and superintendent. Do any board members or our superintendent wish to share any
communications at this time? No communications. I don't think we have anything to communicate tonight, but I think we have a lot of things on the agenda that we can definitely talk about as we go along. So thank you for that. We'll move on now to special resolutions. Our first resolution is a resolution celebrating America 250 and Colorado's 150th anniversary of statehood. Director Ibarra, you have indicated an interest in offering that resolution, and the chair is going to recommend that you offer it. Let's see if there's a second, and if so, I know you have an amendment
that you'd like to make to it. We'll deal with that first, and then if that passes, you can read the resolution if you so choose with that amendment, so we'll know what we're voting on. So I'll look for a motion from you. Thank you, President jbo. Resolution celebrating America at 250 and Colorado's 150th anniversary of statehood. Whereas the United States of America will commemorate its 250th anniversary on July 4th, 2026, marking a historic milestone in the nation's history. And whereas on June 7, 1776, a resolution was
introduced in the Second Continental Congress that the colonies be free and independent states, and that they be absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, dissolving all connections with Great Britain. And whereas said resolution was referred to committee to draft a declaration of independence. And whereas Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was presented to the Congress by the committee on July 2nd, read in Philadelphia after some revisions on July 4th, and signed by the members of Congress August 2nd, 1776. And whereas the Declaration of Independence, a formal announcement and
justification to Britain and to the world of the decision to separate from the British Empire, contains ideas about human nature and the proper foundations and ends of government that would guide Americans in establishing their independent political institutions. And whereas the declaration embodies the theoretical principles underlying American constitutionalism in liberal rights, political equality, self-government, and the right to revolution, where a long train of abuses and usurpations of the people's rights occurs. And whereas the declaration has been
used since the founding period by many Americans calling for basic changes in the constitutional system, such as abolitionists, women's right advocates, populists, calling for greater social justice, and for the expansion of civil and political rights. And whereas the Declaration of Independence ought to read alongside the United States Constitution as a statement of American constitutionalism, embodying respectively the means and ends of government. And whereas 2026 marks Colorado's 150th anniversary of statehood. And whereas the constitutional convention of
1874, held in Denver, guided by the United States Constitution and the constitutions of those states already admitted to the Union, drafted and submitted to the people of Colorado on July 1st, 1876, its recommended constitution for Colorado. And whereas the people approved the draft by a margin of four to one. And whereas on August 1st, 1876, a day celebrated as Colorado Day, President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed Colorado a state of the Union. And whereas Colorado has progressed on so many diverse fronts that it
is only possible to describe its development in this resolution by stating that things have changed dramatically since Colorado's admission to the Union in 1876. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Education of Pueblo School District 60 is dedicated to celebrating the 250th anniversary of America and the 150th anniversary of Colorado statehood. Be it further resolved that the Board of Education of Pueblo School District 60 commits to publicizing the history of America's independence and Colorado statehood anniversary during 2026 and encourage our
superintendent, educators, staff, parents, and students to actively commemorate and reflect on the journey of America and state in order to ignite a sense of unity and resilience by upholding the principles of liberty, justice, and equality, as well as self-governance. Be it further resolved that the board authorizes its members and the superintendent to publicly speak about the history of America's independence and Colorado's statehood anniversary during 2026 and take other actions as may be permissible under the applicable law
and board policy. President jbo, I move that the board approve this resolution, but I want to make some suggestions and amendments. That's fine. Okay. Let's take up whether or not there's a second to your motion. Yeah. Okay. Is there a second to adopt the resolution? Second. All right. Second. So it's now properly before us to consider the amendments that you have. So why don't you take them one at a time? Yes. So the purpose of these amendments are to really just align the language with its originating document, also to fix grammatical
error for fluidity. In the ... paragraph that reads, "Whereas the Declaration has been used since the founding period by many Americans calling for basic changes in the constitutional system, such as abolitionists, women's right advocates, populists calling for greater social justice, and for the expansion of civil and political rights." I would like to insert, "Whereas the Declaration of Independence has inspired generations of Americans, including abolitionists,
women's right advocates, and many others to strive toward a more perfect realization of its principles of liberty and equality." Okay. Is there a second to that? Second. All right. Second has been given, and so that amendment is properly on the table for discussion. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Is there any objection to the amendment? I'd like to have it restated. Yeah. I'm not sure I was following along when- Director Ybarra, will you restate the amendment? Yes. Okay, this was the original. Right here. Is that this one here? Yes. Okay. So that paragraph would be replaced
with, "Whereas the Declaration of Independence has inspired generations of Americans, including abolitionists, women's rights advocates, and many others to strive toward a more perfect realization of its principles of liberty and equality." Does that clarify for the board what Director Ybarra wants to do? Is there any discussion about that amendment, or is there any objection to that amendment? Hearing no objection, that will be amended. The amendment will be adopted, or it passes and will be
adopted. What is your second amendment? The second one is to remove this section. I will read it now. "Whereas Colorado has progressed on so many diverse fronts that it is only possible to describe its development in this resolution by stating that things have changed dramatically since Colorado's admission to the Union in 1876." I would like to insert the following in its place. "Whereas since its admission to the Union in 1876, Colorado has grown into a vibrant
state known for its innovation, natural beauty, strong communities, educational opportunities, and contributions to the nation." And tell us what paragraph that is again. Yes. Just kind of go down and- It's the 12th, and it's the one, two, three, four, five, the fifth section on the second page. Okay. Is there a second to that motion or that amendment that has been offered? Second. There's a second, so it's properly on the table. So now, first, is there any discussion? Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Just one more final edit. Minor edit in the final resolving clause.
We need to vote on that first, and then we'll get to that. Do you have any other things to say about that? So we have a motion, a second, and any discussion on your change? No discussion by the board. Is there any objection by the board for that amendment to be adopted? Seeing and hearing no objection, that is adopted and declared part of the resolution. Now, Director Ybarra, you have a third item? Yes. In the second to last section in the resolution, in the latter portion of the very last sentence, it currently reads, "In order to ignite a sense of unity and
resilience by upholding the principles of liberty, justice, and equality, as well as self-governance." I would like to change the text to read, "In order to ignite a sense of unity and resilience by upholding the principles of liberty, justice, equality, and self-governance." Okay. Is there a second to that? Second. Is there any discussion on that particular amendment by the board? Any discussion? Is there any objection to that amendment? Seeing or hearing no objection, that is then passed and is
declared adopted as part of the resolution. So now we're back to the original resolution as amended by your three items. Do you wish to make any other statements or have any discussion, any board member? Okay. If not, we'll ask the secretary to call the roll on the resolution as amended. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ybarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panuccio. Aye. Director Tepe. Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that amendment passes and is declared adopted. Thank you for taking the time to work on that resolution, Director Ybarra. Next, we're going to take up the resolution dealing with
supporting the gathering and obtaining of signatures to create Colorado's Future Account Initiative 195, and I believe Director Ferrell, you're going to be offering this Yes. Thank you, President Thibeau. This is a resolution supporting gathering and obtaining of signatures to create a Colorado's Futures account. Whereas Initiative 195 creates a Colorado Futures account, which takes effect upon proclamation of the governor, if approved by eligible voters in Colorado at the 2026 general election on November 3rd, 2026.
And whereas Initiative 195 supporters are in the process of gathering and obtaining signatures on a petition in order to place the initiative on the 2026 general election ballot, and have until August 3rd, 2026 to file said petition signatures with the Colorado Secretary of State. And whereas Initiative 195 increases available state funding to school districts in Colorado. And whereas the increased state funding for school districts includes, among other things, improving kindergarten through
12th grade, increasing access to career and technical education programs, and increasing teacher pay, as well as funding early childhood care and education programs to help families afford childcare, and improving access to high-quality early childhood education programs. And whereas the income tax rates under the initiative will remain the same as current law tax rates, or decrease current law tax rates for those with taxable incomes of up to
and including $500,000. And whereas the Colorado General Assembly has referred to the 2026 general election ballot Proposition NN, which will also invest in additional state funding to school districts in Colorado if approved by eligible voters in Colorado. And whereas Pueblo School District 60 Board of Education is desirous of providing information to the Pueblo community at a future board meeting about the impact
Initiative 195 and Proposition NN will have on the funding of Pueblo School District 60 schools. And whereas it is advantageous for Pueblo School District 60 for both measures to be placed on the 2026 general election ballot in order for the people to decide whether or not they wish to invest in additional funding for school districts in Colorado, including Pueblo School District 60. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Pueblo School District 60 Board of Education publicly supports the gathering and obtaining of
petition signatures so that Initiative 195, which creates Colorado's Futures account, can be placed on the 2026 general election ballot in order to invest in additional funding to school districts in Colorado. Be it further resolved that the Pueblo School District 60 Board of Education encourages all qualified electors in Pueblo and Colorado to sign the petition, which will place Initiative 195 on the general election ballot, and to do so as provided under applicable law.
Be it further resolved that the board authorizes its members and superintendent to speak publicly about this resolution and take other action as may be permissible under applicable law and board policy, including but not limited to the Fair Campaign Practices Act, CRS Section 1-45-117. Approved and adopted this 23rd day of June 2026. Mr. President, I'd move that the board accepts this resolution as presented. Thank you, Director Ferrell. Is there a second to this motion? Second.
Second properly on the table for discussion. Any discussion? Director Ferrell. Thank you, President Thibeau, and thank you for the opportunity to have this on the agenda. I know at a previous board meeting, I suggested that we learn more about both of the proposed initiatives that have the potential to affect education funding in Colorado, this being one of two options that do that. I anticipate, should this make it to the ballot, since this is just about gathering signatures to qualify it for the ballot,
that we would have another presentation going more in depth about what the impact in Pueblo District 60 would be. But just for some quick information, based on some information from Great Education Colorado, which is one of the partners working on this currently, that if this were to make it onto the ballot and were to pass, it would result in 11 million more dollars per year in Pueblo District 60, and that 99.6% of tax filers in Pueblo County would actually receive a tax cut
under the changes to the tax rates. Thank you. Thank you, Director Ferrell. Director Panunzio. Thank you, President Thibeau, and I appreciate the comments you just made, Director Ferrell. I want to start out by just saying I am absolutely committed to strong public schools, investing wisely in classrooms, and effectively using taxpayer dollars for children in District 60. Absolutely. Funding public education is a top priority. However, with that said, I cannot get behind this resolution to
obtain signatures to support Initiative 195, because the way it is being funded, I cannot support. So I'd like to elaborate on that This initiative fundamentally undermines TABOR, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights that Colorado voters approved in 1992 to restrain government growth. TABOR requires excess revenue above inflation plus population growth to be refunded to taxpayers. Initiative 195 rewrites our state constitution to create a graduated income tax,
and diverts roughly $2.7 billion in new annual revenue into a special Colorado future fund. My position is that once that hole is punched in TABOR protections, future legislators will find it far easier to expand government spending without voter approval, and I'm against that. I am opposed to this effort to redirect TABOR funds. That's very important to me. Secondly, this is an openly progressive tax structure. It abandons Colorado's long-standing flat
income tax rate, the principle that everyone pays the same rate, and instead punishes higher earners simply because they earn more. In the short term, it may lower taxes for some middle income families, but it does so by design, taking more from job creators, business owners, and investors who drive our local economy. This directly violates core principles of liberty and equal treatment under the law. Government should not pick winners and losers by deciding whose success is too much, and then redistributing it.
When the state treats citizens unequally based on income, it erodes the idea that all Coloradoans stand equal before the law. In addition, the measures promise more money for K-12 public schools, but it gives the state legislator total control over how much that money is divided among schools, healthcare, and childcare. There is no guaranteed percentage dedicated to classrooms. I didn't see any dedication to what was going to come to the schools. And of course, I think that ties hands, so it probably wouldn't be in there.
I cannot support Initiative 195 and believe we should be advocating for school funding. I absolutely agree for advocating for school funding, but looking at solutions that respect TABOR, treat citizens equally, and preserve local control rather than trading away our principles for uncertain future dollars. Thank you very much. Thank you for those comments, Director Panunzio. Any other comments? And, the resolution is properly on the table because it's been moved and seconded, and it is related to gathering signatures. But I can understand, Director Panunzio, that
gathering signatures for something you ultimately can't support is sort of driving your opposition tonight. If indeed it does make the ballot, we are going to have a presentation relative to Initiative 195 and also Proposition NN, which was referred by the legislature. And I just have to admit to you, and I hope you will continue to smile at me as we see each other in the hall, that I was one of the leading legislators who fought for a progressive tax system and lost my fight for
the flat tax system that we have now. But we just differ in our philosophies, and I certainly understand where you're coming from. Is there any other discussion that the board members have? If not, we'll ask the secretary to call the roll on the resolution. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. No. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panunzio. No. Director Teboe. Aye. So with three aye votes and two no votes, that resolution passes and is declared adopted. And thank you, members, for your comments and your interest. So now we're going to move on to reports, which is 9.0.
And our first report is dealing with the fiscal year 2026/2027 proposed budget discussion. And I believe our chief financial officer is going to present that, Superintendent Kimsey. And one of the things that I want to mention going forward on this is that when I reviewed your slides, there is really only a change in Fund 10 with respect to what we were presented on June 9th. So why don't we take the approach of just going through the change relative to your slides, and of course, any board member can ask any question they wish, either on that or
the previous slides or anything in the book. But to keep things moving along tonight, let's just focus on the presentation of the change that has occurred since June 9th. If that's acceptable with you. That would be fine. Thank you. Then why don't you go ahead and proceed? Well, I will. President Teboe, Superintendent Kimsey, and members of the board, this is the FY 26-27 proposed budget for Pueblo School District Number 60. The first topic of conversation is the summary of the proposed fee changes.
I assume that you all received the short summary and have reviewed it. Do you have any questions in regards to the changes to student fees? Any questions with regard to student fee changes? We don't have any. Okay. And you have reviewed the entire list of Student fees, I hope, as presented in the budget In the booklet, yes. Okay. I think we have- All right. Good deal ... unless there's questions, we'll just let you keep going. I will. The assumptions remain unchanged. They're the same, same, same. Fund 10 general operations, FY 26-27, really the only change
was to the estimated revenues, and that was due to a decrease in the ESEA funding of about $210,000, give or take, and that's it. Everything else stayed exactly the same. So, in Fund 10, there are no changes except for revenue, and it was decreased. Okay? A couple things that we need to talk about, however, is ending reserves. And so if you look at your fund booklet, on page two, it shows you the fund balance and the categorical numbers for each assigned reserve or
reserve. Anyway, that didn't make any sense. So, our fund balance, we think at the end of FY 26-27, will be about $17.7 million. Included in that is about $10.6 million of, we're getting lots of feedback, of 6% of revenues. We have unassigned revenues at this point that's negative, negative 3.182 million, which we're going to strive to not have that. We have assigned school placeholder, which that is the school allocation, which is provided to each school,
and every principal has their discretionary to spend those funds. And this is the amount that was not spent at the time that I created this budget. Okay? It will probably change. We have reserved Colorado preschool funds of 1.7 million. That will also be modified depending on what happens at the end of this fiscal year, and how we determine how to spend it going forward. Restricted fund balance multi-year, I left that flat, so we really don't know what that's going to be. And non-spendable or prepaids at 1.7,
and our TABOR reserve's at 5.2 million. So that all adds up to be $17.7 million. And those are all encumbered funds. They're not to be used for other purposes. They are there to keep Pueblo School District 60 afloat for the beginning of the next school year. So, do you have any questions on the fund balance? Any questions from the board on that? Okay, I guess we don't have any questions. Okay. So then the next topic, I think it's a confusing issue, is our student count versus our funded count versus our average count versus whoever's count.
And so if we start looking at the page number three, and its title is People Membership and Funded FTEs. An FTE is a full-time equivalent. That's a student. We can't have a quarter of a kid, usually. And so in the student count, you'll notice at the bottom, the total is 11,339, in the right-hand column. Yes. Okay. I see that. So that's our district proposed or projected student count as of October 1st. What isn't in there is Hyde Park. Okay? So if you look at page 29,
all the way at the back of the booklet, that shows you the school allocation, which the difference in the total student count of 11,393 students is our friend Hyde Park. Because it was not in the projections, there's no way to project that, and so we just added it in. Okay? So there's two differences in that student count. One is for an internal allocation, which is page 29, and we can't wait until October 1st to provide them with funds to start opening the school. So therein lies
the difference. Okay? And then everybody always is looking at funded pupil count, and what does that mean? Well, currently we are on a three-year average, and so our funded count is never going to align with the actual student count, and I try to make it similar to how CDE is projecting our student count for the year. Currently, they have us up about 240 kids, give or take, and so I don't think we're going to be up, but I don't think we're going to be as far down as our usual projections of between 500 and 700.
So I try to pick a happy medium for the purpose of funding for the budget. So that is why you see the differences in a funded count versus an actual count versus the count for the school allocation, is because they're each serving a different purpose. Okay, does anybody have any questions on that? Any questions? That's very helpful. Thank you. I was wondering about all that myself. Right. So thank you. And if you need more information, you can always check out the CDE run for FY 26-27
If you care to be bored. And you can kind of see where they get the numbers, and you can see how they averaged, but unfortunately, I pick a number based on experience and seeing that hopefully we're going to get more kids. Plus, we've moved to a multi-district online, which gives us an opportunity as well. Great. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? And this was brought up last meeting, June 9th. It's a balanced budget. It is balanced. It is going to be looked at again for midterm adjustments in January.
Correct. And it's just kind of an evolving process, but as of now, our requirement is to have it adopted by June 30, 2026. And as far as I can tell, we're in compliance with all that needs to be taken care of to meet that requirement, other than just taking our resolutions later in the meeting and hopefully they pass, we get them signed, and we can move on. And then we can move on, yes. Good. Remember this, the budget is a guideline, and so I actually did include the rest of the funds, but there's no changes. That's right.
So, there's no point. Right. Does anybody have any other questions? Any questions by the board on any slide presentation, any booklet, any line item, any amount at all? This is our chance to have discussion. If there is no discussion, do you have anything else to...? No. The resolutions are part of your action this evening, so hopefully we have an approved budget. Very good. Okay. We'll have you stand by for any questions at that point. Ooh, I'll be ready. All right. All righty. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so now we're done with item one in
9.0. And as we had originally agreed upon, the item number two is to follow 12.0. That's the Pueblo Urban Renewal Area presentation. So we'll move on to item three, which is the 2025-26 Sick Leave Bank Annual Report. And I'm not quite sure, Director Kimsey, who does that? Oh, okay. So it's my honor and pleasure, President Thibeau, to introduce our Director of Human Resources, Mr. Whiting, who will share that report with you at this time. Go ahead. Thank you, Dr. Kimsey, President Thibeau, members of the board. It is that time.
Board policy dictates that every year I report on how the sick leave bank is doing. It was another healthy year where we were able to help out a lot of employees. We started the year with about 1,082 days in the bank. There was some leftover from the year before, some new donations, but we ended up with that much. We used about 607 days. We awarded that many days. Twenty-seven people were given days. Thirty-three requested. There were a few denials for various reasons, but in the end, we averaged 22 days per person who used the bank.
In the end, we ended with 535 days remaining on the bank. Every year we have, as a sick leave bank board, the option to ask for a moratorium or donations. This year, because we used more days than we brought in, we are recommending that that moratorium end for next year, and that we take donations from employees. That should set us up, but it has us ready to be able to handle the various needs of our employees in the district. So, as presented on the letter in there, there is a new sick leave bank board
recommended, the personnel that are on there. That bank board is something that the board approves later on in the consent agenda. And so that is the report, fairly simple and quick. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Director Ferrell has a question. Thank you, Mr. Whiting. Can you tell me when the last time we lifted the moratorium was to accept days? Was that- We had a moratorium this year, but the year before- Before we accepted ... we ended it. Okay. Thank you. It was the first time in about eight years, honestly- I was going to say, it had been a while ... that we had to lift it. We
accepted donations for one year. Do you know about how many donations that resulted in last time? From this year, we only had about 172. The last time- Okay ... we had somewhere in the neighborhood of 560-ish. Okay. So it was quite a few with new members at the time. Thank you. Thank you, Director Ferrell. Any other director have a question or concern? I was wondering if you were going to make your presentation with your guitar. Whatever I can do- You know ... to make this a little more exciting for you, President Thibeau Little disappointed, but you've got next year again, so- So ... figure it out ... so long as you sing along in the duet next time- ... it'll be great. Now we got a problem.
So, you mentioned we also will take this up in the consent agenda as far as the board. Correct. Right. Okay. Yeah. Sounds good. No questions, we'll move on. Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. Okay, so now we're moving on to our policy discussions, and the first policy has to do with JICJ, student possession and use of cell phones and other electronic communication devices. And we also are going to take up policy JICJR and JICJE. I think I got all those right. But the chair is going to take up the first one, JICJ,
for discussion. And before we do that, I want to direct the board to the fact that At our last meeting, we discussed a policy emphasizing what I have termed either an instructional versus non-instructional approach or a instruction time only approach. And that tonight in our board materials, we are presented with a new approach, and this one has more in line with what is commonly referred to as a bell-to-bell policy. So what I'd like to do is have a board member move for the adoption of the
one that is in our materials, which is the bell-to-bell policy, and see if we can get a second, and see if we can get that red line version adopted to a black line version. And then we can make amendments to anything that you wish to amend, even going back to a different kind of policy if you decide that that's where you want to go. So I think that's the simplest and quickest way we can deal with this. And so I'm going to put the version that's in our board materials, which is I'm going to call the red line version, on the table for a motion.
Does anyone have a motion to adopt the one that's in our material for tonight? I'll make a motion that we adopt updated policy JICJ as presented in this evening's board materials. Is there a second? Second. All right. Is there any discussion about just that, adoption with the understanding that we'll be working off of that template in terms of where we go from now? Is there any objection to that? Does any board member have an objection to that? Hearing no objection, then that's what we're going to do.
We're going to work off of that template. Now, does any board member have any objection to any of... Well, let me just put it on the table then for any, either discussion or amendments. Does anyone have a discussion or amendments to this policy that is now properly before us on the table for discussion or amendment? Director Penunzio. I do. I do. Would it be helpful, I should have given this to Jerry maybe prior, I had written down some of the amendments I would like to make so that you could see them. Because I know it's difficult when you're just verbally
saying them. You're not following along where they go and what I'm asking for, and they're actually very small things I would like to amend, and I would assume I need to take it one little section at a time, correct- Yes ... President Thibeault? That's what we'll do. Are they related to JICJ only? Yes. Okay. Do you have copies? I do, President Thibeault. Well, why don't you pass those out and we'll take them up one by one. I'll just pass these down this way. Oh, I can send another one. Send another one. Better get one. I think I have enough for the whole panel. Well, again, I want to just express my appreciation to the
committee that worked, and staff that worked on this this past year, working on the policy. And I'm also very appreciative of the changes that are presented here that over the last two weeks have come to fruition. I think it's a great direction that we're going, and I absolutely agree with it. And so my suggested amendments are very small. In my opinion, I think I'm leaning more towards some of the conversations that were shared by public comment this evening. What I would like to, I guess my first amendment I would like to make,
is in paragraph two of the red line copy. I would like to remove the statement, "During instructional periods out of sight unless during an emergency, which for the purpose of this policy is defined as an actual or imminent threat to public health or safety that may result in loss of life, injury, or property damage." So that would be out of paragraph two. And my rationale for that is because... Well, after I say the next part, I'd like to add in, because the last statement ends with,
"Must be turned off and stored," and I would add in, "In Yondr pouches," and we may need to change this wording, student lockers, because that's not probably what my intent was, "In Yondr pouches or other designated location." So that would be the last sentence. So we'd take out the one, the sentence about the emergency situation, and add in, "In Yondr pouches," maybe cross out student lockers, that's probably not where we want them, "Or other designated location." Okay, so- So that would be the first amendment I'd like to ask for in paragraph two. Okay. Well, let's take them up one at a time.
Okay. Let's take the one that you say remove this language. You're not substituting replacement language, you're just asking that to be removed. Is that correct? Say that again, Director, or President Thibeault. On your handout in red, you have remove, and you're asking us to remove language. Yes. But you're not suggesting any replacement language, you're just saying, "Let's remove that language." It's a replacement. It's a replacement. The green is a replacement because- Well, no, I'm not at the green, I'm at the red The red is removing Right. That's what I want to focus on right now- Yes ... is removing language that we have now in our
proposed policy before us. So you're asking that that language be removed. And I wanted to just point out to you that you have said remove during instructional periods, and that's already removed in the version that we have before us. So you would just- This wasn't the one. Oh, this is the one. Okay. This isn't the one I have then. That's already taken out then. Yes. During instructional- Okay ... periods is already taken out. I must not have the current copy then. I must be working off an old copy. Well, this is the one that's in our materials tonight on our screen.
Okay. Let me look there. So I'm trying to help you by walking you through to the fact that we've already removed during instructional periods, so you would need to scratch that out of your red line request. And you would need to say you want to remove the words, "Out of sight unless during an emergency, which for the purposes of this policy is defined as an actual or imminent threat to the public health or safety that may result in loss of life, injury, or property damage." So you want to remove that.
Well, no, I think I am working off the same copy because... Okay. "Students may possess electronic communication devices on school property, in school vehicles, and at school-sponsored activities. However, during the instructional school day, meaning the hours between starting and ending time of the school day as defined by the district, electronic communication devices must be turned off and stored out of sight unless during an emergency, which for the purpose of this policy..." So they're just being stored out of sight. Mm-hmm. Okay. That's right. And so- But I do want to remove, "Unless during an
emergency, which for the purpose of this policy is defined as an actual imminent threat." I do want to remove that, because my thinking is if we are having these out of sight and stored in another location, they're not in the classroom at all, it's not going to be a factor. Students aren't going to have access to them during an emergency situation, so it shouldn't be an issue. Okay. So let's take it a step at a time. Have you offered this language as an amendment? I want to make sure my language in there. The red language you have in the handout, to remove that phrase.
During- Do you wish to offer that as an amendment? ... the instructional school day. Oh, during the instructional school day. I think you can stay with the period. I think except for the during the instructional school day, but I still think it needs some work here. But however, during the instructional school day could probably stay in. Okay. So, is there a second to her request? Well- I can- I think because the way that's phrased, they- We need to get a second, and then you can argue your case. I just need to get a second to get this on the table for discussion. Does anybody wish to second? Director Ferrell. I'll second for discussion. All right. We have a second for discussion purposes. So what we have on the table right now in this handout
is a request by Director Ferrell. I mean, Director Pannunzio. I'm sorry, Director Pannunzio. And you are asking that essentially we remove the following language, "Out of sight unless during an emergency, which for the purpose of this policy is defined as an actual or imminent threat to public health or safety that may result in loss of life, injury, or property damage." That is what you want to remove. So do you wish to make any kind of statement or argument in support of your request to remove it? I have a question first if I may.
All right. Director Ferrell with the question. Procedurally, I'm wondering why we're removing language but not using the replacement language that she's... I understand, I think, procedurally, but I have a hard time removing language without also discussing what we're replacing it with. So it's hard to look at it that piecemeal without-- If you understand what I- I understand what you're saying, but I think I'm going to have Director Pannunzio argue- Okay ... if we do remove the language, what she intends to replace instead of offering the replacement
language at this point. Okay. That I will accept. So the floor is yours, Director Pannunzio. Thank you, President Tibbo. I'm just trying to make sure I've got it right. I think I want to take out, just leave in, "During instructional periods out of sight," take that off. Cross that off. Do you see that on the amendments that I'm presenting before you? If you just cross off, "During instructional periods out of sight." Just keep that in, and then start with ... unless during an emergency. Take that next sentence out. Okay. So let's back up and get our amendment
taken care of. I would like to amend the red line. What you're going to do now, Director Panunzio, is you're going to clarify your amendment by interlineation, suggesting what you wish now, and then we're going to see if the seconder agrees with it. Okay? But I do point out to you that in the material that we have adopted tonight to work off of, during instructional periods has been crossed out already. So I'm just suggesting for your consideration that you strike out of sight, or you leave out of sight in, and you strike the rest of-
Correct ... the language. I know I didn't include out of sight on mine. I don't believe out of sight's not included on here. You haven't. I haven't included that. Where I would like to take it out is, "Unless during an emergency, which for the purpose of this policy is defined as an actual imminent threat to public health or safety." I would like to modify it to just remove, "Unless during an emergency." Okay. All right. That's fair. Who seconded this? For the purposes of discussion. So I'll go to the seconder and see if you agree with that clarified amendment to take out the words, "Unless during an emergency, which for
the purposes of this policy is defined as an actual or imminent threat to public health or safety that may result in loss of life, injury, or property." Director Panunzio is now adjusting her amendment to take that out completely. Do you agree with that? I'll concur. Okay, so your second holds for discussion purposes. So now, Director Panunzio, the floor is yours to advocate for what you're really striving for here. Even if you have to loop in what you think you're going to propose, I will allow that. It's just easier to do that. Sounds good. Thank you, President Thibeau.
May I-- Excuse me, Ms. Panunzio. May I ask a question at this point? Yes, Director. Is out of sight in or out? In. It's in. Okay. It's in. So we're not removing out of sight. All right. Thank you. Thank you, President Thibeau. And my thinking on this is because with what I want to replace it with, with adding in, in Yondr pouches or another designated location. I want to put that in instead. And because that's added in and kids won't be having cell phones within the classroom setting at all, there's no reason
to have a statement about what they do and what happens during an emergency because they shouldn't be there at all. This would be something that we're handling via the school. Mm-hmm. So to me, it won't be an issue and we don't need it in there. Okay, that's fair. Director Ibarra. Can I ask a clarifying question? Yes. So essentially you want it to read as, "Electronic communication devices must be turned off and stored in Yondr pouches or other designated areas," and that's it? No. Out of sight. Out of sight is still included. Yeah. Okay. Yes. But that is an amendment we'll deal with later.
But she's keeping in the word out of sight, and would put in, "In Yondr pouches, student lockers, or other designated..." But we're working with the red language only at this point. So anything else which you'd like to say, Director Panunzio? No, that's my rationale for why I would like to have that pulled out and- Okay. Any other director? Director Farrell. I understand the goal here and don't disagree. My question is, do we have somewhere-- because I know we don't have Yondr pouches. Some schools don't have lockers.
Where do these devices go in that case? Director Panunzio, do you wish to answer that question? Dr. Kimsey. Dr. Kimsey, do you wish to help us with that? Sure. The district would have to purchase them. I did have Dr. Burns check on prices. Yondr isn't the only one, so I would suggest not naming a vendor in our policy. So there would be a relatively significant expense. And he can come to the mic and share what that would be if you guys want him to. Well, at this point, we're just dealing with the red language. So let's keep our focus on that, and we'll deal with
the other language if this passes. All right? Director Mays. I guess I'd like to hear what the rationale is for adding the language, "Unless during an emergency, which for the purpose of this policy is defined..." Blah blah. I'd like to hear the rationale behind that before I make a decision as to whether or not it should be removed. Secondly, let me go back a little bit. My initial, and my position today is when I was saying bell to bell, I gave a little speech about responsibility the last time.
So I'm not necessarily agreeing that out of sight means you have to put it someplace other than your pocket. It's just that you're not supposed to use it if it's in your pocket And that being the case, you don't... Again, and I know we're getting all over the place, but there's going to be this graduated discipline thing that we're going to be talking about, and that seems to me to be able to take care of if you have it in your pocket and you use it except for this emergency
thing, you're going to be in trouble. And I'm willing to give the students, rightfully or wrongly, I'm willing to give the students and their parents the opportunity to see if they're going to step up to the plate and accept the responsibility they have with regard to a cell phone policy. I am in no way advocating that they be able to use a cell phone once we do the bell to bell thing. I'm just saying that they can have it on them. They can't use it. And we take care of it that way. And I have my thoughts about why I'm suggesting that,
as I've already indicated. And therefore, I would be opposed to... And by the way, the school has to buy these things in order to make sure that these phones are safeguarded. So that's where I'm going on this thing. And I think it'd really be helpful if we quite frankly, had the language that we're going to be voting on in front of us as opposed to all over the place. Anyway, that's what my thought is, President TeW short pause ] Okay. Thank you for that. So the way we have it before the board at this time is we have a motion and a second for discussion
purposes to eliminate the language, "Unless during an emergency," all the way through "property damage." That would be eliminated. That is an issue in and of itself, dealing with an emergency. Does the board wish to have any more discussion about whether that language should be eliminated or not? Director Panunzio, I saw your light go on. Yes. Thank you. Yes, because I think my impression is that the kids would not have the cell phones on their person. They would be stored in another location. That's the difference. Where I'm coming from is why this is
not essential to have this statement in there is because the cell phones would not be on the kids in classes. Yeah, but- And to just respond to, well, we're going to talk about the next piece, which I haven't offered up. I've talked about it, but it can be changed. And if we really do, do that, out of sight really doesn't belong in there, because if you're putting it in the location, you're just going to be storing it in another location, whatever we decide would be what we would come up with tonight. It doesn't have to be a magnetic pouch. It could be however they... If it's in student lockers, that probably would be the next best place other than having it on students.
And so, you know I have ruled that out of sight remains, but it's not a closed question. If in fact your amendment passes and we move on to the next suggested amendment, we can deal with that as well. I'm wanting to focus on the emergency and whether or not it is proper to remove it at this point. Okay? Director Mays. And I think my question is still there as to what the rationale was for having this language in there. I'd like to hear that so it'll inform me so I- Okay ... know where I should go on this thing.
Director Kimsey. You're not a director yet, but- That's okay. Superintendent Kimsey. We'll deal with that. That's okay. You just lost a lot of money. I did. So the rationale is twofold. We actually have students who do safe to tell reports from their phones during class. The second, though, is, and this was a big concern brought forward during the committee, families feel strongly in this day and age, God forbid, if something were to happen, I don't even want to speak it into existence.
You guys know what I mean. Families want to be able to have their kid send that text, "I'm okay, Mom," or, "I love you, Mom." That is really important to our families, and that came forward during the stakeholder process. So that's why that's in there. Okay. Any further discussion on the amendment? All right. So I'm going to ask the secretary to call the roll, but I want to define the fact that she's asking to remove. So an aye vote is to remove, a no vote is to not remove or to leave as the
material is presented to us tonight. So we'll have the secretary call the roll. Do that again. An aye vote is to remove, a no vote is to not remove- Leave it as it is ... and it would say in the materials that we have tonight, yes. So, Ms. Patrone, will you please call the roll? Director Ferrell? No. Director Ibarra? No. Director Mays? No. Director Panunzio? Aye. Director TeW short pause ] No. So with one aye vote and four no votes, that amendment fails. So now, Director Panunzio, do you have other amendments that you wish to offer to the materials as is presented in tonight's board materials? Yes, I would. I would like to add,
and this is where maybe out of sight would have to come back out, but it would be right after, "Must be turned off and stored in a designated location." And if we needed to be more specific of that, maybe the board could suggest some places, but we don't have it yet. Maybe it's student lockers. In student lockers or another designated location. Okay, I- Because elementary school may be different ... let's back up a second, because I think you need to have the exact amendment that you're offering. And I understand you want to now take out the words "out of sight,"
and in your green language in your handout, how do you want that to be phrased? How do you want that to be phrased in addition to the phrase "out of sight" being removed? In student lockers or other designated, or another designated location. Or another designated location? Yes. Okay, that's your amendment. Is there a second to that amendment? Is there a second to that amendment? Second. Second by Director Ibarra. Okay, so now that is properly before us. And the chair will just restate that Director Panunzio wants to, in our materials, remove the phrase "out
of sight" so that then it would read, "Must be turned off and stored in student lockers or other- Or ... or another- Another designated ... designated location." That's the amendment. And then, the words "unless during an emergency," et cetera, would stay in there because we voted that to stay in, and it's a closed question now. Okay, so does anybody have a discussion that they wish to offer relative to that amendment, the second amendment by Director Panunzio? Director Ferrell. Thank you, President Thibeau, and thank you, Director Panunzio. I think that I have a concern
just leaving it as "other designated location" because the policy does not clarify who designates that location or what locations are acceptable. I don't know that I have suggested replacement language, but I worry about the vagueness of leaving it open, like another designated location. Director Mays. I think out of sight says it. If it's in your pocket, it's out of sight. If it's in your truck, it's out of sight. I don't think you need to designate or be specific about where it
has to be. I think if our intention is that these kids are not supposed to have their phones from bell to bell, if they have them in their jacket or whatever, it's out of sight. So I'm comfortable with out of sight, period. And I don't think we need this additional, and based on what Dr. Kimsey said, I don't know. It's not before the board at this time, but I am concerned about expense. Okay, Director Mays, thank you. Director Panunzio. For me, it's just not a complete policy if the phones are in the classroom,
period. To me, they need to be removed. I know the studies show that our brains are still very attached to phones and that it impacts us. We've talked about that, that even though it might be sitting in front of me turned off, it's not even buzzing, I'm still thinking about that phone. That is how addicted we are to these phones. And I think it interrupts. If it's not in the classroom, the chances of it being an interruption for the teacher and another management piece for instructors is huge. And it's really for kids, when it's put away for the entire day,
otherwise, they're using it in the hallways, they're using it at lunchtime. And again, it's going to defeat the purpose of trying to eliminate a lot of those other issues, like the social issues on phones, the bullying, trying to increase conversations at lunchtime where kids are looking at each other, talking to each other. That's why I'm advocate of the bell to bell, where the phone is not on the kids. It is put away. Student lockers is fine for me. It's better. They still may get into them, but that's going to go through the progressive piece. And I don't know if that's going to work, but at least it's a place to start, and
we can try it, see how different it feels to not have the phones on the kids. I'd like to see it different. That, to me, is very complete, to get it out of the not being on their person. Director Mays. May I ask a question, please? Yes. I thought it was still our intent, bell to bell meant it stays out of sight during that entire day, and there should be no discussions going on during change period and that sort of thing. Have we abandoned that, or is that still in our policy? No, it's not. But if they can access them- Director Panunzio, you can-
Okay. Excuse me. I'm sorry ... you can respond to Director Mays. Thank you, President Thibeau. Just the fact that they're on them, the temptation to be using them in between classes and during lunch is going to be there. I think it's going to still create issues where when I think of bell to bell, I think it has to be put up. If it's on their person, it can get used. It's just too easy to access it. Director Ferrell. And to echo a little bit of what Director Panunzio just shared, I worry that just in a pocket, off and away out of sight,
is going to create more, or going to perpetuate the enforcement issues we already have because of that temptation to pull it out. I think that puts More burden on the classroom teacher in some ways similar to it is now, and that's always been a concern of mine. So I definitely understand where you're trying to get with this, and I don't disagree. Like I said last time, this is a very complicated subject, but the enforcement piece of this is concerning to me in
I know we'll have lots of communication about consistency and all of that stuff, but that's still going to require a lot of enforcement. Director Barud, did you have something? Anybody else have anything? Dr. Kimsey. Dr. Kimsey, sorry. I keep turning my back on you. It's okay. I'm trying to stay out of the conversation as much as possible. But I would like to share a little bit around enforcement. No matter the policy the board chooses, there will be a huge uptick in suspensions first quarter. Just know that. There will. I've implemented a bell-to-bell off and away, not pouches.
It worked in my school, because we were all consistent. But at the beginning, there was a lot of discipline that first quarter. No matter our policy, there will be discipline, because kids have to get used to the expectation. The other point I want to make is that the pouches aren't foolproof. No method is foolproof. Our young people, part of their brain development, everybody knows this, is pushing back against rules and adults.
That's just part of what they do. So no matter what we do, they're going to be continually working to get around it, and the studies do show they do get around it. They smash the pouches. They put burner phones in pouches. They do all kinds of things. I don't want to have to search every kid as they come in the building for cell phones. That's a lot. And so we will have to take their word for, "Hey, Barbara, did you put your phone in the thing?" And then if they didn't, it's still going to be the teacher that hears it goes off and writes the referral to the
principal. So that will still be there. However, as I've shared with this board, the key is consistency, and I'm here for whatever you guys decide, we will implement with fidelity and consistently across our district. My concern is our parents, for the most part, have spoken, and they want their kids to have their phones on them. We do have families, like spoke today and others. I'm not saying they don't exist. We have
many families that believe, okay, nobody should have a phone. But we have a majority of families who believe they should. And one final point. I've been at all four of our traditional high schools at lunchtime. It's not quiet. Thank you, Dr. Kimsey. Director Penunzio, do you have anything else? Maybe just one more thing. Again, thank you, Dr. Kimsey. I really appreciate that. I hear you. I understand what you're saying. I know there will always be issues. I'm not downplaying any of that and how difficult, maybe not difficult, but what a huge change this would be for families, and
I'm not ignoring that. Absolutely not. It's interesting because every single family I've spoken with has kind of said the opposite. That we're really striving for this bell to bell, and out of all of the emails that all of us received from families, all except one were advocating for the stiffer, I guess you want to call it, bell-to-bell policy. And I know Judge Mays brought up a good point about responsibility, and I do appreciate that, too. But I guess my thinking about this,
the intent of this policy isn't to teach kids student responsibility, in my mind. Hopefully, it's going to do some of that, but while students are capable of keeping the devices turned off and out of sight, many students are, experience shows that compliance really varies from student to student and creates challenges for the constant enforcement by teachers. I know schools require hall passes. We have attendance policies and procedures. We have testing protocols. For example, not because students are incapable of
making good choices, but because consistent systems, and that requires all of the teachers, parents, all of us, produce better outcomes than individual discretion. It just does. That's why we have those protocols for testing. We're not going to leave it up to the kids. We have to make sure those protocols are in place. Device storage operates on the same principle in my mind. Okay. Any other comments or points of discussion? I want to be respectful to the chair, and I don't want to step over bounds by having the chair
make arguments without relinquishing my gavel. But I will, as a point of information, let the directors know that I prepared a suggested amendment that came about by me studying a wide variety of bell-to-bell policies, including from the spectrum of the American Civil Liberties Union, all the way to Stand for Children Colorado. And I actually had Stand for Children Colorado submit to me a policy language that they are suggesting all
districts utilize. And what was interesting to me is that they included the fact that all personal communication devices must be powered off and stored in the designated classroom storage system or other school-identified location, i.e., backpacks, lockers, pouches, at the start of the day. And so when I looked at our policy that we're discussing tonight, I felt that it gave the opportunity for these electronic communication devices to be stored out
of sight, in a backpack, in conformity with what the Stand for Children Colorado at least had suggested in part. That, of course, they also suggested pouches and lockers and things like that. But I think we need to be as specific as we possibly can and not have language that's vague, another designated location language, which is being offered because just as I say, as a point of information, that's going to create a lot of issues around who designates, what is that location, how is that
location dealt with from a logistical standpoint, at what time of the day, how do they get that from that location, the cellphone or whatever, and deal with an emergency situation. I think it just adds on. And so, that I just wanted to, as a point of information, let the directors know that we can be digging a hole deeper than we think, even though we're trying to do something positive. And I have become very comfortable with the materials that we have tonight as a shared responsibility. And a shared responsibility means
parents, students, teachers, and if these communication devices end up in a backpack, they're out of sight, and they're out of possession at that point, technically, even though they are in the backpack. But they're out of use, I should say, and not maybe they're in possession but out of use. So anyway, that's just a point of reference that I wanted to-- A point of information that I wanted to give the board. Does any board member have anything that they wish to discuss before we take a vote? Director Mays. Well, getting back to the emergency situation. Now what you've created
is if such an emergency does occur, the student now has to go to the designated place, the backpack, wherever it is, to access the phone. And that's why I keep coming back to, and I respect everybody's position here as to why we're all here because we want to do the right thing. I understand that, and that's how we get to the right thing, by having these conversations. But once again, if we're going to do this and we're going to use a teaching moment, we're going to have to make sure that the students and the parents
and everybody understands their responsibility with this policy. And I think, with all due respect, President Thibeau, when we put the phone someplace else, you've taken away the extraordinary circumstances thing if it comes up. Mm-hmm. I think your point is well taken. Director Pannunzio. Thank you, President Thibeau. And Director Mays, I appreciate that as well. My thinking is that this could cause more harm than good, though kids can have access to a phone during an emergency. I can just visualize a student texting
their parent, and maybe a parent is giving them directions on something they want them to do, how they should handle the situation, where we have school personnel who are in charge at that moment and who are going to be taking responsibility for these kids. And it may be a conflict. This parent may be telling their child to react or do something very differently than what the school resource officer, the teacher, whoever's directing students at that time. Cell phones can also give away locations. They can ring at the wrong time. To me, it just seems like it could be a danger for kids to be using
those during an emergency situation. Director Mays. It would be appropriate to call a question. Well, yeah, but I'm going to require that it have a second in order to do that. Call a question. If you do- No, I think that's appropriate, but I call into question. Okay. Is there a second to that? I'll second. All right. With a second, there is no opposition to that as far as I can tell from the board, so we'll just go on to the vote now. The vote is, so that everybody's clear, the language that Director Pannunzio has offered is to strike out of sight and also add in
her language in student lockers or another designated location. Thank you, President Thibeau. A parliamentary inquiry, I guess. Because I do like what you have said that maybe the wording the way I worded it is too vague If we vote this down, I may offer up another amendment. We offer up, or maybe you offer up another amendment that has clear language, taking out designated location or being able to keep them- We'll see where- Okay ... we'll see where that goes. Let's vote on this and- I just wanted to make sure that it could be-
Directors can offer any amendments they wish. Okay. Alright. Perfect. Thank you for clarification. Okay, so we're going to take a vote now. We'll have the secretary call the roll now. An aye vote means that we're taking out out of sight, and we're inserting new language. A no vote means we're not taking out out of sight Mm-hmm ... and we're not inserting new language. Directors are clear on that. We'll have the secretary call the roll. Director Ferrell. No. Director Ibarra. No. Director Mays. I think I'm getting this right. No. Director Pannunzio. No. After... Director Strebelem.
No. So that amendment had zero aye votes and five no votes, so it fails. So we're now back to the material that we have in front of us. Does any other director have an amendment that they wish to offer? Director Pannunzio, any other amendments? This is to JICJ. Well, it sounds like the board definitely wants to keep the cell phones on students. I'm kind of getting that message. So I'm hearing that. The only other thing that I wanted to offer up was, I guess the addition of...
I guess I have to get the amendment on the floor first. To add, "Electronic devices must remain stored and out of sight while the student is in a locker room, restroom, or changing area." I was just concerned about privacy issues, private spaces. That was the only other place I was concerned about. That's, to me, a little bit vague, so I wanted to add that at the end of paragraph four. Okay, just to be clear, on the second page- On the second page ... of your handout is where your language is. So- Correct ... restate that so we can follow. You have green language and you have red
language. I'm not going to do the red language this time because it's mute because we've changed everything else. Okay. So I won't even go there- That's up to you ... with that one. We took that- But you're offering the green language as presented. "Electronic devices must remain stored and out of sight while the student is in a locker room, restroom, or changing area," at the end of paragraph four. So let's find out where paragraph four is. It's at the top of page two. Let me just take a quick pause so we can all read the top of page two and then insert that in our brains what you're asking about.
Okay. Is there a second to the request by Director Pannunzio to add that language that she suggested that appears in green on her second page? Second. Second by Director Ibarra properly before us. Now let's have some discussion on that. Director Pannunzio, do you wish to discuss that? I just think that's an issue, and I heard that come up tonight. I mean, just that phones come out, and it's hard to know if people are videotaping, what they're doing with those phones. I just think to secure privacy for everyone, if the phones are out of sight, I'm not saying they can't be on the student, but they just need
to be out of sight and accessible to students while they're in these private spaces, where people are changing clothes, showering, going to the restroom, whatever. I just- Mm-hmm ... I just thought that would be just another statement to add that just provides a little bit of protection in those areas. Could you answer just the general question of haven't we covered that with the language that we have in the materials? Well, it doesn't say where the phones have to be in these spaces. It just says that it has to be used in a way that doesn't violate an individual's right to privacy. It doesn't specify where the phones have to be, or the devices, whatever the devices are.
No, my question is, we've said that they must be turned off and stored out of sight. But these are spaces that could be after school, locker rooms for practice at football or whatever sport. I mean, these are other locations where cell phones would be in use on school property. I don't know. I mean- Okay ... to me, I'm just concerned about that because I know that is an issue because people have been videotaped and- Yeah, I'm just trying to understand- So I'm trying to-- I just thought that was added. Okay. Any other discussion? Director Ferrell, do you have something? Dr. Kimsey had her- Oh, Dr. Kimsey. Sorry ... I was just going to, but I don't think she- She clarified. Okay. Okay. She's got that clarified. Any other discussion?
So we have a motion, and it's been seconded, so it's properly before us for action, unless there's any further discussion. I guess I do have more discussion. Director Ferrell. I don't disagree with you at all. I do feel like it's covered in the policy as written. And I don't see a change that would indicate this would be Out of school time, such as in a locker room after school. I don't know if that's included in students may bring a phone on school property and school-sponsored events during the instructional day, meaning the hours between the starting and ending of the
school day as defined by the district. Would an evening athletic event be defined as between the starting and end time of a school day as defined by the district? No, it would not. So for example, if a child is going to PE class, their phone has to be off and away because they're in the instructional day. However, if they are going to basketball practice after school, then this policy would still prevent them from taking videos, photographs, doing anything that violates another student's privacy.
But having to have it off and away is not required because it's after the day. And thank you, Dr. Kimsey, for that clarification. I do see here, "At no time may students use..." And then it goes into the including violating an individual's right to privacy. So I feel comfortable with the language covering your intent there. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else wish to-- Director Panunzio. Director, can I just go ahead and withdraw that amendment? Well, we have to be sure that your seconder agrees with that. Yeah. With my seconder. Director Ibarra, you agree? Yes. Let's withdraw. I'm going to withdraw it.
Is there any other amendments that we wish to offer? Any other amendments to JICJ? All right. So just to remind the board, what we did at the beginning was we adopted all the red line version, so it might be thought of as now black line. And so before us, the chair just wants to be sure, if there are no further amendments, I want to offer an amendment to adopt JICJ as it was presented in our materials tonight and as the board agreed to adopt all the red line language.
Do I have a motion to do that and a second? Is there a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Okay. So is there any discussion on that? Any discussion? If not, we'll have the secretary call the roll on JICJ as presented in our board materials relative to the motion that was offered. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panunzio. No. Director Teboe. Aye. So with four aye votes, one no vote, the motion passes and is declared adopted. So now we're going to move on to the
next related... I think it's JICJR. And that is another... I have to find it in my materials here. But it is a policy dealing with student possession and use of cell phones and other electronic communication devices. This was a new policy, as I understood it, that was presented to us on June 9th. And we are presented in our board materials tonight with several red line changes. And I think all the directors have that in front of them.
Is there any objection to adopting all the red line changes to modify this JICJR policy? Any objection to adopting those red line changes? Hearing no objection, they will be deemed adopted. So now we're dealing with the material that's presented to us in sort of black letter. And is there any discussion or amendments to JICJR at this time? Any amendments? Hearing none, can I have a motion to adopt JICJR
as amended by the red language that we all agreed to? Mr. President, I'll move that we adopt JICJR as presented in this evening's board materials. And is there a second? Second. Second. Is there any discussion on that motion? Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, we'll have our secretary call the roll on JICJR that is presented in our materials as it's been amended by the red line version of the language. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra.
Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panunzio. Aye. Director Teboe. Aye. So with five aye votes, no no votes, that passes unanimously and is declared adopted. And our final policy in this particular area is JICJE. And JICJE was presented to us on June 9th, and is a new policy that has not been modified in any way. It's the same policy that we discussed on June 9th, if I understand correctly. So, is there a motion to adopt that
JIC- Just for clarification- Yes ... this is an exhibit to a policy, not a policy? Oh, okay. All right. You're right. It's JICJE, which is an exhibit. But we would be adopting JICJE. Is there a motion to do that? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? Are there any amendments? Superintendent Kimsey. May I just quickly clarify, we did add the language parent contact. We did. And where is that at? At the end of like- Here, at the first- After first offense ... it's at the end of the sentence of the first offense and second offense. It includes parent contact for both of those.
Okay. All right. Very good. Does everyone understand that? If everyone understands that and there's no discussion or amendments, we'll have the secretary call the roll on the adoption of JICJE. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panizio. Aye. Director Thibeau. Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that motion is passed and is declared adopted. So that takes care of that particular policy, and I think the next policy is item number two under our policy discussion, and that is dealing with policy
KHC, distribution, posting of non-curricular materials, and that is before us for second reading. That policy was presented to us on June 9th, and it was basically a policy that had been in our policy books but was amended by either blue or red line versions. And let me pull that up on our materials so we can be sure what we're looking at here, if you can just hold on a second. If I can get this up. Now let's see here. Okay, so in our materials, we have, at least on the computer that
I have, is a lot of blue line changes and almost striking the entire previous KHC policy. Then it also includes some red line changes with regard to, I think, some modifications that were made to the policy along the way. What I'd like to do is present to the board what is in our materials in the blue and red line version and ask if there is any objection to any of the blue or red line version that changes policy KHC. Is there any objection to
those changes? Hearing no objections, then they will be adopted. So the material that is before us is, again, in basically black letter language. Is there a motion to adopt KHC with respect to the materials that are now modified? I'd like to thank staff for the corrections made for second reading. Many of those were my suggestions. So I'll move adoption of policy KHC as presented in this evening's materials. Is there a second?
Second. All right. It's properly before us with a motion and a second. And I will say that when we take action on this, we are not concerned with policies KHCE or KHCR, or policies JICEC or JICER. Those were mentioned in our materials as policies that could be deleted or should be deleted, depending on our action on this policy. But we are not taking action on those policies.
We would have to go through another process to do that. So we are specifically, before us, the policy KHC, and is there any discussion or amendments that anyone wishes to offer? If not, we'll have the secretary call the roll on the motion. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panizio. Aye. Director Thibeau. Aye. With five aye votes and no no votes, that motion passes and is declared adopted. And so now we're done with policies, and we're moving, thank goodness, onto our consent agenda 11.0.
Now, our consent agenda is made up of, I'm trying to get to the bottom of this, 18 items. And those items deal with a variety of issues. Does any board member wish to remove any item, either for discussion or for a separate vote? Hearing no request to do that, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as it appears in our board materials, items two through 18? Mr. President, I'll move that the Board of Education approves the consent agenda items two through 18 as presented.
Is there a second? Second. There being a second, is there any discussion? I will point out that for those who are following along, that as part of our consent agenda, the bargaining units are included and they are items 16, 17, and 18, at least insofar as those specific bargaining units are concerned. And there is a bunch of other matters that typically appear on our consent agenda. Are there any other comments? Hearing no other comments, we'll have the secretary
call the roll on the consent agenda motion. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Pannuzzo. Aye. Director TeW short pause ] Teboe. Aye. So with five aye votes and no, no votes, that motion passes and is declared adopted. And so now we're moving on to 12.0 because there are no consent agenda items to vote on separately, and the first action item is expulsion of student number 157678. And I'll turn it over to Superintendent Kimsey for any information on that. If we- The information is in your board materials.
Okay. Yep. All right. So, is there a motion to approve the request for the expulsion of student number 157678? I move the Board of Education expel student number 157678 for one calendar year, pending review in 45 days, as presented in the June 23rd, 2026 board materials. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Mays. Is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, we'll have the secretary call the roll on that. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye.
Director Pannuzzo. Aye. Director Teboe. Aye. So with five aye votes and no, no votes, that motion passes and is declared adopted. We'll move on to number two, which is expulsion of student number 164466, and I'm assuming that Superintendent Kimsey, the materials that we have in our packet are what you would present. So I'll ask if there is a motion to expel student number 164466. Mr. President, I will move that the Board of Education expel student number 164466 for one
calendar year, pending review in 45 days, as presented in this evening's board materials. Very good. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Properly before us with a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll ask the secretary to call the roll on that. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Pannuzzo. Aye. Director Teboe. Aye. So with five aye votes and no, no votes, that motion passes and is declared adopted. And now we're at number three, which is administrative leadership appointments and reassignments. Now, Superintendent Kimsey. Thank you, President Teboe, and I just want our appointees to
know that President Pannuzzo wanted to handle this earlier. The board liked that idea, but I was watching for you to come in, and they're just now here, so we're good. So, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to recommend three individuals to the board for approval for promotion. The first is Ms. Erin Rowe. She would be moving from secondary literacy specialist here in the administrative center to assistant principal at South
High School. The second would be for Ms. Kyra Kinslow, who currently had been serving as the Dean of Students at Morton Elementary School, being promoted to assistant principal at our newest Hyde Park Pre-Collegiate Middle School. And finally, Ms. Lebel. Are you here? She couldn't make it. Okay, so Ms. Lebel being promoted from Nettie S. Freed Expeditionary School, teaching math, to assistant principal at Parkview School of Discovery, and I
respectfully request that the board approve those recommended promotions. Thank you, Superintendent Kimsey. Is there a motion to approve those assignments? I lost my spot. Those appointments and reassignments. Yes. Yes, but sorry. I lost my spot for a moment. I'll move that the Board of Education approves the superintendent's recommendation for administrative appointments and reassignments as presented in this evening's board materials. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Mays. Any discussion? If not, the secretary will call the roll Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panizio.
Aye. Director Thibeau. Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that motion is passed and declared adopted. And so since we all So congratulations to everyone. Would anyone like to say something at this late hour in the evening? Please. Please feel free to do that. Hello, Dr. Thibeau, members of the board. Oh, it's the opposite. I'm afraid to speak into the microphone. Dr. Thibeau, members of the board, Superintendent Dr. Kimsey, district leaders, thank you so much for this opportunity.
I am honored to serve as the assistant principal at South High School. I am thrilled to be joining the Colt Nation family, and I'm committed to bringing something extra to South every day. So, thanks again. Thank you. That's great. Yes, please. Thank you, Dr. Thibeau, board members, Superintendent Kimsey, and all of D60, and D60 community as well. I am honored for this opportunity to help with Hyde Park, the opening of Hyde Park, and serving Hyde Park and D60 online, and getting to know those families, and taking this next step in a wonderful journey and serving that side of town.
So thank you all for this opportunity. Thank you. We appreciate your service. Anybody else like to make any statements if you're around? Director Mays. First off, my personal thanks to both of you. And it's obvious from your ascension in the ranks and everything that we've made the right choices to begin with, and you're going to be joining what I consider to be a really super-duper administrative staff, and we're looking forward to all the cool things that you're going to bring to your school. So, thank you very much for investing in Pueblo
School District 60. Thank you, Director Mays. Any other director? Again, thank you and congratulations. We appreciate your hard work and important work that you do. So we're moving on now to approval of the selection of a student representative and alternate student representative to the Board of Education, and Dr. Kimsey, I'll turn it over to you for that. Absolutely. President Thibeau and board directors, it's my distinct honor and pleasure to recommend to you the very first ever student representative and alternate representative
for your consideration. They are not here this evening because we knew we'd be running kind of long, but we will plan for the work session in August. We'll onboard them as long as you guys approve, and we'll plan for a nice reception at that first work session, invite their families, and let you congratulate them then. So, we are recommending for student representative Suraya Orozco from East High School. Mm-hmm. And for alternate representative, Isabella Montoya,
and she attends Centennial High School. Suraya is a 10th grader, very powerful young lady, and Isabella, also known as Bella, is a junior, also very powerful, and I know they would serve the board well. So I am respectfully requesting that you approve the student representative and alternate representative. Okay. Thank you very much for that. And we do congratulate them and look forward to serving with them. Is there a motion to approve the student representatives to the Board of Education?
So moved. Moved by Director Mays. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Ferrell. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll have the secretary call the roll. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panizio. Aye. Director Thibeau. Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that motion passes and is declared adopted. So now we move on to the resolutions approving or denying the charter school applications of Swallows Charter Academy, Pueblo Campus. And we all have in our packets a resolution to either approve the charter school application
or to deny the charter school application. So I'll just have the board... I'll put it on the table for the board to offer a resolution with respect to that particular charter school application of Swallows Charter Academy, Pueblo Campus. And I should say that our secretary passed out an orange envelope with the possible resolutions in there. One conditionally approving the charter application, the other denying the charter school application. We've got to do something, right? We got to do something At this point in time, President Thvo, I'd like to
read the resolution denying the charter school application of Swallows Charter Academy, Pueblo Campus. That's appropriate. Would you want me to read the entire resolution, or can I present it as it's presented tonight's board materials? Mr. Funk? Read it. Yeah, I think it is proper to read it. Okay. So I was going to say that, but that's good. Okay. Thank you. Whereas pursuant to the Charter Schools Act, CRS 22-30.5-1012-120, the Act on April 1, 2026, Swallows Charter Academy, Pueblo Campus, SCAPC or School, submitted a charter school application
to Pueblo School District Number 60, requesting charter school authorization from the Board of Education, the District Board. And whereas the District Board has considered the application, the requirements of the Act, District Board policies LBD and LBDR, relations with district charter schools, the information and recommendations provided in a report by the District 60 District Accountability Committee, DAC, incorporated by this reference, as presented to the District Board on May 12, 2026,
the District 60 staff report incorporated by this reference, the presentation made by the SCAPC leadership team on May 12, 2026, the absence of any testimony or information from the public, either for or against the application at the District Board's special meeting held on June 9, 2026, and the best interest of District 60, its students, and community. And whereas the District Board finds that denial of the SCAPC application is in the best interest of District 60,
its students, and community. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the District Board that the application is denied for the following reasons. One, SCAPC would provide limited differences related to educational programming and options currently offered in District 60, particularly as related to concurrent enrollment and career and technical education, CTE. And therefore, the application fails to address any significant purpose for which the Act was adopted. For example, the application proposes establishing several CTE pathways, most,
if not all, of which are currently being provided by District 60. Two, the proposed budget and financial plan are unrealistic, and among other things, rely upon inflated amounts projected to be received in title funding and a Colorado Charter School program startup grant. For example, in year five, SCAPC stated that it projects to be receiving over $4 million annually in title funding, Section 17: Finance. However, based upon calculations by District 60's highly
experienced staff, that amount is realistically estimated to be $539,701 in year five, as shown in the District 60 staff report. In addition, SCAPC proposes to use the buildings previously occupied by the Chavez Huerta K-12 Preparatory Academy. The lease payments and operational costs of these buildings imposed a crippling financial burden on that school, and it is unclear how SCAPC would be able to address those
financial burdens. Three, the application lacks evidence of support for the proposed school and instead relied heavily on, quote, "informal," unquote, outreach and input from community members regarding interest. That interest, however, occurred shortly after the closure of the Chavez Huerta K-12 Preparatory Academy almost a year ago on June 30, 2025. The application included the assumption that families with students who previously attended CHPA would enroll in the school.
However, that is highly speculative since those students have already enrolled elsewhere. Only two letters of support were provided, and there was no evidence of when community meetings were held, if any, where they were held, or the number of stakeholders in attendance. There were no comments made in support of or in opposition to the application during the community hearing held by the District Board on June 9, 2026. Four, there are inconsistencies between potential enrollment and the amount of general fund and categorical funding
that the school is projected to receive over time. Enrollment projections are unrealistic and appear to be too high, being estimated at 325 students in year one and 975 students by year five, especially because of the lack of evidence of community support or letters of intent and the limited informal input received shortly after the closure of CHPA. SCAPC's proposed approach to reach out to interested families is not in conformity with
board policy LBDR enrollment requirements. Five, the application failed to demonstrate that SCAPC has the capacity to serve students with special needs or how it will provide transportation or related services to those students as required by state and federal law. Instead, SCAPC proposed to rely on District 60 to support these students. However, District 60 personnel, the availability of independent providers and resources are already limited and currently has staffing shortages of six speech pathologists
Four school psychologists and two coordinators while serving 2,178 enrolled students with disabilities. Six, there will be a predictable negative impact on the enrollment of neighboring district schools, including High Park Pre-collegiate Middle School, which is scheduled to open in the fall of 2026 as a result of District 60's proactive initiative right-sizing and right-serving the school community commencing the 2026/2027 academic year.
Adopted this 23rd day of June by signature of President William Tebow, attested to by Jerry Patron, Secretary. I would move that resolution at this time. President Tebow. Thank you very much, Director Mays. Is there a second? Second. Okay, there's a second. Is there any discussion or comments that any of the board wishes to make? I actually have some that I want to read into the record myself. And a lot of it is, unfortunately, some of the very things that are in the resolution, but I think it's important to put these on the record. I wanted board members to know that I've studied and considered
the charter application with appendices A through R, the report of the District Accountability Committee, DAC, which timely met as required by applicable law under Section 22-30-30.5-107 numerical (1) (c) C.R.S., the presentation made by Assistant Superintendent Ted Johnson on behalf of the DAC on May 12th, 2026 at the Board of Education regular meeting, along with his comments at that meeting, the presentation made to the Board of Education by Swallows Charter Academy,
Pueblo Campus, that's SCAPC, by its leadership team and the interview of the leadership team by the board on May 12th, 2026 at the Board of Education regular meeting, along with comments made at that meeting. The lack of public comments for or against the charter application at the community hearing held at a special meeting of the Board of Education on June 9th, 2026, pursuant to Section 22-30.5-107 numerical (2) C.R.S., Section 22-30.5-108 numerical
(3) C.R.S. stating that the board's decision must not be contrary to the best interest of the pupils, school district or community, and the Board of Education policies LBD and LBDR, relations with district charter schools. I noticed that the origin and motivation for the charter proposal was centered around the closure of Chavez Huerta Preparatory Academy, whose leadership representation, including bondholders, contacted and approached SCAPC's leadership to explore whether or not the model of SCAPC,
that's the Swallows Charter Academy in Pueblo West, could be replicated at the former CHPA site. The application estimates a phased enrollment growth model designed to balance program quality with operational sustainability by recruiting former CHPA students. The growth estimate, as we've heard, is projected by grade level pre-K through 12. Total enrollment year one is estimated at 325 students. By year five, enrollment would equal 975 students. The application provides for a five-year budget plan in Appendix C
for years zero through five. Revenues include an approximate PPR of $13,000 in addition to categorical funding, preschool allocations, federal funding, and grants. Expenses include personal expenses and other operational expenses. The funding model and the staffing model proposed is designed to scale alongside enrollment growth. The application offers that following charter approval, SCAPC will launch a formal enrollment interest campaign targeting the displaced CHPA students among other students in neighboring areas of the school in Pueblo.
Among other things, the DAC concluded that it had concerns with regard to the financial viability based on enrollment projections and the ability to support students with special needs, given the limited personnel and resources currently available. That report has been included in my review and study. There were no public comments made in support of or in opposition to the application during the community hearing held by the Board of Education at its special meeting on June 9th, 2026. We are bound as a board, at least in my opinion, our standard of review
is Section 22-30.5-108 numerical (3) C.R.S. and board policies LBDR and LBDR. I have concluded that enrollment projections are not realistic. There is limited evidence of support for the school. There is an assumption that families who had previously attended CHPA would enroll in SCAPC. The application relied heavily on informal input from community members regarding interest in the school which occurred shortly after the closure of CHPA. Additionally, SCAPC anticipates an approach to
reach out to interested families that is not in conformity with board policy, and that's our policy LBD-R, number seven for enrollment requirements. The financial analysis provided by SCAPC, including the viability of using the proposed CHPA campus, is not economically sound under our policy LBD-R number 10. Moreover, there will be a negative impact that adding a charter school will have on the enrollment of neighboring district schools, including Hyde Park Pre-collegiate Middle School, which is set to open in the fall of
2026, as a result of the district's proactive engagement in right-sizing or right-serving of district schools beginning in the fall of Although the funding model and staffing model proposed is designed to scale alongside enrollment growth, there are inconsistencies between potential enrollment and the amount of general funding, categorical funding, and other funding that would be received over time. In passing, it is noted that Swallows Charter Academy in Pueblo West has had a demonstrated record of success. Notwithstanding, however, on the whole, the DAC had an opinion that the charter school would not bring to the
students and families in District 60 value, as it, quote, "Did not feel that the proposed educational programming in the SCAPC application provided anything significantly new or different from existing district options." Close quote. Taking into consideration all these matters, as I've set forth here and as noted, it is contrary, in my opinion, to the best interest of the pupil, school district, and community to approve the charter application, and I will be voting no. Does any board member have any other comments that they wish to make based on my comments or any other comments?
Hearing none, we'll ask the secretary to call the roll on the motion as presented by Director Mays. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ybarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panuzzo. Aye. Director Thibeau. Aye. With five aye votes and no, no votes, that motion passes, and the resolution, let's see, denying the charter school application of Swallows Charter Academy, Pueblo Campus, that resolution is adopted and is passed and is declared adopted. Okay, so now we're moving on to the next resolution, and that resolution deals with approving or denying the charter school application of Pueblo School of Arts and
Sciences, Pueblo Classical Academy. And in our packets, we have, I guess, a blue folder with those respective resolutions. One denying the application. Well, one conditionally approving the charter school application of the Pueblo School for Arts and Sciences, Pueblo Classical Academy, and the other denying that application. So, the chair will put on the table for any director to offer one of those resolutions. Director Ferrell. Mr. Thibeau, I'll move the denying the charter school application of the Pueblo School for Arts and Sciences, Pueblo Classical Academy resolution,
which I will read into the record. Is there a second to that? Since you've moved it at this point, is there a second before you read it? Is there a second? The chair will undertake to second that motion for the purposes of discussion. So you would like me to read the resolution- Yes ... at this time, Mr. President? Yes. Thank you. Whereas pursuant to the Charter Schools Act CRS 22-30.5-102 to -120, the Act, on March 16th, 2026, the Pueblo School for Arts and Sciences, a charter
school network, PSAS, submitted a charter school application to Pueblo School District Number 60, requesting charter school authorization from the Board of Education, District Board, for the Pueblo Classical Academy, PCA. And whereas PSAS currently has two charter schools operating within the boundaries of District 60, both of which were renewed for five-year terms by the district board on January 27th, 2026, together with leases of two campuses owned by District 60, Fulton Heights
Campus and Jones Campus, approved on May 12th, And whereas PCA has requested a charter to commence during the 2026/2027 school year, and a waiver of the 18-month planning period from the filing of this application until the opening, as otherwise required by CRS 22-30.5-1071B. And whereas PCA has been operating as a contract school of the Education Re-Envisioned Board of Cooperative Services, ERBOCES, within Pueblo County School District 70,
District 70, prior to submitting its application to District 60. And whereas on June 27th, 2024, the District 70 board approved a settlement agreement with PSAS, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to which PCA may choose to apply to and become a charter school authorized by any authorizer permitted by Colorado law now or in the future, even if there is a break in the continuity of charter authorization due to PCA becoming a school of ERBOCES. And whereas District 70 has otherwise
retained its exclusive chartering authority, and whereas the district board has considered the application, the requirements of the act, board policies LBD and LBDR, relations with charter schools, the information and Recommendations provided in a report by the District 60 District Accountability Committee, DAC, incorporated by this reference, presented to the board on May 12th, 2026, the District 60 staff report, incorporated by this reference, the testimony and information from eight individuals, two in person and six
via voicemail, at this district board's special meeting of June 9th, 2026, and the best interests of District 60, its students, and community. And whereas the district board finds that denial of the PCA application is in the best interest of District 60, its students, and community. Now therefore, be it resolved by the district board that the application is denied for the following reasons. One, PCA would provide limited benefit or value, if any, to the students and families within District 60.
The school is in District 70, well outside District 60's boundaries. Since transportation is not to be provided, only District 60 students with access to daily personal transportation would be likely to attend. Two, PCA has significant existing debt of approximately 1.8 million, including principal and interest, which includes approximately 1.7 million coming due in the upcoming fiscal year, 2026 to 2027. This debt was not disclosed in the application and instead was obtained from the 2024-25 financial audit.
The debt is related to two loans for modulars that must be paid by The application does not address how this debt will be paid. Three, the financial status of PCA is questionable and lacks alignment between the proposed budget and projected enrollment numbers. The application estimates a fairly steady enrollment growth projected by grade level K through 12. Total enrollment in year one is estimated as ranging between 145 and 275 students, and in year five, 379 students. The minimum enrollment for viability is 85% of
projections. There is no indication of how PCA would address its financial burdens if projected enrollment is not realized. Four, the application failed to demonstrate that PCA has the capacity to serve students with special needs, or how it would provide transportation and related services as required by state and federal law. Specifically, PCA proposed to rely on District 60 to support these students. However, District 60 personnel, the availability of independent providers, and resources are already extremely limited. District 60 currently has staffing shortages
of six speech pathologists, four school psychologists, and two coordinators serving 2,178 enrolled students with disabilities. Spreading those limited personnel and resources to additional students beyond District 60's boundaries to the PCA campus in District 70 and out-of-district online students is a significant concern and will risk District 60 falling below the levels of service to its students as required by applicable state and federal law. Five, the
online component of PCA for the high school level students would be the PSAS single district program that provides asynchronous instruction, non-instructional support from non-certified coaches who monitor students' progress, and limited synchronous tutoring provided only upon request rather than systemic. This program does not meet the standards of D60's online programming for high school students, which by comparison, includes direct instruction from a certified teacher in content areas with ongoing progress
monitoring using district assessments to ensure alignment with Colorado State standards in content and rigor. Okay. Thank you, Director Ferrell. Is there any discussion relative to this particular resolution? Any discussion? Hearing no discussion then, we'll have the secretary call the roll, but before she does that, I do want to state that I need to disclose that I have a granddaughter that teaches at Pueblo Classical Academy, and that I have determined that under our policy
BCB, there is no personal or private interest that would directly affect me participating in any way with respect to this matter, including any discussion or voting on this particular resolution. So with that, we'll have the secretary call the roll. Director Ferrell? Aye. Director Ibarra? Aye. Director Mays? No. Director Panuzzo? Aye. Director Teabo? Aye. Okay, with four aye votes and one no vote, the resolution is passed and adopted, declared adopted.
So now we're moving on to the next item on our agenda. And that is item number seven for action resolution approving salary schedule for fiscal year 2026 and 2027. Is there a motion to approve the salary schedule? The Board of Education adopts the resolution approving salary schedules for fiscal year 2026-2027, as presented in tonight's board materials. That's a proper motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Mays. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion on that matter, will the secretary please call the roll? Director Farrell?
Aye. Director Ibarra? Aye. Director Mays? Aye. Director Pannunzio? Aye. Director Tebeau? Aye. With five aye votes and no no votes, that motion passes and is declared adopted. We're moving on now to item eight, which is resolution authorizing the use of a portion of beginning fund balance for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Is there a motion to approve? I'll move that the Board of Education adopts the resolution authorizing the use of a portion of the beginning fund balance for fiscal year 2026-2027, as presented in the June 23rd,
2026 board materials. Thank you, Director Farrell. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Ibarra. Any discussion? Hearing or seeing no discussion, we'll have the secretary call the roll on that resolution. Director Farrell? Aye. Director Ibarra? Aye. Director Mays? Aye. Director Pannunzio? Aye. Director Tebeau? Aye. With five aye votes and no no votes, that resolution passes and is declared adopted. The next resolution that we're dealing with is a resolution authorizing the interfund borrowing for fiscal year 2026-2027. Is there a motion? I'll move that the Board of Education adopts the resolution authorizing interfund
borrowing for fiscal year 2026-2027, as presented in this evening's board materials. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Ibarra. Is there any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll have the secretary call the roll on that resolution. Director Farrell? Aye. Director Ibarra? Aye. Director Mays? Aye. Director Pannunzio? Aye. Director Tebeau? Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that passes and is declared adopted. Item number 10 on our schedule for action, student fees resolution for the fiscal year 2026-2027 school
year. Do I have a motion to approve? Mr. President, I'll move that the Board of Education adopts the student fees resolution and fee schedule effective July 1st, 2026, as presented in this evening's board materials. Thank you for that. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Ibarra. Any discussion? Hearing or seeing no discussion, we'll have the secretary call the roll on that action item. Director Farrell? Aye. Director Ibarra? Aye. Director Mays? Aye. Director Pannunzio? Aye. Director Tebeau? Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that
motion to adopt that resolution is passed and declared adopted. So now we're on number 11, which is the appropriations resolution for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Do I have a motion to approve? I move the Board of Education adopts the appropriations resolution for the 2026-2027 fiscal year as presented in the June 23rd, 2026 board materials. Thank you, Director Pannunzio. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Ibarra. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, seeing no discussion, will the secretary please call the roll on that resolution?
Director Farrell? Aye. Director Ibarra? Aye. Director Mays? Aye. Director Pannunzio? Aye. Director Tebeau? Aye. With five aye votes and no no votes, that passes and is declared adopted. We are now on number 12, the adoption of the fiscal year 2026-2027 proposed budget. Mr. President, I'll move the Board of Education adopts the fiscal year 2026-2027 proposed budget as presented in this evening's board materials. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Second. Is there any discussion on that? I do have a little statement and discussion I wish to make.
First of all, of course, I want to thank our staff for preparing another budget for another fiscal year. It's a very difficult process. It's a process that undertakes the entire year. I also want to indicate that my wife is employed with District 60 on a part-time basis in the school lunch program at Sunset Park Elementary School. I have a son that's a coach at Central High School for the boys' soccer team. I have a daughter who's principal at Minnequa. I don't know. I have so many kids that are working for the district.
I just want everybody to know that I read the conflict of interest policy very carefully and take it to heart, our policy BCB. As I mentioned previously, I do not believe that I have any personal or private interest such that it would deny me the ability to deal with the budget or any of the resolutions that we've dealt with tonight, and to discuss or vote on them. So I wanted to get that clear. But I also wanted to get clear, and I think this is really important for all of us to at least reflect on, board members and members in the audience, members who are listening I regard the
budget as one of our most important policy documents. A budget is not only a technical process, but reflects choices about what kinds of services will be delivered to our students and what our citizens are entitled to as members of our district. The role of our school board in establishing a budget is to ensure that our district is responsive to our strategic plan and the values, beliefs, and priorities of our community. Many school districts across the state, especially in metro Denver are cutting jobs, closing schools, and dipping into reserves as they
face huge budget deficits. The state averaging student count has changed, affecting the bottom line for our district, and state officials are concerned about the sustainability of the school funding formula given state deficits. This, on top of the future possibility of the state shifting more school funding responsibility to local taxes and less to the state, all these raise red flags for our district and districts across Colorado. Against this backdrop, and even though our district is a
hold harmless district, our budget for this fiscal year, FY 26-27, is balanced, fiscally prudent, and one which avoids taking on draconian actions that many Colorado districts are taking. At this moment in time, we should celebrate our approach, but recognize that we will face future challenges. Superintendent Kimsey's comments in her budget message to the board speaks to these and other issues affecting our budget. I want to thank Superintendent Kimsey, her leadership team, and the entire
administrative staff, and staff and employees of the district for the important work that you do and for all the fiscal leadership that everyone pitches in to achieve. In passing, I should note that the June economic forecast reported by state agencies does nothing to curb the financial challenges facing the state in the coming months and years, and it does nothing to curb my concern about funding schools in the future. So with that, if there's other comments or discussion, we'll have the secretary call the roll. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye.
Director Mays. Aye. Director Bonanziea. Aye. Director Tepe. Aye. With five aye votes and no no votes, that motion is passed and declared adopted, and we have a budget for the next year. I think that covers all the action items that we have on our calendar. I'm going to ask that we double-check my work so that we're not adjourning and not having- PURA Well, I know that, but as far as the budget goes, I want to be sure we have all the budget matters taken care of. We got them all. Okay. We do. All right. I thought we did. So now- Press star six to unmute.
I guess we do. AI. You unmuted yourself. So now, if you recall, we moved 9.0 item one, which is the Urban Renewal Association presentation, and I do think they're here, and I appreciate them coming at this time. We just had a very busy schedule with matters that really needed to be acted on, so I do appreciate your ability to work with our schedule. And so please join us at the table so that you can make your presentation. For board members, this is item 9.0, item two.
I may have said item one, but it's item two of the proposed Southwest Pueblo Urban Renewal Association project presentation. So thank you for joining us. And please feel free to get started whenever you feel you're ready. And have your whole team come up. I noticed that Cynthia Mitchell's here. Yes. Cynthia Mitchell has joined the Urban Renewal Authority as general counsel. For board members that don't know, Cynthia Mitchell is an attorney that's been hired by PURA, but she worked as a county attorney for many years. And way back in her day, she worked as
a deputy district attorney when I was district attorney. And so, welcome, and it's nice to see you again. Nice to see you as well. Just please introduce yourselves and make your presentation the best that you... Wonderful. Thank you. Cher Stieg, Executive Director of the Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority. I have with me a couple of our staff. Cynthia Mitchell, general counsel for the Urban Renewal Authority. And I am Chris De Luca, Director of Business and Development. We also have joining us virtually today, our consultant, which I'll let him introduce himself as well. Hello, everyone. Andy Arnold here with Pioneer Development Company.
Hopefully, you can hear me okay. We can hear you. Thank you for joining us. Wonderful. Well, thank you for having us this evening. We have an exciting project that is a large residential and tourism generator, and we'll let Andy take it away regarding the presentation, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have afterwards. Okay. Andy, the floor is yours All right. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to try to share my screen right now, and hopefully this works. Are you seeing a presentation-
Yes ... which is dated yesterday? Yes, we are. It's kind of small, but we see it. Okay. I wish there was a way that I could make it larger. I don't think I can on my end, so I apologize for that. We do have a- We do have a handout of some kind or- And we have the slides in our board materials as well. Yeah. Yeah. The presentation was included, and then I just handed out a summary based on our last conversation regarding a different project. This is a similar format- Great ... for the board as well. Okay. Thank you. So go ahead. I think we can manage. Go ahead. All right. Thank you so much, sir. Well, what Cherish and
PURA and I are going to discuss this evening with you, and we're going to try to keep this presentation brief, is the Southwest Pueblo Urban Renewal Plan. As Cherish mentioned, it's an exciting new development that encompasses a large area to the southwest of our city, and this development is both a commercial development and a residential development. And so what we want to talk about today are the development vision and the challenges, why this was brought before PURA as a potential urban renewal plan area,
what we're trying to overcome with this urban renewal plan, and talk about the conditions that are preventing development from moving forward. We'll get into the impact report and specifically how it relates to the school district and our next steps. So to give you a sense of where this project is located, we've highlighted a series of parcels that are along West State Highway 78. And so like we said, this is on the southwest side of the city. These parcels actually do not neatly reflect the annexation
boundary. The parcels haven't been completely subdivided yet. However, these parcels that are connecting West State Highway 78 and everything that's going out into really what is vacant land is part of the Jackson Ranch area. And so Jackson Ranch, a significant portion of it was annexed into the City of Pueblo. These are some photos of those annexation filings. What you see on the left of your screen, I know it's difficult to see, are the two parcels that would encompass the commercial development that's being proposed.
We'll get into what that is in just a moment. And then on the right side of your screen is the Jackson Ranch Annexation One and Annexation Two. Collectively, this is almost 2,000 acres of annex land into the City of Pueblo. The city unanimously approved this annexation, and it demonstrates how the city is eager to see this area be developed. The commercial part, or what we would call phase one, envisions primarily a tourist-oriented commercial development. They're calling this the Pueblo Recreation
Resort. As you know, this area of the city, the west side of it, is close to Lake Pueblo. And so this developer is hoping to develop what I would say is a mixed-use development, something that would be similar to a higher-end RV resort park. Later phases would include a water park and then also casita housing for second homeowners that would want to be located around these parks. This park could be a significant economic driver, especially from a lodging tax revenue perspective for the city.
And the Jackson Ranch residential development is highly conceptual at this point. We'll get into why that is in a second. And so really all we have is the annexation map and the zoning that's being proposed. But we have talked to the developers about this area, and really what is required to activate both the commercial development and the residential component is a significant extension of city infrastructure. As you know, this is largely vacant land if you've driven State Highway 78. And this vacant land requires new water
lines, sewer lines, and significant upgrades to the road network. And if you've been on West Highway 78, you'll notice that there's a thing called verticals where it goes up and down with the topography. It's very beautiful on that side of the city. But those verticals make ingress and egress very dangerous, and so signalized intersections will be required to get into this area. There's also an opportunity to fully extend Lake Avenue, and create another connecting arterial for the city. And I'll show a picture of that in a moment. But the development challenges.
So the development area lacks public infrastructure, like I just said. The early cost estimates that PURA has seen from the developers indicate that infrastructure costs could exceed $25 million to activate this area. That includes the water, the sewer lines, the road networks that do not exist out there, and also stormwater retention. The 100-year floodplain crisscrosses this area in certain parts. State Highway 78, as I mentioned, is unsafe without significant traffic improvements, and that may include signalized intersections,
which are the additional cost. And this is what I mean by that Lake Avenue extension. I know, again, this is difficult to see on your screen, but if you're following this dotted yellow line, this development would have to extend the roadway through it from West Highway 78, and that would then create an extension that could go all the way out to what is the St. Charles Industrial Park area. So it ties into significant infrastructure improvements for the city of Pueblo, and also ties into the fact that this is a large-scale commercial
development and also a large-scale residential development. And I'll give you specific details on what we're modeling in a second. So the condition survey Mott looked at, there's 890 acres. There are seven parcels total. The total actual value is about a million dollars, and the assessed value is $285,000. And you may wonder, how could acres be only a million dollars? Well, it's because a good chunk of this is agriculturally assessed. So again, reminding us where this map is and what we're studying, the condition survey looked at all of the 11 statutorily defined
conditions of blight. And what we found are the conditions that align with a lack of public infrastructure. That includes a defective street layout or a lack of streets throughout the area, parcels that are very large and that have to go through a significant planning stage, such as entitlement, subdivision, lot consolidations, or boundary adjustments. There's unsafe conditions. The statute reads that one of these examples is the 100-year floodplain. And as I mentioned, the 100-year floodplain does transect this area, so that was identified as well. Topography and infrastructure is also completely lacking throughout
this area. And so although it's been annexed, extending this infrastructure out is a big question mark. How can it happen? We're talking about miles of sewer lining extensions, water line extensions, and dozens of miles of roadway extensions. And all in all, these parcels are underutilized relative to how the city sees them, how the new zoning plan sees these parcels. This is a desired area for new development. And this is a list of those factors I just identified. So with five blighting factors identified, PURA and the
PURA board decided that this area is eligible for urban renewal treatment, and that brought us to the impact report, which was modeling how much tax revenue if this development, knowing what we know now, were to be developed, how much property tax, sales tax, lodging tax could it generate? It starts with the development program. And what we're seeing is that we have a very defined development program in phase one, which is that commercial section, that RV recreation resort. There's about 300 residential units. Those are those casitas that I mentioned.
It's envisioned to be largely second homes or park models that could be rented out. RV stalls and park model cabins would number 748 throughout the development, and there would be about 6,000 square feet of commercial retail square footage in small restaurants and stores to serve the development. For phase two, the Jackson Ranch development, this is, again, highly conceptual. And so we used the zoning and looked at the topography and the area to try to anticipate how many residential units could be
developed throughout this area, and we think this is a conservative number, but it could be as high as 902 residential units, bringing the total to 1,202 residential units, 748 RV stalls and park model cabins, and 6,000 square feet of commercial space. Again, these are conservative estimates, but they inform the impact report. I know these are a lot of numbers, but I'm going to draw your attention just to the ones on the grand total line. We looked at property tax revenue, sales tax increment revenue, and lodging tax incremental revenue that could be
generated by this new development over the next 25 years if this plan were to be approved. That could generate $81 million in cumulative property sales and lodging tax over that time. If we were to discount this back to estimate present value of those revenues, it's about $29 million. We also tried to estimate the demographic impacts. And so this development, as proposed, could generate about 2,600 new permanent residents for the county.
That's significant. And I think what's really significant for the school district, and School District 60, because all of this being annexed would fall within your school district's boundaries, is that this could generate around 380 new students. That represents about a 3% increase in your current pupil count. When we looked at those impacts, and again, this is a presentation strictly to the school district, there's obviously a different calculus for the city and the county in regards to infrastructure impacts with road, water, and sewer,
but we really looked at this from a fiscal perspective. We wanted to know if this was fully built out, what is the assessed value of this development, and how much of that assessed value, what percentage of it does it relate to your total district's AVIG? At full build-out, this would increase the school district's assessed valuation by about 2.8%. The school district's annual property tax revenue, which we looked at your general fund and your bond levy, it could increase by 1.8% annually or 1.7% annually, depending
on whether you're looking at general fund or bond. In both cases, this falls below our 10% and 5% thresholds that we typically use for fiscal impacts, and so that would be a low fiscal impact to the school district. And so these are some final notes. This is our last slide. The plan is not expected to generate significant impacts to the school district, either fiscally or to its infrastructure. The TIF sharing request is only to share what we call the School Finance Act levy or the general fund levy, not the bond levy or any
future mill levy override if that were to be approved. The plan is expected to generate about a 1.5% increase in the county's population and about 380 new students over 25 years. And as I mentioned, that's about a 3% increase in your pupil count. I recognize through conversations with your board and with your board president that the school district's fiscal position is very sensitive and that the school district's trying to be very sustainable with their finances and
make sure that they're positioning themselves for the future. We recognize that the school district has lost, over the past five years, almost 2,000 students to graduation and just a shrinking population. I think it's important to note that development that can bring new students to the school district can help offset some of the funding declines that have been seen and felt over the last five years. So with that, I'll turn it over to Cherish and the PURA team and answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much for that presentation. So, we'll come back to you now and see how you want to fill that in.
Wonderful. Thank you. The only thing I want to add to that is we do have other project areas, as we discussed last presentation, that in the next four to eight years will be sunsetting. So we do have the first project area of urban renewal that will be sunsetting, which is downtown expanded. And based on the current year estimate, it looks like the benefit to the School District 60 for both the general fund levy and the bond levy, because this one did have both allocated to the TIF, would be about $363,000.
So that in four years, you should be seeing that impact your budget in a positive way, because of urban renewal work over the years. So yes, we understand that this 25 years seems like a very long time, but there are benefits at the end of the tunnel. You know, it's not so long when you're 19. Thanks. Anything else you... Because I'm sure the board has some questions that we'll go through. Happy to take any questions. All right. Thank you. Board members, Director Ferrell. Thank you, and thank you for the presentation. I think that people don't always realize that our district boundaries are different
than city limit boundaries. And I was trying to overlay these maps. I did note that Andy did say that this is within Also, when the city annexes land, that does not mean that it gets annexed by the school district. Can you confirm that the entirety of this project is within 60, or is there a portion that's in 70? As far as the map that we found available online for the school district boundaries, yes. Okay. We believe that the full project is within the School District 60 boundaries, and the annexed portion would now be in the city
boundaries, but yes, they are different. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns? Oh my gosh, I'm always the one that has to... Well, you know I look at all this with a jaundiced eye, and you just know that. But let me get clear a couple of things that aren't just as obvious as they otherwise could be. But where are we at in the process of the 120-day cycle and all that? Sure. So typically, the notice that is sent to the school district starts that 120-day period. We have not been sticking to that 120-day period.
We could consider this basically the beginning of that negotiation period because this is the presentation to the school district. Per statute, it would be the notice, but as far as Urban Renewal Board, their approval on moving to bring these to you kicks off that process. But we'd be happy to extend that for negotiations if that's needed. That's up to discussion. Yeah. Whether negotiations are needed is really up to the board. We did engage at least in one session on another project you're working
on. And since I've been on the board, there's been the Elizabeth Street project, the Dillon project, the pending project at CSU Pueblo, and now this one. And I'm just trying to add up the amount that the district is putting in. And with the Elizabeth Street and Dillon, that's a little over $11 million plus. CSU Pueblo would be another $6 million, around there, I think. We're edging up for 25 years at $17-plus million. And now this one seems to be $27.6 million, if I read your presentation
correctly. That's right. So we're getting way up there. And I know that there's a difference of opinion about whether tax increment financing actually... Well, I think TIFs capture tax growth, in my view. And there is the possibility, at least in my view, and I know I sound like a broken record, that schools lose the revenue, but the law allows that to happen. The law allows the diversion to occur, and I understand that. But there are some things that You know that the district is facing some facts, and I've gone over these with you before. I won't belabor the point here, but
the sustainability of the School Finance Act, the fact that we're a hold harmless district, the shift to local share funding, the reduced state share. There isn't that guarantee that I think we all assumed existed for the backfill because things are so much up in the air. Now, we've talked about that, but those are things that are still on my mind. I noticed that the length is 25 years. The percent of tax increment is 100%. I don't know if that's something that can be negotiated in this one. I know you have another metro district that you're developing, and they have the
authority to issue tax financing of some kind, bonds or whatever. We need to know how much they're putting in. I know I've used the word risk before, and I know that I've been accused of speculating before, but those are things that from at least my vantage point, we're risking if we don't get the state share funding that we are supposed to be getting. And I know that a lot of this property doesn't have any tax revenue now, and it's going to increment over time, but I always look at things like, well, if the developer came in without our help, it would increment right away.
I guess that's not clear, though, whether you'd get somebody to do that without this kind of a scheme. So it's always difficult with respect to that as far as I'm concerned. And whether there's a positive or negative impact, we've talked about that before. I know there's 20 students per year that are projected, but that may not be an enormous negative impact, but it would be neat if you had a project that would give us a lot of students because it'd be a positive impact. And I know it's how you read the law as to whether that impact is positive or negative and so on, but
I'm just kind of glossing over these things because I think it's important for you to know that we want to be participants, we want to be good partners, but we have to be fiscally prudent ourselves somehow and look at things maybe a little different than you do. And I do appreciate that you're trying to do that, and it's very difficult for you to do that when I bring up a lot of these different things, and there's far more things that we could talk about tonight. But maybe if the board decides that we're going to talk further, that's the time to bring those things up here as well.
But I would like to just know, in the documents you said that City Council was going to take this up September 21st, and I'm not sure how hard of a date that is and whether that can be flexible or not. That is the target date. We would like to take it before City Council in September. We would need a 30-day notice for that to take place, but we know that all of our taxing entities need some time to negotiate- Yeah ... and consider these projects. So we could push that timeline if needed. However, the developer,
every day that passes, they do have expenses- Sure ... as well for carrying costs, et cetera. And they're working on creating their metro district and some zoning applications through the City of Pueblo. So they are working in tandem, assuming that their project is going to move forward, expending dollars to that effect. And to your point, yes, the reason Urban & Newell is in the room discussing this project is that the projects in this area would not move forward without the incentives because of the large-
Sure ... infrastructure ask. Yeah, I kind of figured that. So perhaps, at another point in our agenda as we wind down, I'm going to request that our superintendent try to find a good day in August for the board to have a retreat. And there's several things we need to talk about, and I'd like to have the board talk about all this and the CSU Pueblo and just see where we think we are as a board. I kind of know where I'm at, but it's not all about me. I just have a different perspective and viewpoint on all this
than you do. But that's just what creates Americans. We just differ on things, and we come to some resolution. But I don't act individually. The board has to act, and so I want to be sure you understand that. And perhaps at our retreat, we can go through some of these things, get some more specific questions on this project, as we have done on the CSU Pueblo project, and see how we can harmonize things or work the best we can together, or if we can't work at all and where we go from there. But I do appreciate you being here and striving for what you're trying to
do. This is a good case for your new attorney to cut her teeth on. And I think you're very generous for coming so late with all the things we had to do. I, again, appreciate that. Yeah, absolutely. Just welcome any discussion that you all want to bring forward. Happy to attend the retreat or any other meeting for clarification- Sure ... or discussion. Just remind you that each project has to be considered in its own right.
Sure. Right. Absolutely. So not as a totality against the district in general, but by project- Sure ... specifically per statute. So just remember that when you're considering each project individually, and we'll be happy to have any discussions. But yes, both projects, we do believe, need 100% of the increment from all taxing entities, not your bond levy, for the project to pencil with the infrastructure needs of- Yeah ... those two projects. And the 25 years would kind of coincide with whatever bonding- Correct ... the metro districts would be involved in. Yeah, I understand all that. Okay.
Any other discussion? Director Mays. Just for information's sake, we're not putting you off till August just to do that. We take July off. No, I was aware. So we're- Thank you, though, for the clarification. We take a break in July, so that's the reason for the August retreat date. I appreciate that. That's for those of us who don't get paid. Got to take a break. For those people that get paid, they have to work in July. Yes. Director Ferrell. Just one follow-up question. Have you reached an agreement with any of the other taxing entities currently, or are they still in progress? So we have only had one other presentation on this project with the county. We are working on scheduling those.
The Southeastern Water Conservancy District did not request a presentation, and they have moved forward with their agreement with Urban & Oll, so they are complete. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Okay. Anything else? We'll try to get you home before the 10:00 news. And I do appreciate your efforts in working with the board and me in particular. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Andy, for joining us. I take it you're in Durango or someplace there. I am in Durango. It's always good talking to you, sir, and the board, so thank you for staying up late to hear our presentation
tonight. Thank you for joining us, and enjoy that beautiful area of the state. That's gorgeous out there. Okay. With nothing else on this matter, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, and that is-- Oh, recommend- You have been removed from the call. Goodbye. Goodbye. See you later. Let's see. Where are we? 13.0. That's recommendations for the agenda. And as I said, I don't know if any other members have recommendations, but I have discussed this with the superintendent about having a retreat at some point when we return from break in August,
at whatever time is convenient, to go over a few things that I think we need to cover in retreat mode so that we can get them on our schedule for action during the school year. And is there any other item that anyone wishes to add? Okay. If not, the announcements appear as 14.0. I won't go through those except to note that the first day of school is August 18th. That seems like an eternity away for me anyway, but it'll come fast. It will. And so, without any other discussion, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.
The motion by Director Ferrell. Is there a second? Second. Second by Director Mays. Any discussion? If not, Secretary, please call the roll on the motion to adjourn. Director Ferrell. Aye. Director Ibarra. Aye. Director Mays. Aye. Director Panunzio. Aye. Director Thbo. Aye. So with five aye votes and no no votes, that motion passes, and we are adjourned.