School Board Meeting 4/15/2026
Main Takeaways
This was the first school board meeting since the referendum failed on April 7th. It was a reflection meeting for the board to discuss what pieces went well and what pieces need improvement. No decisions were made and the conversation was intentionally open-ended.
There was strong focus on improving community engagement. The board discussed another village-wide survey, but were split on how feasible and useful this would be.
There was significant discussion on improving communications. This could mean shorter and clearer presentations, better visuals, and more explanations of costs/trade-offs and links between projects.
The board definitely understands there is a strong need for more community feedback and engagement before moving forward with a new plan.
Full Notes
*These are unofficial notes from the video recording of the meeting. AI was used to create these notes. They were reviewed by a community member.
This meeting was focused entirely on reflecting on the failed referendum and discussing possible next steps. At the beginning of the meeting, board members emphasized that they had not yet discussed the referendum together as a group and that the purpose of the meeting was exploratory rather than decision-oriented.
Reflection on What the Board Felt Worked Well
The meeting opened with a broad discussion about what board members believed worked well during the referendum process.
Several members highlighted the school tours as one of the most effective parts of the campaign. Board members said that seeing the buildings firsthand helped many residents better understand the physical condition of facilities, especially at the middle school. Multiple members described feedback from residents who came away from tours feeling that the building challenges became much more obvious in person than through presentations or photos alone.
The board also discussed the amount of work that went into the facilities review process over multiple years. Several members emphasized that the district now has a comprehensive understanding of building conditions, infrastructure needs, accessibility issues, and long-term maintenance challenges after years of analysis and planning.
One recurring theme was transparency. Several members felt the district worked hard to make information publicly available and respond to questions in real time as concerns emerged. Board members also pointed to live Q&A sessions, community meetings, FAQs, website resources, survey participation, and responsiveness to questions as strengths of the process.
The board also discussed the high level of community engagement throughout the referendum process. Members noted that even residents who ultimately voted differently became more informed about school finance, referendum funding, facilities maintenance, and district responsibilities through the process.
Communication and Storytelling Discussion
The conversation then shifted heavily toward communication challenges and where the board felt improvements are needed moving forward.
One of the strongest themes throughout the meeting was that the district may have overwhelmed residents with too much information at once without creating a simple and accessible overall narrative. Examples included extremely detailed presentations, the website containing large amounts of information immediately, and residents engaging for the first time may not have known where to start
One board member described the challenge as leading with “process” and “information” rather than telling a more concise story about how the district reached this point, what the buildings are experiencing and what the district is ultimately trying to accomplish long-term
Another recurring theme was the difference between transparency and clarity. Several members felt the district succeeded in making information available but struggled to organize and present it in a way that felt understandable and approachable for the broader community. Future communication efforts could simplify presentations, use clearer visuals, better explain trade-offs, and make materials easier to navigate
Board members repeatedly returned to the idea that future communication needs to help residents more quickly understand the “why” behind projects rather than immediately confronting them with large amounts of technical information.
Essential Needs vs. “Enhancements”
One of the larger discussions of the meeting focused on how parts of the referendum were perceived differently by the board and by portions of the community.
Several members said the board viewed much of the proposal as infrastructure work, safety improvements, accessibility upgrades, plumbing/electrical/HVAC, and code compliance needs while some residents perceived parts of the plan as optional “enhancements” or major upgrades. Future communication efforts may need to do a much better job distinguishing foundational infrastructure needs from educational improvements or optional enhancements.
One member specifically referenced frustration that some residents interpreted the proposal as building “Taj Mahal” schools when much of the proposed work involved basic infrastructure and operational needs.
The board also discussed whether future communication should more directly explain what happens if projects are delayed, which systems are already beyond expected lifespan, and what risks or limitations the district faces if work continues to be deferred.
Middle School Discussion
The middle school remained one of the central topics throughout the meeting.
Board members discussed whether the district did an effective enough job explaining why renovation-in-place was not viewed as the preferred solution. This included limitations of the current structure, accessibility concerns, building layout challenges, operational inefficiencies and why the district ultimately prioritized replacement over renovation.
Several members suggested future efforts may need stronger visuals, clearer explanations of constraints, and more concrete examples of what renovation versus replacement would realistically look like.
There was also discussion around whether future engagement efforts should spend more time helping residents understand why certain options were eliminated, what alternatives had already been studied, and why the board ultimately prioritized the Armory Park concept.
Surveys and Community Feedback Discussion
A significant portion of the meeting focused on whether the district should conduct another community survey. Board members discussed two different questions they were trying to answer: why residents voted “No” and what residents might support moving forward. Several members expressed concern that those are very different questions requiring different timing and different approaches.
Some members worried that surveys could oversimplify complex community perspectives, while others felt surveys remain one of the only ways to gather broad, structured community input across the village. There was extensive discussion around timing constraints, interpretation challenges and whether survey results would provide meaningful enough guidance.
The discussion shifted toward whether more direct engagement approaches might be more useful, including (potentially) town halls, facilitated community conversations, listening sessions, and smaller in-person discussions.
Several members emphasized that anecdotal conversations alone are not enough to fully understand community perspectives, but also acknowledged that surveys also have limitations.
One of the clearest themes throughout this portion of the discussion was that board members still felt they did not fully understand why residents voted against the referendum and believed additional listening and engagement would be necessary before future decisions are made.
Discussion Around Communication Support and Facilitation
The board also discussed the possibility of bringing in outside support for communication and community engagement work. Discussion included help with public relations support, communication strategy, facilitation, and structured community conversations
Several members clarified that the goal would not simply be “better PR,” but rather better communication, clearer explanation of facilities needs, improved listening, and more productive community dialogue
Board members referenced how conversations with residents became much more productive once facilities details and educational concepts were explained more concretely and conversationally and how residents, who initially viewed parts of the referendum negatively, later said they better understood the district’s reasoning after more detailed individual conversations.
The board discussed whether outside facilitation could help create more constructive and trusted community conversations moving forward.
Overall Tone of the Meeting
The overall tone of the meeting was reflective, candid, and exploratory. Board members openly acknowledged communication shortcomings, differing community perspectives, uncertainty around next steps, and the need for more listening and engagement
At the same time, there was broad agreement that the district still faces significant facilities and infrastructure challenges that will continue requiring future discussion and planning.
The meeting repeatedly returned to the tension between continuing to address long-term facilities needs while also rebuilding trust, improving communication, and better understanding community concerns moving forward.
Public Comment
If you’d like to review public comments, please see full video. Comments start at 1:32:00
