School Board Meeting 5/5/2026
Main Takeaways
The board members agreed their priority is a new middle school. There was discussion about how a renovation is not considered practical due to structural, accessibility, and operational limitations.
Board discussion focused on whether or not to conduct another community survey. The majority was hesitant to move forward with a survey at this time due to time constraints, potential usefulness and the exact need for the survey.
There was discussion on hiring outside help for community engagement/facilitation of listening sessions and communications support, but no decision made.
The board repeatedly emphasized the need for more listening and community conversations. Concerns were raised about getting engagement over summer break.
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 focused primarily on next steps following the failed referendum, including whether the district should conduct another survey, how future community engagement should work, and how the board should begin narrowing possible future referendum approaches.
Middle School Renovation vs. Replacement Discussion
The meeting opened with one of the most detailed public discussions so far around why the board and consultants believe renovation of the current middle school building is not a practical long-term solution. Board members and consultants described how the original center-gymnasium design creates major operational and structural limitations. Discussion focused on how the building’s layout creates inefficient circulation space, accessibility challenges, and limitations on how educational spaces can function today
One board member described the current layout as “heating a lot of spaces that are not used for anything but passing,” while consultants explained that the original center gym acts as a structural “lynchpin” connecting the building together. Because of that design, major phased renovation becomes extremely difficult while keeping the building operational.
There was also significant discussion around accessibility limitations, including references to the recessed gym, elevator placement issues, and the difficulty of creating efficient accessible movement throughout the building without major disruption to the existing structure.
The conversation then shifted toward how the district communicates these realities to the public. Several members expressed concern that residents may not fully understand why renovation-in-place was largely ruled out after years of facilities discussions.
Board members referenced multiple alternative concepts previously explored, like additions to the high school and alternate sites. Members emphasized those ideas were discussed extensively in prior meetings before the board and facilities committee ultimately prioritized the Armory Park approach.
Survey Discussion and Debate Over Community Feedback
A large portion of the meeting focused on whether the district should conduct another survey. The discussion quickly evolved beyond simply “survey or no survey” into a deeper debate about what information the board actually needs, when that information is needed, and whether surveys are the right tool to gather it.
Several members separated the discussion into two different questions:
Why did residents vote “No”?
What would residents support moving forward?
Board members repeatedly noted that those are very different questions that likely require different timing and different engagement approaches. One member argued that understanding why residents voted no would need to happen immediately to influence future discussions, while understanding what residents might support would need to happen later after more community conversation and education.
Several members who initially supported another survey said they became more skeptical after reflecting on the limited timeline, the amount of refinement required for the previous survey, and whether surveys can truly capture complex community perspectives. At the same time, other members strongly emphasized the value of surveys as one of the only structured ways to reach every household, especially residents who may not attend meetings, town halls, or focus groups.
One board member specifically raised concern about how to hear from “the 80-year-old Whitefish Bay family who is not going to come to the town hall.”
Discussion Around Communication and “Telling the Story”
Another major theme throughout the meeting was the idea that the district needs to do a better job explaining facilities needs, long-term trade-offs, and what happens if projects are delayed or phased differently.
Several members reflected on conversations they had personally with residents after the referendum. One board member described residents reacting negatively to terms like “collaborative spaces” because they did not understand how educational practices have changed over time or why those spaces matter educationally.
That same member said many residents also did not realize that much of the proposed work outside the middle school involved infrastructure, HVAC/plumbing/electrical systems, and foundational building work rather than optional enhancements.
One board member emphasized that if infrastructure projects are not funded through referendum borrowing, those costs eventually compete directly with teacher salaries, class sizes, and educational programming through the operating budget. Another member stressed that future conversations need to make those long-term consequences more “real” to residents rather than treating the referendum as an isolated one-time decision.
Debate Over Future Referendum Structure and “Phasing”
The board also spent considerable time discussing what a future referendum package could potentially look like. Several members acknowledged that the previous referendum amount likely felt too large for many residents, especially given broader economic concerns. There was discussion around smaller phased approaches, focusing primarily on the middle school, narrowing project scope, and separating critical infrastructure work from longer-term improvements. At the same time, some members warned that reducing scope too aggressively could simply delay major costs rather than eliminate them.
One recurring idea throughout the discussion was that future communication needs to better explain that: many facilities costs do not disappear if projects are delayed and future boards may need to return to the community sooner rather than later for additional projects or infrastructure funding.
Board members debated whether future community conversations should include specific dollar ranges, multiple phased option packages, or more open-ended discussions before narrowing specific referendum concepts.
Another recurring theme was the board’s responsibility as long-term stewards of district facilities. Several members emphasized that the district still has significant infrastructure needs regardless of referendum outcomes and that future boards will continue facing those challenges even if projects are delayed.
Discussion Around Facilitation and Outside Support
Later in the meeting, the board discussed whether the district should seek outside support for facilitation and communication services.
Several members expressed concern that fully open-ended town halls could become unproductive without structure or facilitation. At the same time, others warned that overly facilitated conversations may unintentionally limit authentic dialogue or prevent minority viewpoints from surfacing. Board members discussed the possibility of facilitated listening sessions, focus groups, and structured community conversations.
Administration also outlined a possible timeline for issuing an RFP, interviewing candidates and bringing a finalist for board approval before summer.
Another major concern was timing. Several members stressed that engagement efforts likely need to begin before the end of the school year, communication may become more difficult during summer months, and the board needs time before August to narrow possible referendum options if a question will appear on November ballots.
Overall Tone of the Meeting
The overall tone of the meeting was reflective, exploratory, and at times visibly uncertain.
Board members appeared aligned that additional community engagement is necessary, facilities needs remain significant, and communication must improve moving forward
However, there was substantial disagreement around whether surveys are the right tool, how much listening should happen before narrowing options, what future referendum structures should look like and how quickly the district should move toward future decisions.
Public Comment
If you’d like to review public comments, please see full video. Comments start at 1:27:30
