School Board Meeting 5/27/2026
Main Takeaways
The board approved The Donovan Group to provide communication services for the November 2026 referendum. There was no finalist for facilitation services. The board will be moving forward without this service.
Community focus groups are scheduled for June 16th and July 14th to gather community feedback.
The first part of the meeting focused on Arts and Music education and the district’s Library Plan for the upcoming year. It was mentioned that space considerations (crowded classrooms, lack of storage) can negatively affect the arts and music curriculum.
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.
The meeting opened with student performances and several curriculum-related presentations before shifting into extended discussion around facilities planning and next steps following the failed referendum.
Art, Music, and Library Presentations
The board received curriculum and program updates from district art, music, and library staff. Much of the discussion focused on student engagement, creativity, literacy, and how students interact with programs across grade levels.
Art staff discussed continued work around “Teaching for Artistic Behavior” (TAB), which focuses on student choice, creativity, and independent artistic exploration. Teachers also discussed possible future additions like metalsmithing and expanded media/photography opportunities. One teacher described how recently acquired cameras are already helping students engage more deeply with visual storytelling and project-based work.
Music staff discussed efforts to create stronger K–12 alignment across programs and described newer approaches like “informances,” which are smaller classroom-based performances that allow families to see student progress without requiring the preparation time of large concerts. Staff also discussed peer mentorship, broader musical exposure, and efforts to build confidence and participation across all skill levels.
Facilities limitations surfaced during these discussions. Teachers described overcrowded rehearsal rooms, limited storage, and physical constraints affecting student programs. One comment referenced students “tripping over each other” in crowded music spaces, and another referenced a prior teacher injury connected to cramped classroom conditions. These conversations connect back to the larger facilities discussion, that physical space limitations increasingly affect day-to-day student experience and programming.
Library staff discussed growing student participation through book clubs, family reading night, maker-space activities, advisory groups, and student-led programming. They described increased emphasis on media literacy and teaching students how to evaluate online information and sources critically. Staff noted that circulation numbers and digital reading participation have increased significantly in recent years. They discussed future goals of making resources easier for teachers to discover and integrate into classrooms.
Facilities Planning and Community Feedback Discussion
The conversation shifted toward facilities planning, referendum strategy, and community engagement. The board used this memo from Dr. Foeckler as the outline for their discussion.
The district announced two upcoming community focus groups:
June 16
July 14
Administrators discussed preparations for these focus groups, including informational materials, postcards, visual concepts, and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the village related to possible use of Armory property land. This led to one of the central tensions of the evening: whether preparing formal agreements, visuals, and planning materials before broader public engagement could create the perception that the board had already decided on a preferred outcome.
Several members argued that formalizing agreements with the village was important as residents had previously criticized the district for presenting ideas that felt vague or speculative. They believed written agreements and visuals would make future discussions more concrete and credible. Others expressed concern that preparing these materials before broader listening efforts risked undermining trust. One board member explicitly distinguished between “listening” and “communicating,” arguing that creating visuals and agreements could feel more like persuading the public toward a preferred solution rather than gathering unbiased feedback.
The discussion repeatedly returned to a broader unresolved question: how should the district actually gather meaningful community input after the referendum loss?
Some members continued advocating for a formal survey process, while others emphasized focus groups and community conversations. Concerns were raised that focus groups would likely only attract highly engaged residents rather than providing a representative picture of broader public opinion. Board members also acknowledged that informal conversations with residents were producing inconsistent and sometimes conflicting impressions of what the community wants. This led to concerns about whether all board members had equal access to community sentiment and whether the district needed a more systematic method for collecting feedback.
The middle school remained the central facilities priority throughout the discussion. However, several members noted that residents continue raising alternative ideas and “outside-the-box” concepts that the board may still need to consider or revisit.
Another important theme was timing. Administrators stressed that the district faces a relatively compressed timeline if another referendum is eventually pursued, meaning some planning work may need to happen in parallel with community engagement efforts.
Project Options and Potential Tax Impacts
The discussion moved deeper into referendum structure, financial ranges, and how potential future questions might be presented to the public.
One major topic involved how clearly the district should communicate the consequences of delaying facilities work. Some members argued residents need very concrete explanations of what happens if projects are postponed, including the possibility that future building costs could ultimately compete with operating budgets and staffing resources. Others questioned how granular those explanations needed to become, warning that overly detailed breakdowns might overwhelm residents.
The board then debated what referendum ranges should even be tested in future community engagement efforts. Several members argued for lower upper-end numbers than the previous referendum, citing economic conditions, taxpayer sensitivity, and the importance of demonstrating restraint. Others noted that prior survey work suggested meaningful support even at much higher levels and questioned whether the board should artificially limit future discussions before fully understanding current community sentiment.
The board also debated whether future community discussions should present individual project-by-project costs, bundled project categories, or broader conceptual priorities. Some members preferred grouped “buckets” tied to strategic logic and operational efficiency, while others felt residents needed highly itemized information to fully understand trade-offs.
Underlying much of the discussion was a broader unresolved issue: the district’s long-term deferred maintenance obligations. Multiple members emphasized that some projects are unavoidable eventually, even if they are delayed or phased differently.
Donovan Group Approval
Later in the meeting, the board discussed responses to recently issued RFPs for communications services and community engagement facilitation. Administration explained that two proposals were received for each category, interviews were conducted, and the district was recommending Donovan Group for communications services.
The representative from Donovan Group described their work supporting school districts across Wisconsin. They repeatedly emphasized helping ensure that “every voter is an informed voter” and described how districts often face a relatively short timeline between deciding on a referendum question and election day.
The board approved Donovan Group unanimously.
The district did not select a facilitator for broader community engagement discussions at this time, which several members noted remains an unresolved piece of the overall engagement process moving forward.
Debt-Free Milestone
The board also approved early payoff of remaining district debt obligations. Administration explained that paying off the debt this fiscal year would save interest costs and increase projected state aid next year.
Board members paused briefly to recognize that the district will become debt-free following the payment.
Overall Tone of the Meeting
The Arts/Music/Library presentations were reflective and future-oriented. Board members and administrators appeared largely aligned around the value of arts education, while understanding practical constraints around staffing, scheduling, and funding.
The facilities section the meeting was cautious and process-focused. Much of the discussion felt less about reaching immediate decisions and more about understanding how the district should move forward. Compared to some earlier post-referendum conversations, the discussion felt more grounded in operational planning and process design, though uncertainty around community support and future direction remained significant.
Public Comment
No public comments were made at this meeting.
