School Board Meeting 6/17/2026
Full Video Recording - 6/17/2026
Main Takeaways
The board discussed and approved a community survey to gather additional feedback to help inform the next referendum questions. This survey is designed and run by The Donovan Group - the communications group hired last month. Survey will be open through the month of July. Survey can be taken here.
Two new focus groups were approved. One focused on neighbors who would be impacted with the location of a new middle school and the current middle school. A second group would focus on community members concerned about Armory Park and the Veteran’s Memorial. These focus groups will take place July 20th 6pm (Veteran’s memorial) and July 21st 6pm (MS Neighbors). They are also open to the public.
The HVAC business automation system experienced a server failure in late April, highlighting the risks of our school’s aging infrastructure. The system controls the HVAC parts at the High School, but also parts of Cumberland and Richards. The board discussed the trade-offs of doing nothing (worst case winter scenario means no control over heat in many HS classrooms) vs replacing partial parts (money/parts that will be replaced if/when a referendum is passed). This is a clear example of risk management that must be decided given the failed April referendum that would have provided a long term solution.
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 presentations on technology multilanguage learners, and finance. There was significant discussion about an recent HVAC server failure and ongoing risk. The bulk of the meeting was discussion of a new community survey. The meeting closed with finalizing memos for two specific community focus groups.
Technology Plan: Cybersecurity and AI Planning
The meeting opened with an instruction committee update on the district technology plan. Administrators explained that the district is moving toward 100-day execution plans given technology, cybersecurity threats, and AI tools are changing too quickly for a static three-year or even two-year plan to remain useful. The 100-day cycle makes planning more flexible and action-oriented.
The first major pillar was cybersecurity and organizational safety. Administrators described a threat environment where school districts and other organizations increasingly face cyberattacks, and where insurance requirements are becoming more demanding. Specific steps included new or expanded use of tools such as ThreatLocker. The district also plans to conduct phishing campaigns to help educate staff to recognize suspicious emails.
The second technology pillar focused on curricular innovation and AI integration. Administrators are looking for places where AI and other instructional tools can fit into existing curriculum review structures. Administrators understand AI is something students are already using and therefore something the district needs to teach intentionally. The goal is not just to police misuse, but to help students understand how to use AI as a learning tool while still showing what they know without it.
Several board members focused on guardrails and concerns including hallucinations, overreliance, academic integrity, the risk that students or staff might accept AI-generated information too easily and loss of individuality in student work. They also discussed how teachers and students might share useful AI practices.
Multilingual Learners: Strong Results and More Newcomers
The second instruction item was an update on the district’s multilingual learner program, formerly referred to as English language learners. The district has 90 total students classified as multilingual learners, with 70 actively receiving services. 16 multilingual learners also qualify as students with disabilities, and 29 students are considered newcomers, meaning they’ve been in the USA for less than three years. The high school has the highest number of active multilingual learners and newcomers.
Administrators shared strong results from the prior year. Multilingual learners scored above the statewide average for all students in both English language arts and math, with more than 60% advanced or proficient in each.
Staffing remains similar to the prior year: two teachers and nearly a half-time paraprofessional serving the district. One teacher supports the middle and high school, and the other supports the elementary schools. Some services happen through co-teaching in general education classrooms, and some students receive pull-out or small-group instruction depending on proficiency level.
The update ended with next steps around data systems, integration with the new ELA curriculum, and work on MTSS processes. One key challenge is determining whether a student’s reading difficulty is primarily due to language development, a possible reading intervention need, or a learning disability. The district is working on decision-making tools for that, while also exploring home-language assessments where possible.
Finance: Closing One Budget Year, Preparing the Next
The finance committee portion of the meeting focused on two familiar annual topics: final 2025–26 budget adjustments and the preliminary 2026–27 budget.
Administrators explained that the 2025–26 adjustments were related to year-end transfers between funds, interest earnings, early debt payment, among other things. They confirmed that the district is watching state aid formulas closely, especially around Fund 46 transfers, to maximize state aid where possible and offset the levy.
The preliminary 2026–27 budget was presented as balanced, though still subject to change based on final staffing, pupil counts, final levy calculations, etc. Administrators emphasized that most new revenue is being directed toward the board’s stated priorities: class sizes and staff compensation. There was also discussion of special education reimbursement, currently projected at just over 40%, which is higher than in prior years but below the 50% reimbursement level that had been proposed at the state level.
A board member asked how a future referendum could affect the operating budget. Administrators explained that immediate capital needs are currently addressed through Fund 46 and fund balance, but those funds could be depleted quickly given the size of the long-term capital plan. If a referendum passes, the district may be better positioned to keep the current maintenance budget stable. If the operating budget needs to absorb facility needs, the board may eventually need to discuss whether more operating dollars must be shifted toward capital projects.
Building and Grounds: HVAC Controls Raise a Near-Term Facilities Risk
The Building and Grounds committee then took up a high school HVAC infrastructure update. Administrators explained that in late April, one of the district’s building automation control systems failed. The system in question is the oldest business automation system in the district - a Siemens system installed in the 1990s. Although the failed system is located at the high school, it also affects HVAC at Cumberland and Richards, particularly gym areas and main air handling units.
The system was restored, but the failure raised broader concerns about aging HVAC controls and how much risk the district is carrying before any major facilities work could occur.
The discussion distinguished between the physical HVAC equipment — the “parts” — and the building automation system — the “smarts” that control valves, dampers, and related equipment. Both are aging. The challenge is that a referendum, if approved, would eventually address much of the infrastructure work, but likely not until summer 2028 at the earliest. That leaves at least a 2 year gap between the current risk and a long-term solution.
Administrators presented three options:
Continue operating the existing system.
Complete a partial Siemens upgrade, estimated around $220,000, including a new head end and replacement of the oldest panels at the high school, Richards, and Cumberland.
Replace the full Siemens system, estimated at more than $1 million.
The board explored the risks and tradeoffs. Doing nothing means continuing with the current system and accepting the possibility of future control failures. A full panel failure could affect multiple areas, and in a worst-case winter scenario could mean classrooms and other areas without heat. A partial upgrade would reduce that risk but would duplicate some spending if a referendum later funds a full HVAC replacement. That makes the decision a risk-management question rather than a long-term investment.
The proprietary nature of Siemens was another recurring issue. Administrators explained the long-term strategy is to move toward an open-protocol system that can be serviced by multiple vendors, improving competition to reduce long-term maintenance costs. However, moving fully to a new system now would likely require a full replacement, which would be expensive and still tied to very old HVAC equipment.
The board was uninterested in the full replacement option, but wanted more information about the partial upgrade and the true risk of waiting. Questions included how quickly a partial upgrade could be completed, how long the district might be without heat or control if a system failed, whether waiting could increase costs, how the $220,000 breaks down by school, and whether any components could be reused under future scenarios. The administration will return next month with more information.
Regular Meeting: Facilities Survey Becomes the Central Discussion
The regular business meeting began around the 90-minute mark and quickly moved into a facilities planning update. The board had already held one focus group session and expected another. The district also planned a community survey open during July, with analysis in early August and board discussion around a possible November ballot question later in August.
The board then walked through the proposed survey in detail.
Demographics
The first debate centered on demographic questions. Several board members wanted the survey to better distinguish between different kinds of community connection to the schools. Some members wanted richer segmentation and others worried it would be too many categories. The board eventually leaned toward a clearer “select all that apply” structure.
How to Describe the April Referendum Result
The board also discussed how to describe the April referendum. Members wanted to be accurate but not loaded. They settled around “was not approved” instead of stronger language like “rejected.” There was also discussion of residents describing the failed referendum as if it had only been about the middle school. Several members emphasized that the April referendum also included district-wide infrastructure projects and wanted to avoid misunderstanding.
Why People Voted the Way They Did
The board spent significant time on a question about why the April referendum was not approved. One concern was whether the survey should ask people to speculate on why “community members” voted a certain way or instead ask respondents directly what influenced their own vote.
The board also debated whether responses should be phrased neutrally. Members worried that wording like “the district did not communicate effectively” could prime respondents with a negative statement. Others said they had heard directly from residents who supported the referendum but still believed the district had not communicated clearly enough. A related concern was whether residents lacked information or whether they had the information and simply disagreed with the district’s conclusions. That distinction came up later in public comment as well.
The board also discussed whether respondents should be limited to their top two reasons or allowed to select all that apply. Some board members worried that this could make the data less actionable if people select too many options. Others felt that constraining answers too much would undermine the purpose of listening.
Middle School Details
The board then turned to the section about the middle school. There was discussion if “renovating and updating the existing middle school” could be too broadly interpreted and if they need distinction between a major renovation, a basic infrastructure-only approach, and preserving the existing building for historical or architectural reasons.
Several members said the board needs to know whether there is real community support for renovating in place instead of building new, even if the board previously concluded that a new building offered better long-term flexibility and less disruption. Others worried that the survey might make renovation sound like an equivalent option without explaining tradeoffs such as cost, disruption, temporary classrooms, or design limitations.
A proposed question about whether respondents had recently toured the middle school was discussed but did not appear to gain traction.
Cost of Delay
One of the clearest tensions came during discussion of a proposed “cost of delay” section. The draft apparently tried to explain that delaying projects could increase costs over time or create future maintenance pressure. The discussion focused on the recurring theme of listening vs educating, with the board ultimately decided against including the cost-of-delay section in the survey.
Tax Tolerance and Scope
The next major question focused on how much borrowing residents might support. The board discussed dollar increments and whether the options were too narrow or too detailed. The range under discussion ran from roughly $90 million to $125 million, with $5 or $10 million increments.
Administrators explained that a $90 million scope could include a new middle school or equivalent major renovation, full mechanical system replacement at the high school, and fire alarm work at the elementary schools. But that would leave other projects for later. Some board members worried residents could choose a lower amount without fully understanding that other needs would still remain and could require future action. Others felt that adding too much explanation at this stage would again turn the survey into education rather than listening.
Members also discussed whether to provide a calculator or direct link so residents could estimate the tax impact on their own property rather than relying only on examples based on a median home value. There was agreement that making tax impacts easier to understand would be helpful, though they wanted to avoid sending people away from the survey midstream if possible.
Introductory Language and Final Survey Wording
Near the end of the survey review, the board returned to the introductory language. One member objected to language suggesting that feedback would “directly decide” what comes next, saying that was too strong. The board leaned toward softer language: community feedback would help inform a potential November ballot question.
There was also discussion of describing the board as developing a “comprehensive facilities plan.” One member emphasized that the board is not only deciding what might go on a November ballot; it also needs a plan for the projects that do not make it into any referendum question. That larger planning responsibility was important to name.
Targeted Focus Groups: Veterans Memorial and Nearby Neighbors
After the survey discussion, the board reviewed draft outreach memos for additional focus groups. One was aimed at community members with a particular connection to the Veterans Memorial. The other was aimed at neighbors near the possible future and current middle school sites.
The board wanted these sessions to remain focused on listening, not on presenting or defending the district’s prior decision-making. At the same time, some members noted that residents are likely to ask specific questions about why certain locations were or were not considered. There was interest in eventually having consultants such as PRA or C.D. Smith available to answer technical questions, but the immediate focus groups were framed as opportunities to gather feedback.
For the neighborhood group, administrators described outreach to nearby streets including Kimbark, Meadow, Sylvan, Lake, Henry Clay, and Ardmore, while noting that some cross streets would likely be included only partway.
Board members also discussed whether village trustees should be invited or informed, given the connection between the school district, village, Armory Park, and memorial questions. The board appeared open to broad attendance, especially if meetings need to be noticed, but wanted to make sure the intended groups were actually reached.
Final Approvals
The board then approved the community survey for facilities “as discussed.” Before the vote, one board member raised concern about how the board should interpret survey results if the respondent pool is not representative. There was also some disappointment that Donovan representatives were not present for the discussion, and interest in having them attend a future July meeting to help the board think through possible result scenarios before the data comes back.
The board also approved the 2025–26 budget adjustments discussed earlier in the finance committee.
Overall Tone of the Meeting
The overall tone of the meeting was detailed and process-heavy. Early sections were informational and relatively aligned, but the facilities portion was exploratory and unresolved. Board members were not debating whether facilities needs exist in a simple yes-or-no way; they were wrestling with how to ask the community better questions, how much context to provide, and how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the April referendum process.
A recurring tension was listening versus explaining. Several board members wanted the survey and focus groups to gather clean feedback without sounding persuasive. Others worried that residents may not understand the tradeoffs unless the district names them clearly. That tension shaped much of the survey revision process.
Public Comment
If you’d like to review public comments, please see full video. Comments start at 3:11:00
