001There it is. beautiful people were very >> nice. >> Oh, I'm getting that right now. That's quality. [clears throat] >> All right. I call to order the committee of the whole 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. >> I seek uh approval of the agenda. >> So second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? I motion carries. Um roll calls us all present. Um resolution establishing parameters for the sale of not to exceed 9,500,000 general obligation promisary notes. >> General [laughter] all the stops. >> You're welcome. >> So, uh yeah. So, we welcome Brian Brewer from May here today to talk about the two resolutions that will be uh
002that we put here for possible action. So, I'll let Brian go through his uh presentation. >> Okay. Good evening. Thank you, Mark. Um so um tonight you have two action items uh and it's for the next components of the referendum financing. So if you recall last December uh we accelerated the timeline and locked in your first portion of the uh 121 million authorization. You locked in 93 million at a at a 3.78 all in. And to put that in perspective, what we were using during the communication was 4.75. So almost a full percentage point lower on the first 93 million, which is significant primarily because of the the chart that I put on this next page where um in that upper right corner, that's the so the bottom is the last 30 years of um
003movement in the interest rates in the market. Uh, but the upper right corner is the last year. So that low spot over on the left side of that upper chart is is the spot where you locked in. So I I'd like to take credit for, you know, we we knew rates moved lower and we knew we were a full point under where you were, but I didn't know necessarily that, you know, rates would be higher the rest of the year, right? So, uh, we were basically taking the burden of hand, which locked in millions of dollars of cost avoidance on that first borrow. Um, gave us time to wait. You know, you have you have those funds sitting in the project account. You're earning uh maximum investment earnings. Um, because short-term interest rates were were
004still high then. Uh, in the last few months, the Federal Reserve has lowered their short-term um, overnight lending rate, which affects the rates of return you get in that um, project account. Um, but if you see the far right side of that upper chart since the summer, uh, long-term rates have started to come back down. So, that's why we're talking about tonight locking in a portion, um, under 10 million. So, the number is nine and a half million is the target. um before December. So we'll sell it sometime in the next couple weeks and close it in December. And then the second resolution is sometime in early 26 we would sell another 9.5 million closing that after March 1. And effectively that gives the project account another um 19 million of funds out of the
005remaining 28. Okay. So that final nine million will occur in early 27. Okay? And your project spending plan is such that you won't need that final portion until early 27 or throughout 27. Um so we're really just trying to take advantage of the movement in the market. Um we're still well under the planning rates. Um, and the reason we split it, one of the versions that we used early on, uh, we had these as 14 million and 14 million. Um, one of the reasons we're doing the under 10 million is there's an additional um, uh, federal tax law that allows um, banks to take an additional tax write off if they buy debt from municipal issuers like the school district um, when they when they borrow less than 10 million in a calendar year. So
006that's why it's important the dates that I just laid out. Closing in 25 counts for this calendar year and closing in 26 counts for next calendar year. That way you get this benefit for both of your issues because what happens is the banks take that right off and then offer lower interest rates to the district. How much lower changes every week. Right now it's about a half a percent. May not sound like a whole lot. However, on each $10 million for, you know, in each of these, um, it's going to save you over a million dollars of interest cost. So, simply by doing an extra set of paperwork that Mark is doing on your behalf, uh, and splitting the uh, calendar year, we're we're lowering the total cost. You know, all things being equal, we're
007lowering the total cost because of this this bank qualified status. So that's why you may wonder why did we do this? Why are we splitting it? That that's that's the reason. So um this next page just kind of summarizes this is a version that that I showed last year. Um the left side is is the the goals. Ultimately we wanted to be at or below the 20 cent increase for uh the mill rate for debt. We wanted to minimize the total interest cost related to the referendum authorization. uh minimize the interest rate risk, which is why we did the the 93 million when it was 3.78. Um, and then maximize investment earnings, which also was part of that, locking in more and investing it longer, so you're getting more investment earnings during the the project
008period. Jake uh Mark and I went uh in front of a credit analyst a week or so ago, a week and a half ago, um to get a a a new or an updated credit rating. You may recall last year the district was upgraded in their in Moody's investor services rating scale. You were a double A2, you're now a double A1. Based on that conversation, I did not hear anything to to lead me to believe that they're going to change from the double A1. So we think these next two issues will be assigned to1. It's not final yet, but that's what it that's what it sounded like. So the reason that matters is very similar to our own personal credit scores. The higher that score is, the more creditworthy the district is viewed and the
009lower the rates that investors are offering uh to buy your debt, buy your bonds. Um lot of words on the right side of the page, but it's basically the phasing that I just kind of walked through. We locked in phase one last December. Phase two the n up to nine and a half million will be this December. Phase three will be early 2026. Um fa with leaving phase four which is that final nine mill nish million uh for for 2027. Um the property value growth assumptions we were very conservative in your referendum planning. We used 2% throughout the life of the plan. Um, as you know, you grew 9.7% this year, which is a little bit above state average, which was 8.1% this year in Wisconsin. Um, so that helps the mill rate continue to
010come down um on the on the debt payments. This one you're not going to be able to read, but this is the composite plan like where as we update and make these adjustments for how much we're we're borrowing and at what interest rate. This is what uh Jake Mark and I walk through. Ultimately, we're trying to arrive at that orange column, which is where we're stepping into your payments and then leveling them out for the future years. Um the referendum version of this you were leveling out at 10 million 10 and a half million. Here you're leveling out at about 9.2 9.3 million. Um which is is only possible because of the lower right corner on this page which is where um using these planning rates before we finalize them. um you're currently on track
011for avoiding approximately $16 million of interest costs to be repaid uh during the repayment period. So that 16 million is why we're able to lower each of those future levy years during the repayment period. And that's directly related to the actual rates coming in lower than the projected rate or the estimated rates, the planning rates. So with with that um you have the two action items tonight um kind of the middle middle of this page. Um uh and it basically establishing parameters to where we can finish the paperwork, get the credit rating, go market the issues to investors, lock those in. You're delegating to the president and clerk the final sign off. uh as long as everything meets those parameters or comes in better than those parameters, uh the president clerk will have the authority
012to to finalize once we're able to get into the market um either, you know, over the next couple weeks and then again in the spring. Um ultimately, we'll close the funds in December and March as I mentioned and then the first new payment, the first interest payment on on this first issue will start March 1 of 2025. And that's already built into the the debt levy and the and the budget for uh the 2526 um you know which you just approved a week and a half ago or so. So with that any any questions? >> [clears throat] >> So, not to geek out here, but um I was just interested in um be slide six, the state aid impact over base and net cost. So, so the aid that we're getting from the state assists
013us in subtracting out >> Yeah. So what what's happening there in that column is this is isolating just the debt the change in the debt payments >> right >> from from the base year. >> So we're saying you get 41% >> tertiary aid >> as a reimbursement on the the the incremental not the additional cost over the base year. So the negative is is representing a future aid to come into the district to offset the total levy amount. [laughter] If I understood that, you know, we would I would I probably need to be here a while. But u Thank you. >> So that's why it's a negative, I guess. Is that part of the question? The reason it's a negative is it's it's offsetting a portion. >> I mean, it's favorable. >> It's favorable. The
014fact that that's negative is favorable. >> Okay. >> Um there are districts that are negatively aided. So that column is actually a positive number. So it increases from the uh fund 39 debt levy plus aid gets you to a combined cost that's higher. In your case it's the fun 39 levy minus the aid that comes into the general fund um arrives at a net combined cost that's lower and that changes every year. So that's just a spot in time. Okay? >> So it really matters what happens elsewhere in your budget and what happens elsewhere in the state. Um but that's a it's a representation of you know these expenditures relative to your tertiary funding level which is at 41% reimbursement. So positive reimbursement uh coming back into the district. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate
015you looking at the detail of that sl it's a very detailed slide. >> Yeah. It's just you know the state treating this right is rare enough. Yeah. And right and this is a little sliver of the total, right? The to one of the issues you've navigated this year is that the total went down significantly, right? >> Because your spending went down. So, and and there was no new money put into the state level or statewide level. >> And so, you think, okay, well, I'm I'm not going to be harmed. Well, if everyone else spends differently and they take more, you get less, right? And then there's some years where that's opposite too where you've you've taken more and others got less. Right? So unfortunately there's no easy way to say this is exactly what you're
016going to get until all those final numbers come in. I I just this illustrates to me, you know, and I don't think I'm alone here, is that the financing scheme for public school education is wickedly complex and it's difficult for mere mortals to really grasp. So, and you two of course not being mere mortals, but you know, that's fine. But, uh, so thank you. >> There are a lot of moving parts to it. >> Yeah. I think the key takeaway though for those listening and for you going back to your constituents is that you are in this bucket. You are significantly better than what you communicated a year ago leading into the referendum. and and borrowing, you know, radical market changes over the next couple weeks and couple months, you know, you're gonna be, you
017know, approximately $16 million better than what you thought you were going to be, you know, levying and collecting over the next 20 years. >> That's great. Alan, >> just a question. I I'm excited to hear that we're projecting that we're maintaining the Moody's AA1. If there were a change in that, would that hit before phase one or phase two? And then would that impact our repayment structure or just our percent? >> So, we will find out before we sell. When you say phase one, like the 2025 borrow, the the first of your resolutions tonight. Yeah. >> Yeah. So it it will happen before that because we basically ask them to give us the rating for both, right? Knowing that the next one's coming a month and a half, two months later. >> So we So
018it'll it'll affect both. Um and the effect it would have if they decided to change it is slightly higher interest rates. So it basically move you from AA1 back down to a double A2. I don't think that's going to happen because of everything else you have going on and the way you've managed the budget in aggregate. um and and the demographics of the communities that you serve, right? Like all of those things go into this. Um and so they generally they being movies generally doesn't increase one year and then decrease again the next year because they're look unless you did something significantly worse right during that time period. So, I I would expect it to stay the same, but if it didn't, it would be slightly higher interest cost and then the savings avoidance that
019I talked about would be slightly less. That' be the trade-off. >> The comment was no no downward pressure. They saw no downward pressure on this. That's what I took from >> She also said I I can't speak for the committee, but I don't see downward pressure. Brian's covering my back, right? [laughter] >> No, we don't know till we know, but it would really surprise me, right? Any other questions for Mr. Brewer? All right. Then I um is there a motion to approve the re resolution um establishing parameters for the sale not to exceed 9,500,000 general obligation promisary notes 2025. >> So move. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? I. >> Motion carries. [clears throat] So, I'm assuming it's the same conversation for number six. >> Yes. >> Is there more to say or
020that's included? >> I tried to address them both together. >> That's what [cough and clears throat] I felt was happening. Okay. Is there a motion um for say it all again? Um to approve the resolution establishing parameters for the sale of not to exceed 9,500,000 general obligation promisary notes 2026. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> Motion carries. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Brewer. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Thanks, Brian. Appreciate it. >> Community tax information communication. >> Yeah. So, um, Heidi, I'm gonna let you speak to this a little bit, too, but, uh, we've been meeting kind of countywide, um, with superintendents. It was really, um, a neighboring school district that, uh, I think had a board president that said, "What what are we going to do about this?"
021uh as far as no money added to state aid uh having a pretty negative impact on on what we have to do locally for taxes. So um what came out of those meetings and and Heidi attended the last one with us is a thought of [clears throat] >> can we send a postcard out um to school boards approving the message uh as kind of a unified approach to this is uh this is why your taxes are doing what they're doing. And the interesting piece there is uh while I think school boards are are nonpartisan in their work, uh you're seeing I I think boards that if you had to assign political beliefs to them, uh are full spectrum. Everyone's at the table with a different, you know, maybe political ideology, but they're all saying the
022same thing that this is completely unacceptable. uh and no new money coming in for state aid was something that we hadn't seen I think since the great recession. Um so you have that postcard there. It shows that we dropped from 11th to 25th uh in the state or in the nation from funding. Uh we continue to lag inflation or seeing districts um just in the news yesterday we saw Oshkosh come in at $6 million under budget for next year. $6 million in theole. projecting a $6 million deficit. I think FondeLac was 7.2 million. You're seeing Apple at 13 million. You're seeing just um hurt like you wouldn't believe across the state. Um, and you know, the interesting piece being right is we just passed a budget with a 15% levy increase, that's going to result
023in in maybe three and a half% additional funds to our district, which when you take CPI at 2.95 and health insurance inflation at, you know, whatever it was this year, six, seven, nine%, um, you're not you're not you're not keeping up inflation. So, um the purpose of the postcard is is we're trying uh there's there's differing views across the county obviously to put a united front forward. I'm not uh completely sold that the other superintendents are going to carry this water with their [clears throat] board to be quite honest. We'll see. Um I feel like Gooseberg is very much in favor of this. I feel like Falls is very much in favor of this. Um, some other districts may be feeling a little differently depending on how much state aid they actually get. Obviously, uh,
024a district like um, Coler, Alcart Lake, their state aid is nothing. So, they're in been a little different. um ball game Plymouth was an interesting response. Um so not sure where they'll be. Howard Grove is working on theirs yet. So we'll see where it goes. Um but I guess I'm looking for approval if um if we decide to move forward as a county to send this out and put Santino's name on it. >> Heidi, am I missing anything? >> I mean, I'm across the board on the bottom. [laughter] >> That's where I was going. That's a placeholder. >> It's a placeholder. In charge of [laughter] everything that was >> Jake, I have a question. Um, you're listing your source for the, you know, drop from 11 in pupil spending to 26th from you're listing your
025source there from policy form. Is that the source you're referring to for all data you're citing in here? >> Sure. I mean, they have it in their files. Uh, DPI has it. You know, Mark pulled those numbers for us. That's coming right off of DPI's levy sheets. Those are >> I would I would um I would encourage us to think about potentially citing a more governmental bipartisan more neutral site >> in the policy part. >> They are neutral, right? >> No, I understand. If you're if you're sending this out to the lay person in the community and I'm seeing Wisconsin policy form, what do they have to do with the state budget? How do they know what these numbers are? You know what I mean? So if there was when it comes to the dollars
026that are approved, if there was a different website to refer to whether that's DPI or whether that's something I'm just suggesting that if you want to keep this as neutral and factual as possible, site a government institution for the state. If we're constantly pushing people to the state to find data, accurate real time data, potentially that could be, you know, it just shows that you're trying to give them resources to verify these facts because, you know, there are people who won't trust that you say the word policy and the lay person doesn't understand what that means for certain things. >> Yeah. And that's a former taxpayer alliance group. Um, that's a group that is led by uh a board from Harley-Davidson Northwestern Mutual. That's the about as good as you can you can get as
027far as uh bipartisan and the problem is DPI is not going to say no one's going to say 11th to 26. Quite honestly, I think >> I'm not suggest I'm not suggesting removing it from the first one. I'm [clears throat] suggesting adding an additional resource or citation to the second to the back side of the page when you're talking about about some of those other things and budget surplus, you know. >> Sure. >> Marilyn, I have a just a couple of thoughts and questions. Um, really the policy forum is the gold standard for nonpartisan, highly qualified, highly accurate information. There's just none better. I would not put DPI on anything right now. Not a good not a good not a good site. Um but >> well and I don't think DPI should be a citation
028for talking about state budget. I'm I'm thinking >> if we're talking about the lay person who consumes the majority of their information from social media or certain news outlets. They're going to want to fact check some of this stuff. if you're not giving multiple sources. >> And so the policy form is the place to fact check because their their documentation, their research is really it's really it's gold standard. I mean, you're not you're not going to get anything better. >> And again, I'm not suggesting that it is removed. I'm suggesting that when it comes to a state if we're going to make a statement that the the state of Wisconsin ended the year, the tax year with a $4.6 6 billion budget surplus. Is there another place that I could list here to verify that?
029Is that a talking point that superintendent made up because they feel guilty about raising the tax? You know what I mean? I'm just trying to be proactive. >> The Milwaukee Journal, I guess, you know, whatever. I mean, it's news. >> Yeah, it's news. But, but this leads me to a couple of different uh questions. Is um one, do we go ahead if there's not universal support and two, the cost of the postcard to us because I think that will come up. I think this is brilliant and I I think it's I in the world we live in I think this is a really important message to send out. Um but is it your sense Have you talked about if it's not 100%. >> We have um I think we're still waiting to see who's in
030and who's out. >> Okay. and then we'll have a probably discussion with the superintendents that are in. You could certainly tell me today that you want to send this no matter what, whether we're the only one involved. Um, and I think where we're going to get into time crunch is I'm not sure I'm going to be able to come back and say, in fact, I'm I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to come back and say, uh, this is who's in, this is who's out. what do you all want to do because they're pushing up against night skeing uh with their board meetings as well and then it's going to take about a week to print and we're hoping to get it out you know early December cost per postcard I think is
031like 16 cents we do it in house here so that saves us a lot of money on printing and then we just do an every door direct uh to whatever zip codes we we choose to hit. So the cost I would think postage about $3,000, printing about $3,000 >> in that range. >> So that's where that's where that one is. But I think you're right. The conversation's going to be do we go forward if other districts don't or if only a couple want to. I'm just going to say from my perspective um this shows a lively response to what's happening happening at the state level and I think even if we just do it sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing singularly that's not the word I want but
032you know what I mean um I think it's worthwhile doing um and I I mean there always there could always be a downside but I I think the upside is is higher and is is worthwhile. >> Ally, >> just the earlier point, I think that there's something in between making sure that we're telling people where to go to get information and as a board if we have a shared, you know, talking points, these are key points, these are where you can go, where we can direct folks, um that that can be really helpful facilitating some of the the questions that might come up in the community. Um, that's just a suggestion. But then a question around, are we looking at putting any of this out using digital media strategies or are we only doing the
033postcard? >> Postcard is what the group landed on right now. Uh, I don't think there'd be anything stopping us, but that's a silver slope, too, right? >> And that invites a hole in the mess. I think part of the discussion about um going to every address was because this is about property taxes being raised and so many of those folks are not on our social media. I would just want to second I think right now EPI is as an example would not be a good thing to put on there because either people it's going to go over their head or they're going to say oh I've heard about them in the news and that isn't good and and I don't think they would see the same numbers. I think when we went to DPI and
034we didn't see this and so it wouldn't it wouldn't act as a backing up our our numbers. I think the people who know about the the the forum will say oh yeah that's the source and the people who don't will but still go there and they all learn something. >> Thank you K. I I think we should absolutely do it regardless of how many go with us. But my question is how if indeed let's say it's just us, which I don't think it will be, how much would that adjust those numbers, the 4.3 and the 1.3, what would those become? >> Oh, if we just do the SASD, >> yeah, our thought was, you know, use the county numbers regardless of >> whether they sign on or not. Yeah. >> Okay. >> That was our
035thought. >> I'm I'm fine with [clears throat] that. You're fine with that. >> Um, one thing about the meeting that I found interesting is what Jake said about the demographic that it was really across the entire political spectrum between those four presidents and their superintendent and who they represent and their boards and their superintendents are saying, "We need to let people know what's [clears throat] going on." and um them feeling like the average taxpayer does not know about this and it's our responsibility to tell them. So I think part of it is transparency, part of it is um indicating who is responsible for for the shortfall. Um and I I just think it's really important to do. Would you expect any push back from Senate or any other place that you would be concerned about
036anybody who's going to try to turn this against us or what are they what are they doing getting involved? Well, of course, we're involved. It's people who are sending us money. So, we have an interest. >> Yeah. So, I would push back absolutely. Um, I think an interesting conversation we had with legislators lately is when we've talked about wanting to have the vouchers added to our tax bill so people understand that's nearly 20% of our nutty. >> Um, we've heard legislators say and that's why we're trying to decouple so you can't do that. I mean that open about it, right? Like we want to prevent you from being able to do that because that's not that they people don't understand that, right? And I would tell you the other thing just just so you have
037this information is is then what they push is it doesn't matter if we if you want to look at vouchers, you're going to have to educate those kids anyhow and pay for those kids anyhow. And we just saw numbers today again where it was like 92% of those kids were already at voucher schools. So, when they're saying you'd have to educate those kids and pay for those kids anyhow, what they're saying is that every single kid in a voucher who's getting a voucher would come back to public education, 92% or whatever. It's over 90% were already there. That's that's just a lie. Um, and I'm sick of hearing that one. So, uh, it's a different story here. And uh I get I get passionate around the voucher one again, not not because I don't appreciate
038our private schools or that opportunity for students, but because we decided to pay for 20% of our student population who wasn't ever paid for before and we're doing it off the backs of public schools. It's just it's mindboggling. Um without any transparency. So, and I understand what's going on at DPI right now, too, and why they're getting a bad rap. Maybe some of that's deserved. Maybe that some of that isn't, but vouchers aren't playing in the same world there either. And we're not talking about how to keep those kids safe and making changes to those schools. We're just we're centered on public schools. So, I get a little little passionate about this one. Um, and I think people just need to understand where the money is going, what accountability is there, what transparency is there,
039uh, and what that means. And I don't like when I hear people saying behind closed doors, well, we're going to do everything we can to stop that from coming out. But come on. >> And do you is there any with at the county level, is there any organizational entity supporting >> [clears throat] >> voucher schools that is going to feel an obligation to push back on this release. >> Sure. I think people could push back with you have declining enrollment even though our voucher schools have declining enrollment as well. Um I think people could and our declining enrollment mirrors that of the state, right? But it's right around 2% which is what we're seeing 2% fewer kids in the state. But they can push back on that. I think people can push back on report
040card scores and student achievement even though Wisconsin Policy Forum just did a huge study funded by Northwestern Mutual with Rob Ralph sitting at the table for that research who is uh the the biggest proponent of choice and vouchers in the Milwaukee area and it came back that those schools have it hasn't impacted student achievement negatively or positively at all. I think there's counternarratives to everything. What they're what they may say. Uh I don't know that there's much I'm I'm worried about that would be factual, but that doesn't always matter. So yeah, I don't I don't want anyone here thinking that this is going to be without repercussions. >> Thank you. And just to building on what Denise was saying, I mean, I think I think this kind of shakes the can a little bit. I
041mean, there's no doubt about it. And so, I think before we approve it, we have to be just comfortable with the fact that um that this may be that this may become an issue. And um but I think it's just so important to to get it out there. Uh I it's just that positive force going forward. >> But you know, it's buckle your seat belts and >> it may or may not be something that that inspires a a reaction in an otherwise quiet community. No, version two can be what decoupling means to you. >> But but that's is really the case and that's the conversation we had with this, right? Is this is a very manilaformational piece that there were people at that table who might have even been in support of vouchers saying we
042don't mind vouchers, but we just have to we just have to have the truth out there about what it's costing, >> right? Tell people, >> right? Just tell people. But I go to church with people use voucher. I have no problem with it. I support it. But tell people, and there are people that are anti- voucher. And what this doesn't say is voucher schools don't have open record request requirements. Voucher schools don't have school boards. Voucher schools can expel kids without due process. Voucher kids can turn kids away uh with special needs. It's not saying any of that. So, it did not go that far. We're not picking that fight. >> But that's where we are. We got to start having these conversations. I would agree that we move forward whether we're alone or not.
043>> Um I I just again I would just encourage us to it is very Manila and to be as transparent as possible. A group of superintendent and board chairs did not get together and add up their budgets and come up with this number. there is a place that fact can be found about the true numbers that will impact you. That's what I'm suggesting is we give a second citation to whatever website somebody could go to, someone who is not aware that the Wisconsin policy form is a thing, someone who does not have children, somebody who does not know what private vouchers are that says, "Wait a second. I now have to pay more property tax because the state did this. How do I verify that and not have them call our legislators and start this
044whole process? Is there another a second place that they could go? >> But you were you were speaking to the the 4.6 billion surplus, right? >> Yeah. All of this if if you know where did these numbers come from? >> Yeah. You're looking for a primary source of the number. I'm happy to go back to the group and say that. I can't promise it. >> No. And and I but >> some of this has gone to their boards and stuff already, but I get what you're saying. >> Yeah. I I mean, and I'm speaking from experience. We've had to counsel families on the anticipated impact of the loss of SNAP, financial support. We had to in a very nonpartisan way encourage them to re go to sources that they could find reliable factual information that
045impacts them directly. Not I saw this on this website or my mom sent this to me on Facebook. You know, I'm just trying to to proactively give, you know, we didn't make these numbers up. Here's a place you could go if you want to check it yourself. That's all I'm saying. So, >> any other discussion? >> Okay. So, when we're looking at um a motion, would you like us to put in language about the possibility of adding it if the other boards I mean, how do we go forward with that? >> Is there a version of us we can see if it were just us? Has that been created? >> No. >> I think what this is is that we're approving postcard >> right >> and then whatever happens after that I mean that's we
046can talk about that later. I think it's just to get it as he was saying time is of the essence now get the postcard approved to be sent and then if the language needs to be changed we can do that before the deadline of sending it out. >> I guess I would ask that you approve the postcard >> uh >> As is. I think I understand what Denise is saying. I'll take that back to the group if they're willing to make that change. Um, we'll make that change and I I'm hearing everyone say that's fine. Uh, and then I I think just for general consensus purposes, if if we don't have support from other districts or if we don't want I'm hearing the board say move forward anyhow and then I'll work with Heidi and
047Santino on what that looks like. Obviously the bottom will change a little bit. It'll probably your signature design just say from school district something like that. We'll work on that design with Nicole and Lisa but continue to just keep it very factual. >> What? Well, so I would move that we uh approve sending the postcard um as drafted um with or without support from other uh school districts. isn't the word I want, but with >> in conjunction with >> in conjunction with or on our own. Um, sorry, Joel, that's really poor really worded. Um I do think um rather than having having a huge amount of documentation of the source within the postcard, I presume that the policy form has all of that because there are searches. So that if somebody questions, you know, where
048did you get that? Then we can go to we can find those sources. Um uh I I read a columnist every day who is quite bright and had she has at least six or seven citations at the bottom of her column but it's not postcard sized and um so I I do believe that there is documentation that is very solid for this and we can prepare that so that if if we do get some push back all of us are able to do you all the citations. So, just to back up, Joe, what >> So, we have approval of sending postcard as drafted in conjunction with or without with with [clears throat] or without the other districts. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Any discussion? All in favor? >> Any opposed? Motion carries. >>
049Thanks, Jack. That was great. Um, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So, move second. >> All in favor? Motion carries for