001[laughter] It'll be okay. We are live on YouTube. So remember the mic is very sensitive. How we doing, John? I am Not yet. >> All right. And now is the kids will fall. >> You're all right. >> We just didn't see you. >> No, we got minutes. >> We can't see. >> I just didn't see you. Is it on? Sweet. Thank you. >> But again, that's not going to be my issue. did what I need to do. >> Put in my [clears throat] time, >> right? >> I was thinking this was a close meeting. I guess probably it was special meeting. I think they're closed just generally in my head. >> [laughter] >> 55° >> I wear that all the time when I leave church. Yeah, that's helpful. >> I bought three pair of fake
002fur and they're so warm. Well, um, no, I'm like, but the hospital >> somebody told today that all the schools are have It's very really cold. [clears throat] All right. >> It is 7 o'clock. This time I'm going to call the special board meeting for Monday, January 19th, 2026 to order. [snorts] I am looking for a motion to approve the agenda. >> Motion second it >> motion by Corey, seconded by Katie. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I [clears throat] opposed. Resolution passes. On to comments from the public. [sighs] >> Yes. I'd like to address the uh board and the uh administration. >> If you could please come up here. >> Thank you. >> So many of you know me. I'm Steve Young. I was on the school board at one time
003and I noticed the referendum 2026 discussion and decision making was coming up. But I guess I'd like to talk about the playground. Uh it wasn't a referendum. Um but village taxpayers are paying for it. Um I assume the project's done. I don't know if it is or not. I know uh there are $660,000 allocated for this project, 5% uh interest loan. And uh I would just like to know as a taxpayer if the project was on target, was it over budget? Was it under budget? And if it was under budget, did it go to pay back that $660,000 loan? Okay. So I want to talk about referendums now that we voted on last year as taxpayers. So, the first referendum was for the roof, which I believe is completed. $770,000 allocated for that project. Was
004that project on budget, under budget, or overbudget? And if it was under budget, where did that money go to? Did it pay down the referendum for that specific topic? Because when I was on the village board and there's discussion about the playground and do we go forward with it or don't we? I was told when I was a village board member that that money could only be used for the uh uh playground budget. So, if that's the case and we had uh money that wasn't spent on the roof, did that go to pay paid down that referendum? And I think the pack taxpayers that are looking at these referendums and this next referendum coming up, we as taxpayers, I think should be able to know that information. um the Boilers, and I don't know if
005they're done yet or not, but once again, that was a $700,000 referendum. Uh I know personally that that bid was $65,000 initially because I worked with contractors on that. So if and when that project's done, are we going to be over budget, on budget, or under budget? And if we're under budget, is that remaining money going to pay down on that referendum for the Boilers? So, I just like to see some transparency as a taxpayer of where my money is going to when we have referendums with this school district. So, that's all I have. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Steve. No. >> Um, so in regards to the comments expressed, um, it's not necessarily on the agenda for tonight. um we can put that on the next meeting's agenda. Uh but also
006as far as just in general, um I I will state the playground for the most part has been completed. Um there is just a couple of things we were waiting on as far as possible drainage issues. Um, and we should know for sure by spring. And yes, it did come in under budget. Uh, some of the other projects, including the roof and boilers, they're still out to get accomplished, but currently we are hoping those will be under budget as well. Um and yes, there has been discussion as to um not utilizing all those funds or paying back what would be the remainder. Um but there will be um we've brought those things up at some meetings, but we'll make sure to make a point of it again in the future. >> Okay. [snorts] I think
007it should be published in the paper so there's no issue with transparency so that people that don't come to the board meetings or attend online and see it black and white print. >> All right, we'll take it into consideration. Most definitely, Steve. Thank you. There's no other public comment at this time. We'll move on to the next the referendum. So, we discussed this um during the last meeting and at this point um I want to know if the rest of the board has [sighs and gasps] any other input questions or anything along those lines and what numbers we're thinking of >> I guess the numbers we were looking at with the 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8. Um, I think that we had talked about 1.4 would maybe buy us a year. Um, I've expressed my concern
008that we're in a neverending reoccurring rep um, referendum cycle that I don't like and I don't feel comfortable with, but I feel like we're at a point where we need the public's voice and we need to respond appropriately to the public voice. And the only way that I feel that we're going to get that an accurate um thing is if we hear our electors out and respond to them in whatever the majority of them choose. So that is the reason that I'm in support of the resolution for a referendum. I personally haven't decided yet if I even support a referendum, but in this way we give a voice to our public. >> We need to make a motion that we're going to go for referendum in April. >> And yes, we're looking for a motion
009for what dollar amount we're going to put. >> Yes, that's what we end up. >> Okay. So, we're not just one doing yes, we're going to referendum. We're doing we're going to referendum for x amount of dollars. >> Correct. >> Okay. And looking at these numbers, the as was said in the last meeting, we're projected at a 1.5 million deficit for next year with making zero changes to the way [snorts] the school currently is or the schools currently are. And I think we all can agree that there are some changes that need to be made um and are should be made regardless. Um but with that 1.4 even with those changes, yes, it would only get us about a year through and that's only if things fall within the predicted amounts that have been given
010to us thus far. Um, if we were to go for the 1.8, um, we could make improvements. We could shore up our, uh, fund balance and have a a stronger position. um if we were to say look at consolidating or something along those lines in the future or if [snorts] we just wanted to provide uh a better future for the school and the students that attend it and I think that's where it's at. So we need to decide are we going for the 1.4 or are we going for the 1.8? eight. >> I'm going to make a motion that we go forward with a referendum for 1.8 million. >> Second. >> No, I don't see the dollar amount making a big difference to the public. they're either going to vote for a referendum or they're
011not. I don't see um 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 as making any difference. So, I guess I would support the 1.8 >> as I said in the last meeting. And I just want to be clear to all the taxpaying public that we are not the only school that is looking at a referendum or has done a referendum in recent years. And to keep in mind, uh, even if the [snorts] school were to end up closing its doors, which would not be a quick process, um, we would be potentially looking at taking on the tax burden of other districts that we would be absorbed into or consolidate with. And at least hopefully this way we can get some input from the public and decide how much they're willing to help, if they're willing to help, and they can
012have a say as to what that tax burden is going to be. So, the first question I'm putting forth [sighs] from the motion that's put forth is, are we going to put on the ballot a ref or a decision for a referendum of $1.8 million? >> Yes, I'm restating it. We need to make sure this is going saying operational funds. >> Yes. >> Operational referendum. Not to be confused with last year's referendum for >> right. This is an operational >> infrastructure. >> This is not a capital infrastructure. This is not going to the building. This is going >> operation. Keep us open. Keep our students here. >> Keep our staff paid. Keep our school well staffed as much as possible. um to yeah keep as many programs available to our students if not increase them
013as much as possible. So that's the first question being put forth. All those in favor actually let's do a roll call vote for that second >> I was going to do that second. >> Yeah. Oh yeah. So I want you to turn them on. You read the ballot language. >> Well, I was going to vote on the amount and then do the vote for the ballot language. >> It's just better to separate it out. So, could we get a roll call vote on the approval of the 1.8 to be put as a referendum? >> So, we're just saying yes or no how we vote on that. >> Right. >> Molly, >> yes. >> Cory, yes. Katie, >> yes. >> Uh Jamie, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. Amy, >> yes. >> Kelly, >> yes. >>
014Okay. Now, >> the next part is the ballot, the language that will appear on the ballot. The question will be I'm putting forth that shall the school district of Siren Bernett County, Wisconsin be authorized to exceed the revenue limits specified in section 121.91 Wisconsin statutes by 1.8 8 million per year for 3 years. Beginning with the 2026 2027 school year and ending with the 2028 2029 school year for nonrecurring purposes consisting of operational expenses including to maintain educational and elective programming at the high school. Does it need to say should >> middle school, elementary, like all schools? >> Well, you tell us because what we were talking about the other night and I thought um and we just put this out to our council. >> What What do you guys want that to say? >>
015I think it needs to say all the schools because otherwise that looks like we're only funneling 1.8 million to the high school and that would be >> amazing. But I see >> uh programming at the Siren schools >> school district siren schools. non-recurring purposes consisting of operational expenses including >> Yep. Yep. >> to maintain educational and elective programming at the siren schools. >> Just not high school. Not single. Yeah. We don't want a single into one because it needs to go to all three. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Because all it will affect all >> Yeah. So, >> so you made the motion or you need a motion to approve that? >> No. >> First, we need a motion. I made the motion. It needs to be seconded. >> I'll second it. >> Okay.
016I made the motion. KD seconds. Now, a friendly amendment to have it changed from just high school to Siren School Districts or Siren schools. Yeah. >> Or if they want to lift out elementary, middle school, high school. I mean, either way, it just needs to make sure all three. >> But we have to be specific, >> right? So, just do schools or we want to do elementary, middle school, high school. >> I think siren schools. >> You don't want district on it. >> Siren school district or siren school. >> School district on the top. >> Siren schools. >> Yeah, I say siren schools. All right. Yes, I continue to second that. >> Okay. So, with that friendly amendment, we have this language put forth for the ballot. Yet again, I'm requesting a roll call vote
017for this. Corey, please take the call. Take the role. >> Cory, yes. Katie, >> yes. >> Jamie, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> Amy, >> yes. >> Kelly, >> yes. >> All right. It has been passed and I look forward to seeing what the voters are going to tell us and >> hopefully we can go from there. This time I'm looking for a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I'll second that. >> Motion by Kelly, seconded by Jamie. All those in favor say I. >> I. opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Now, next Monday, maybe we can go back. I got to ask about insurance. >> Is that when you said, you know, the board was that would that be appropating or are you talking about it individually? And I
018had two other people that today. >> I don't know. I just wanted to get that information back because I thought they were gonna negotiate individually with the >> I have no idea what it is. I'm not interested in >> I just want to know who's interested. >> Okay. >> By the time that the one we did >> So if they're not interested, you don't need to hear from them. But what you were talking about was it's not a meeting. >> No, I was I was told by the board to see who would be >> Yep. That's what I thought. And I I thought I'm sorry to make that