001I'd like to call this meeting to order at 6:02. Have a roll call. >> The time is 6:02 p.m. uh January 9th, 2026. Roll call. Wilkins >> here. >> Pinker >> here. >> Hernandez >> here. >> Oakdike >> here. >> Wymer >> here. Anderson >> here. >> And we have approval of the meeting agenda. I move that the board approve tonight's meeting agenda as presented. >> Second. >> Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Pinker. >> Yes. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> Optike. Yes. Wymer. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. Uh time to move on to public comments. Members of the public are welcome and invited to address the board during open public meetings. Speakers are discouraged from using the public comment period to air specific concerns about staff members, being mindful that the public comment period is
002not a suitable forum for factf finding or resolution of disputes. Rather, we encourage members of the public who have concerns about specific district employees to follow communication guidelines found in the student handbook. Please remember to state your name and that you have three minutes to address the board. Speakers may not yield their time to someone else. Please refrain from applause between speakers so we may respectfully allow all speakers an opportunity to be heard. Also note that it is not customary for the board to respond to public comment. The best way to correspond with members of the board is by emailing schoolboard district 65.net. Have the first group of speakers. Yes, we have Kelly Post, Russ Shoen, Emily Garcia, Barry Doyle, and Vic Filipini. >> Um, people are saying it's not live yet on the YouTube
003channel. >> Okay, let's give a minute. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. All right. >> YouTube live feed has a 10 second delay. >> Um, good evening. My name is Kelly Post and I am the president of deck of deck. I want to reiterate the critical support educators need as we navigate school closures to ensure the success of this school year and those ahead. Educators in schools that are closing should be compensated at their daily rate for the time required to pack up classrooms after the final day with students. This work is substantial, necessary, and outside of our contractual agreement. Educators impacted by school closures should be placed in new buildings and positions that closely align with their current roles, honoring their experience, expertise, and the continuity our students deserve. We also recognize that school closures
004will affect every building across the district. Given the magnitude of this transition, new district initiatives, curriculum rollouts, and major systematic changes should be paused to allow educators the time and space to adjust. Strong communities are built on positive relationships, and those relationships are essential to student success. We ask for grace and understanding as educators focus on building trust with new colleagues and supporting new students. work that is foundational and cannot be rushed. Thank you. >> Hi, good evening Russ Shown Willard parent. I first happy new year and I'd like to thank Berea for meeting with the Willard Twe families before break. I thought that was the right thing to do and I appreciate that. Uh with that in mind, I'm going to for I'm going to forgo Midwest Nice tonight. I'm going to channel my
005late mother who is a 4'11 woman from Brooklyn who spent over 20 years as a child protective worker. People said she reminded them of Estelle Castanza. She was loud, but when something wasn't right, she said so. So, with that in mind, I'm going to be very direct. First, the Willard Twe community is a vital part of the Willard school community. They've been treated like garbage by this administration. Truly, TWE is a magnet program. It's listed as a magnet program and it's explicitly under board oversight. If this were the ACC program, I seriously doubt the board would just cowtow to the administration. If this board wants to rebuild trust, it must actually do its job. Hold a vote on Willard Twe. Either keep it open or close it, but the board owns that decision. Otherwise, you
006destroy trust. Second, board member Wymer, I've been thinking about this since couple months ago in November, December, you repeatedly cited financial urgency, talking about the compounding cost of delay. Yet, when you did not get your way on closing two schools immediately, you voted no on closing even one. That's not principled leadership. Your actions do not match with your words and this community deserves a clear explanation. Someone couple board meetings ago said you are part of the Horton three. They meant it as a compliment. It is not. Third, destroying trust seems to be the guiding philosophy of the district 65 administration. Willard Twe is the latest example of this. I rarely hear about student achievement or a plan to rebuild trust or a vision. If this board truly wants to fix the district's finances and reputation,
007it must do something difficult. Acknowledge that the current DI district 65 leadership is not the right team for this moment. Real turnarounds require real leadership. In this case, that means new leadership at the district level and I ask the board to act. Thank you. >> Hi, good evening. My name is Emily Garcia. I'm here because I would like to express a different point of view than the one offered by the district administration when Willard Twe was discussed during the last meeting. specifically that community feedback was sought and that the Willard Tweet community was included in the decision-making process that ultimately led to the administration deciding for the board that the strand of Twe at Willard should close. Have there been opportunities for the larger Willard Tweets community to interact with the district? In a very
008technical sense, yes, through the SAP2 and SAP3 processes, which was pointed out in the last meeting. But was the SAP process a true opportunity for the community to voice in an open and unobstructed way its concerns and maybe more importantly its ideas? No, it was not. We want someone to hear our ideas and take them seriously. I have not had meaningful engagement with the administration about a decision that greatly impacts my daughter's education and community. Also, I think it's it's important to note that 36% of current Willard Twe students weren't even part of D65 during the SAP2 phase in 2023. So clearly, we could not have engaged. If we are here tonight to revisit school closure scenarios yet again, then that tells me that it is also possible to revisit the decision to close Willer
009Tweet and truly engage the people this decision matters most to. Thank you. >> Hi. Hi. My name is Barry Doyle. Um, silly me. I I thought we were done blowing money on consultants around here. Um and I I'm speaking specifically about the contract that's being given to Mosaic. Um the folks who are are there to do community engagement with the Willard Twe folks. Um the quote from Evston now is that these folks use student centered practices that create space for families to express their feelings, reflect together, and focus on the path forward. Um, it's a fabulously polite way to to say that they're there to help these folks shut up and deal. It's incredibly disrespectful. I'm baffled by it. Uh, and truthfully, the um entire tweet community I I think has been treated disrespectfully in
010in all the processes that have gone on the last couple of years. Um, part of what brought me here today is that you guys are going to pass a um, structure that deals with a second school closure. And there's some financial goals are associated with that. And when we choose to spend money on consultants, when we choose to spend money on restaurant meals, we're choosing to set the path forward to close more schools. We're setting the path forward to put more teachers out of work. We're setting the the uh path forward to to do harm to more communities, to traumatize more children. We can't keep doing this. I get that people in the front of this room are tired of being yelled at. You're tired of being talked back to. It's part of the job.
011You can't delegate that to a consultant. Thanks. Good evening and happy new year. Uh I'm Vic Filipini. I'm a D65 parent. I have also worked as a lo local government attorney for more than 40 years, including 15 years serving as a local government and land use professor at Northwestern Law School. I appreciate that tonight you will be considering action that will actually allow you to focus on doing a few things well. And I hope that that's the decision that you make. But let me turn to my professional career because I have repeatedly been involved in developing creative approaches to public finance, including for schools. And I have previously provided to each of you a memorandum identifying identifying a variety of steps for D65 to consider. My offer of assistance, like those of many other residents,
012still stands. Personally, if I'm going to spend pro bono time regarding District 65, I would much prefer to spend it helping you all find a solution to your financial challenges than to sue you for improper land uses. I look forward to helping. But if you are back here in October to discuss further school closings and you have not tapped the resources that I and other residents have offered freely to you, then you will not have done your job. Thank you. Next we have Liz Wallens, Jamie Hopka, Julia Effinger, Jacob Carlin, and Lauren McNarra. Happy New Year. My name is Liz Wllins and I'm a D65 parent and a founding member of Invest in Neighborhood Schools. As we start 2026, I hope this is a clean slate with honest communication, genuine compromise, and the willingness to
013do new and hard things to set this district up for long-term success. I think this meeting and revisiting a one school closure is a start. I look forward to continued collaboration, a successful foster opening, and helping support the Kingsley community and others navigating a new school in the coming year. Thank you for your time. Hi, I'm Jamie. I am a 65 parent and taxpayer. I think I've you guys all read my emails. Um, but I want to thank Pat, Nicole, and Maria for supporting the democratic process once again and standing by the highest vote candidate in this past election. I'd really appreciate that. As a voter, I am frustrated at what feels like inconsistent standards. Uh, tonight you're proposing, possibly proposing extremely high financial criteria for Lincolnwood to avoid closure, which I understand, you know,
014we need these things to happen, but I hope that you don't put this um in in the language that you vote on tonight. My question is simple. Where were these standards when Foster was approved? This district has rarely maintained 90 days of cash on hand. We have con not consistently had balanced budgets or fully funded capital maintenance. Yet now Lincolnwood may be required to meet all three 90 days cash millions in capital spending in a balanced budget in a short amount of time. That doesn't feel realistic or equitable. And finally, this resolution ignores the real issue spending decisions. After ending the Willard Twee program, the district hired what the superintendent called a trusted collaborator to manage communication with twee families. That is not specialized work. It is basic administrative responsibility. At the same time, this
015administration repeatedly hires Mosaic. I mean, I've looked at, you know, watched past meetings and you guys are approving $25,000 contracts for them regularly. When our superintendent earns 300,000 a year and has a large administrative team, taxpayers should not be paying consultants to do work that is already part of their job. You or the board hold this administration accountable for how every tax dollar is spent. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Julia M. finger and I'm a Kingsley parent of two kids with IEPs. Part of me is glad that we're here tonight voting on whether or not to close Kingsley because I've advocated for closing Kingsley all along. But that advocacy has always come with a condition that no other schools in the Haven feeder pattern be closed. I remain deeply concerned that based on
016the Lincolnwood closure criteria, the focus remains on metrics specific to each individual school and there seems to be no attention paid to the bigger picture and what the impact of closing two schools in such close geographic proximity will have to the neighborhood and the city as a whole. The board has repeatedly expressed its commitment to equity and I believe that's sincere. But equity does not stop at the schoolhouse gate. Equity is reflected in the neighborhood that students live in. Equity is seen in the homes they live in, what their streets look like, what those communities look like. And the city of Evston is concerned with equity, too. If you read the Envision Evston plan, the city of Evston has plans to make changes to address issues of equity, specifically lack of affordable housing and geographic
017distributions of population density. By necessity, many of these changes are going to need to occur in the sixth and seventh wards, the very area impacted by two school closure. And these those changes that the city wishes to make cannot be successful if there are no schools available to serve students. I appreciate that the city and the district are two different governmental agencies with different responsibilities and different goals, but this board can and should be smart enough to recognize the impact that its decisions will have on the city's ability to accomplish its goals. And if the city's goals and the district's goals are aligned, specifically in this case, goals of equity, then the district should not be making decisions that undermine the city's ability to achieve those goals. And in the grand tradition of unintended consequences,
018depriving the sixth and seventh wards of neighborhood schools will result in the fifth ward becoming a target for gentrification with its beautiful brand new school and comparably lower property values. I urge this board to be smart enough and to be forward-thinking enough to think not only about the metrics of one particular school and the wisdom of closing one particular school in a vacuum, but to look at the overall picture of the district and by extension the city it is shaping. Hi, I'm Jacob Carlin with the Legion of Nerds. I'm happy to see the board is putting forth a resolution that includes King Kingsley closure. As we've discussed, this is unfortunately a necessary step in right sizing district. I'm also happy to see the board set forth financial targets. This whole process has been a wake-up
019call for the community and now we have a chance to work together and improve the district. Soon we'll have better data around school closures as well as more information from various audits. My concern about tonight's resolution relates to whether these targets are reachable by October. In order to hit 75% district-wide utilization, we calculated that after a Kingsley closure, enrollment would need to increase by 384 students or capacity would need to decrease by 512 or some combination of the two. The Legion of Nerds is up for a challenge, but we also need to be realistic. Furthermore, this isn't a Lincolnwood problem. It's a D65 problem and we all need to work together to solve it. We're engaged now and we need everyone to help in finding cost savings, revenue increases, and implementing creative ideas to improve
020utilization and the lives of our students. My name is Lauren McNamera. I'm a D65 parent. I think it's great that the board is willing to work together on a compromise. It's a good thing that you are here to take action tonight. My concern with the proposed resolution is that it sets very lofty targets, but does not offer any incentive or promise that the board will take further action to prevent the closure of Lincolnwood next year. You say you need to see an increase in enrollment. Are you making a campaign outreach or studying exit re exit reasons to make that enrollment increase happen? You say you want to hit financial targets. Are you going to cut costs? I hope the answer is yes. But I worry that the board will do as it has been and
021sit on its hands and not vote for progress. >> That concludes the public comments for today. Um at this time I we're going to move forward with the um agenda item approval of the resolution for the proposed closure. I would like to open the discussion on the agenda item before the board. So um Stacy is it possible to see just for we all can you know be reminded exactly what is the um the boundaries or what we're you know bring bring us all back to our understanding of what it is that we're talking about with respect to I know closing Kingsley but what does it mean by boundaries? Sure. I can share where we are with this particular um what we've been asked to prepare for tonight in this resolution. Um Adila, if you wouldn't
022mind going to slide number two there. Um we're going to jump around to just a couple slides and we'll see if it answers the board's questions. >> Thank you. So our understanding and what is uh in the resolution is that first we wanted to model to we want to address a Kingsley school closure and based on the iterations that we went through in the fall which um essentially this map is based on was the one that we generated after the sequential closure modeling and with input through the survey from Kingsley. And so the map that we have here essentially uses central as a northern divider for the Lincolnwood boundary and honors some of the existing Willard boundaries. Um what has changed here? We have kept the same assumptions that we were talking about in the
023fall when we've gone to student placement from December 15th up until uh this week. We had already begun working on student placements for next year using the board approved boundaries. So we actually have pulled some of that logic into this model and that's where some of the revisions are. When we were modeling capacity, we had reduced the number of seats at Oakdton because we have some smaller classrooms. We returned the Oakton boundaries to their current boundaries to minimize change to the Oakton community because there's adequate space in that building. One of the reasons that those numbers were a little bit higher was because in the models we talked about in the fall, twee students were going to be returned to their home schools. Again, since we were late in making a decision, we had and
024we had not made the decision to do that with TW students. We've been modeling to keep the students that are in the twe sections that we're planning for for next year in their current cohorts. Okay. So with that decision, there's more than enough room at Oakton to maintain the Oakton boundaries. So when we look at this map, the couple things that have changed from one R one AR is that Oakton is at its original boundaries. We are keeping the twe students at Oakton Daws doing Washington in their existing cohorts. We still do reflect here the consolidation of the twe strands from Bessie Rhodess and Willard to Foster. And so those are the revisions. The strengths and challenges are the exact same ones that were on the slide for 1 AR in December. We did adjust
025a couple of the numbers in the challenges column based on those couple revisions we made. So that this is what we would be modeling for around boundaries and mapping of students. Now if we could move to slide seven. >> Clearly just can I just say just >> Yep. as >> I was going to zoom in a little bit on the boundaries more specifically for Kingsley and Haven. Okay, so slide seven. >> All right. Uh so so this is what we're looking at districtwide. It's important for the community to understand that the board approved 2627 boundaries already had changes in place. When we modeled this, many of those changes are in place. We didn't want to change things that had already been communicated for multiple years. So this is what we would be recommending for districtwide.
026If we go to the next slide, we zoom in on the haven feeder pattern. The black line is the existing Kingsley feeder pattern. So what you can see is that we would recommend essentially north of central the Kingsley feeder pattern north of central and west of Green Bay goes to Willard, east of Green Bay goes to Orington, south of central and west of Green Bay is at Lincolnwood. And this was refinements. You know, we heard from the Kingsley community that central was a natural barrier. We heard try to honor some of the existing boundaries for Willard. and we heard the concern around crossing hazards. So this is what we would recommend. Now process-wise, the resolution tonight would move you forward in hearings. Our intention would be to share these at the closing hearings should we
027have them, which would be another opportunity for community to give feedback. But we do believe that this reflects a good bit of what we've heard and feels feasible. And then if we zoom in a little more, I think that next slide really just gives a specific look at Kingsley. And we can make available to folks a hyperlink that where people can put in their address or zoom right in to see how they might be individually impacted by the new boundaries. Second question. >> Can you use your mic? I'm sorry, >> I'm looking at the computer. Um, the districtwide average kindergarten through fifth grade school building utilization rate is less than 25%. Can we um can we share where that's where how that has arrived and or um I think the the discussion we were having
028was whether we were closing two schools or one school and so if we can know what the utilization rate would be if we had closed two schools >> the so my my understanding of your question is you're saying if you would close two schools what would the K5 utilization rate be? >> Yeah. So is the 75% rate the same rate as closing two schools and if not what is the rate if we had closed the two schools think >> the if so for K5 and what we did is we looked at the numbers using these assumptions if you closed Kingsley and Lincolnwood your K5 utilization rate using the numbers that we're projecting for next year would be about 76%. it would be just just close to 76%. And that is us moving those numbers forward
029and projecting kindergarten enrollment using a three-year running average. Okay. Okay. So, the resolution um so it's a districtwide 75% and in this resolution it's not saying that Lincolnwood needs to be at 75%. is saying the district-wide average um um utilization needs to be at 75%. >> Yes. And what I was sharing there is it's a K5 and the language the way I understand it in the root the resolution is a K5 building utilization rate. And so that number that I'm sharing excludes King Arts because King Arts is a magnet and is K8. So to my So I just wanted to ask those clarifications. So really what we're um proposing then is of course a closing of Kingsley, but to come back to a conversation in October 26 um to include um conversation about closing Lincolnwood
030if our utilization at a district is not at 75% and we haven't and we aren't at fiscal sustainability with a plan to maintain it. And we also have the ability to bring forward other proposals that provide alternative approaches to reaching the same goals. Is that just want to make sure that's my that's my understanding of what it is that we're proposing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I that's also my understanding. Um and in terms of looking at this proposal, um the contents of it are things that we have discussed with the district, with the community through several board meetings. So I think this is where we're landing in terms of a recommendation. Um my my view of it is that it allows us the time to phase in and get this first phase of the
031work done in good fashion. I mean that was my major concern was with how we're going to complete some of these closures in addition to opening the new foster school. So, so in terms of my position, this this meets that goal. I also want to make sure that we continue to elevate and lift up the opportunity to do some problem solving and some creative planning with the community because that's been a significant part of the community conversation up to this point. And I think there are people on this board, I think there are people in the community that can lead that charge and that can could result in some very positive outcome. So So that's something that I'm looking forward to. >> This it specifically has alternative solutions for the budget. I don't know that
032it says that, but I think it's in there. I mean, that's what I understood is that there's alternative >> alternative approaches to reducing the district's structural deficit. >> So, I mean, that language is in there. >> Yeah, that's what I'm happy that it says that. >> Yeah. Can >> can we just play out like how how decisions are going to be made? So, you know, I think that we need to put this decision behind us for now so we can get to some future planning and visioning and doing some difficult work, you know, using the good work that was done in the SDRP3 process um and the data that was collected and the community conversations that were had, but I want to play out kind of the decision points for for us. Um because I
033think the the struggles that I have right are that the conditions of bringing forward a new resolution are based on what we think today. And as we've learned through this process, what we know to be true has changed. The capacity numbers have changed. Um the the budget has changed. Um, and so I want to make sure that we are aligned as a board and hear everyone's thoughts on, you know, how we proceed forward because I don't want to end up in a situation where it's like, well, we're 74% Lakewood's closing and I want to make sure we're aligned on what that looks like as a board and what this resolution really says and really means for us as a board. I agree. I agree. Um, in terms of looking from beginning to end, I I
034can say that the goal of financial sustainability is premier in terms of moving forward and re in light of even just the Kingsley school closure, we will have to have information updated so that we know where we stand. And I know that that's part of what the process is with the finance team. So, that's not an area that I'm concerned with, but it's an area that we will have to continue to >> keep as a priority as we're moving through the process. Mhm. Mhm. I think the really the 75% utilization rate across the district is the one that that sticks for me as something that I want us to recognize that the volatility and enrollment that we've seen um will most likely continue based on our actions over the last several months. Um and that
035you know using an average of the last three years is a decent proxy but that we also need to do some work to create a vision and project that vision to the community so that they have confidence that we are actually going to start focusing on excellence in education going forward so that people have confidence in sending their kids um you know into the care of D65. And so really that 75% number, you know, I'm happy I'm happy with it intellectually, but practically speaking, um, you know, I don't I don't want it to become like a gotcha, right? Because I I look at this like challenge accepted. Let's go. Mhm. >> And you know, I'm excited to find some um you know, collaborate based on the STRP work to to try and get a strategic
036asset plan for us. But the way that we've talked about it in the past and the way that I think about it is, you know, our buildings need some significant work and $2.7 million a year just is like a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do. And um we're probably, as we've talked about, either going to, you know, have to consider life safety bonds or going towards a referendum. And we're not going to know if we have a referendum by October of 2026. Um anyway, so it's the utilization rate that really is one of those things that I it's a very specific number uh that I'm not 100% comfortable with. And yeah, and I just I'm going to echo some of what you said, Maria, is it's been questions I've had
037of how are we moving forward into the next year. And I just want to acknowledge right we're at the turn of the year. Um so I would just say to board leader I think board leadership gets to right set the calendar in conversation with the superintendent. Um but I'd be excited to talk about how are we scaling out the year perhaps backwards designing uh to get somewhere. Um, so I'd be uh very enthusiastic to be to have that conversation about how we're going to move forward. Um, but also want to recognize that, right? Um, it's entirely appropriate that we don't have that just yet because of where we are calendar-wise, I believe. Um so just to indicate some excitement about that I think with the 75% um you know we were originally targeting 90% utilization
038here and so the 75% is a step in the right direction. Um, and so I recognize that what we have before us is a compromise, right? We're trying to stay to get get to get together and find a place where we can all kind of find ourselves. Um, but I I I also want to know what we're going to do even beyond the 75%. Um, I have concerns about, you know, where are we going here? >> Yeah. I think one of the things about the 75% and the and the utilization that we talked about, right, it's two numbers. It's numerator numerator and denominator. And we heard a few times from the special ed teachers that came from Lincoln specifically. Um, but as I toured Lincolnwood, I also noted that they are using classrooms for pullout
039space. Um, and that that is really important to them. But we're considering that as it should be a full classroom. And my question is should it? um and what is what is in the best interest of the children uh and their educational outcomes and how the space is used. And so as we go into this process, I just want to be, you know, intellectually honest and I am open to conversations about all of it. Uh because I just want the best outcomes for the kids and I want to create an excellent school district where we aren't just so, you know, we aren't focused on utilization as the metric. I think budget should be a metric 100%. We have to live within our means. we have to have our buildings in goodstead. Um, but that utilization
040thing I feel like is is is just in question. Like for example, what if we decide that, you know, and this sounds crazy, but what if we decide we're going to put uh like science labs in bigger science labs or something in a in a class in a school that's going to take a classroom out of a gened classroom space. So, you know, those are things that I would like to think about and if we're stuck on utilization calculations of SDRP3, then we really don't have that flexibility >> and we won't just be stuck with SDRP3. I mean, again, we we'll have quality information, but again, we have the M's facilities plan, which is going to be updated, and we're going to have that information so we can have that conversation, the special education audit,
041as well as a multilingual audit that the state board is conducting. Again, we're going to be digging into a couple of pieces. So, that that's what I'm excited about is that again, we we we're getting to the other side of this and really visioning with the community in regards to how we want to move forward and and and continue to ensure that we have what you're asking for, Maria, right? Is that u again high quality academic outcomes and services for students and families here in in uh D65. So, so again, again, we're compromising here, but the compromise is really to ensure that we can we get to this other side. We I think all the whole community has been waiting for um to to really have this conversation around again all of that visioning piece
042on on how we create a 21st century uh style um educational system that that that is uh efficient that uh utilizes our spaces as best as possible and ensures the best outcomes for all of our students. And one of the um one of the markers in here regarding the 75% does mention excluding special schools and programs. And to my understanding in conversations that I've had with special education services is that that is a definite consideration in how those programs are placed and implemented. So I think that's will have to be something that we pay particular attention to, especially as as the plan evolves. Um, and we will have to bring those updates to the community and keep them informed of what's happening as the as the plan evolves because it's it's their schools, it's their
043kids, and this is why we're here to make this all happen. And one of the things that you mentioned a while ago, Maria, about um the SDRP plan and how it is focused on utilization of spaces and buildings, but that utilization also has to now be expanded into the utilization of our academic programs and the uh outcomes that we expect from that. So that's in in terms of looking at this plan, uh to me it's just a start. It kind of is a place where we can regground and start to move forward without overfocusing on the place besides what happens in those places. So that's that's where I'm landing is, you know, and I have to say to the community, thank you for your patience and to the district, thank you for your work. Um,
044because it's it's just been a very difficult process. Um, but I know that at the end of the road, everyone involved is really concerned about the daily experience that these kids have in their classrooms and how they move through district 65 and how we prepare them for the high school. So, it's and I'm talking from preK to 8. So, that's That's where I'm coming from. >> The um I think one I don't think that um budget and occupancy are at the same level. In essence, you look at occupancy when your budget isn't balanced. If we can balance the budget and being creative and balance the budget, but if we can't, then you have to look at occupancy and you have to look at school closure. So um I I am welcoming the opportunity to engage
045with community, engage with board members, being respectful of all the work ahead of the district in trying to move forward um because we've given them even a late start and doing the work of closing the two schools and opening one. So the I think the challenge in front of us is to create a process that um pulls on the wisdom of the district but doesn't doesn't um add too much burden on the cabinet as we try to come up with um solutions that use what has already been done but weaving in the data that's to come also with the ideas and the innovation that's out there in a way that is OMA uh uh approved compliant um and excited about doing I think we've been talking about it. So now we just have to do
046it as we also have to now put our focus on um opening foster transitioning closing Bessie roads uh welcoming Bessie Rose families Willard families into Foster and the the work that has to happen for Kingsley and Lincolnwood. So um let's get it done. >> Yeah. I just want to name as well um that our superintendent made a recommendation to us to close two schools. I just want to put this in the space um and our financial consultant as well. You know, we had re data to show that this was a so I just I took that seriously. I just want our superintendent to hear that. I still take it very seriously. I believe this provides us a path where uh we have some flexibility to see about adapt adaptation and creativity but also um provides
047us some focus commitment that we're going to honor the SDRP3 process and not have to totally unpeel and start it over again. Um and so I think this provides us a way forward as a board. It provides us a way forward as a district. Um, and I just I just felt that I I need a name that we had a recommendation and I still take that very seriously. >> Yeah, I I agree with that. I think it's really important at this point for us to provide some clarity not only for the community and people who are making decisions about um their kids individually, but also internally some clarity for the district so we know how to move forward. Um, and I think although it's not perfect, this resolution at least gives people some idea of
048where we're heading with some very clear targets that set us up in order to become financially sustainable. And I think, you know, the targets both on financial sustainability and on utilization are very bare bones. They're very minimum. But at least they set set up some targets that we can work towards and hopefully improve on that in the future. >> And I and I hear both of those comments and take them very seriously. And I also know we have a moment now where we can do something pretty spectacular by pulling all these resources and thinking of a way that we can make this happen. So let's get it done. Are we open to any red lines or amendments on this? >> I I would like to propose that we just strike and using the SDRP3 building
049capacities and calculation method. And it's only to say that like I want to be intellectually honest about what I want to what I would like to see from us. And I I want us to expand um how we think about our school space. Um, but I want to know if that's an option. So, keep the 75% and we just >> But this is to so this is to trigger a conversation. It's not to say that the the work that is going to happen and trying to come up with in other ideas are bounded by having to use I mean they're using the data. >> Okay. >> Right. This is that's not I think this is to trigger that we will come back to a conversation in October which is you know using those but it
050doesn't it doesn't bound how you go about designing and thinking about what to create to bring forward. >> Okay. So just for clarity sake the resolution if the I'm pretty sure we're not going to make the 75%. So, we will come back to a conversation with alternative solutions in October and we as a board will be open-minded to solve our financial like long-term capital asset problem, right? We know we're not going to do that with our operating budget >> and our space usage. Um, and that we as a board are are open to saying if we are if we like the plan and we think it's a good plan, then we're not going to get stuck on 75% utilization based on SDRP3 calculations. >> We're going to have to vote for a plan. >> Yeah.
051And we need some way to calculate the 75%, right? That's just like putting all our cards on the table so that we can all come together and agree on something. Um, so I would be uncomfortable with removing that from the resolution, but we have time to come up with an alternative plan. Um, I think the piece that I'm going to be looking at will be the creativity, uh, the options, as well as Tamara's going to be bringing us the the how far in the red we are. Um, and so there's going to be some hard realities we're facing. Um but um I'm entirely open to to uh um deliverable creative solutions that aren't in wishful thinking we we just can't do right now. Um but but deliverable creative solutions. Yes. >> Okay. Any other discussion?
052I would like to go forward with the motion. I move that the board approve the resolution of the board of education of Evston Skoi Community Consolidated School District number 65 regarding the intent to hold public hearings for the purpose closure of Kingsley Elementary and the consider of the closure of Lincolnwood Elementary at a later date. A second call vote. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 760. And as we think about moving forward, uh, I would like to recommend that Nicole Pinkert and Maria Updike lead the board effort of working to identify the alternative approaches to reducing the structural deficit towards the goal of financial stability. >> I accept. Can I ask what you're proposing exactly here? Um just
053uh we are aboard with >> they will they will be they will take the lead in terms of starting to develop our approach to um developing these alternative options. So, so we we need you know we need to start >> are we creating a committee administrative committee a sup special committee what are we doing >> we'll get we we just passed this we will come back at the next meeting with clarity but the reality is we had to be honest about the expectations that's already on the plate of administration cabinet we just passed something that requires work on them so what what's our role as a board in being collaborative and we're going to we're not just going out and doing this ourselves so give us a moment will come back with clarity and communicate
054what that process will be. >> Yeah. And that for me that includes a person of board leadership and an additional board member. So it's it's a it's a starting point, a very early starting point, but I want to express we want to express to the community our intention to get it done. So, and as the process unfolds, the community and the full board and the district will be actively involved in the process. >> I have one more thing I just want to bring up. Um, we've gone back and forth obviously and I just feel for the Kingsley community. Um, you know, my niece, are you going to close my school? You're not going to close it. Are you going to close it? And I I just I want to think about how we are addressing
055the needs of the staff, the families, >> how are we as a board, like I know we're going to have obviously hearings, but that's not uh that's not enough. So, I just wanna I want to hear kind of what what the thought is there. >> I think that's going to take a very intentional and thoughtful process and that starts today. >> Okay. >> And it's it's it's so >> Okay. With no with no further business, I adjourn this meeting at 6:55 p.m. All in favor say I. >> I.