001I call this meeting to order. This is a regular meeting of the Northfield Public School Board. Today is Monday, April 28th, 2025 and the time is 6 p.m. This meeting is being livereamed and recorded. The recording of this meeting will be posted on the district website as soon as possible. Welcome members of the community here tonight to observe the important work being done on behalf of all school district stakeholders. Dr. Hman, we have some items in the table file. Will you update us? Yes, we have several items in the table file. mostly under uh personnel items. We have appointments, we have increase, decrease and change in assignment and we have a couple of resignations. We also did add one uh additional supporting document uh to the priority based budget reduction recommendations section. Uh that supporting
002document uh reflects uh Benjamin Bus's best estimates of activities shuttle ridership. Okay. Thank you. If there are no objections, we will add these items to the agenda as we move forward. Is there a motion to accept the agenda as presented? Motion. Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Second. Right, Amy. Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Opposed. Okay. Motion passes. Do we have anybody signed up for public comment? All right, that's item three. Item four, announcements and recognitions. We do not have any tonight. Do not have any this evening. So, let's see. We are at item five, items for discussion and reports, and we have none there as well. Item six is our committee reports, and I believe we have two that were submitted. Um, see, yeah, the um the ad hoc committee
003report um and the Northfield Forward Report. Uh Jeff or Jenny, do you want the report to stand as is or do you want to offer any comments? any. Okay. Um I just wanted to make a couple of my own comments uh regarding the meeting. Uh we had set some parameters um because it was our first meeting that the three of us had attended uh which included u deadlines. We went over kind of a timeline of what our goal was uh for accomplishing um a few different areas. Um the first one was kind of studying um some of the other um school districts what they're doing and also taking some comparisons with the MSBA's recommended guidelines. So that that probably took the most amount of time I think because um they're very thorough. Uh so we
004went through that and other recommendations and then we um each of the three of us kind of talked about where where we would like to see the evaluation um lean toward or any improvements because I think it's hasn't been improved since 2012 I think. So uh we each seem to have a lot of areas um that we would like to see improved or revised at least somewhat. Thank you. Jeeoff, did you want to add anything? Yeah, I'll make a couple comments. Um, I would say that just kind of looking at from the last 15 years of doing kind of a refresh and after watching the um schoolboard association's webinar that we we watched, there's some different formats that one can use. And then kind of through our meetings, we kind of been chatting a little
005bit and are kind of working towards landing on a a newer process that's should should be liked. So I think uh you know we'll figure that out the next next go around. So thanks for your leadership on that and J. Yeah. Right. Um Corey, would you like your report to stand as is or do you want to give some comments? I'll let it stand as is. Thanks. Good. We're on to the consent agenda. As a reminder, there were some personnel items in the table file added to that consent grouping. Is there anything anyone would like to pull from the consent grouping for separate consideration? Is there a motion to approve the consent grouping? Moved by court, second by Jenny. Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Item
006eight is our items for individual action and that is our priority um based budget reduction recommendations. Uh we will have uh Dr. Hillman and um director of finance V Misoft give some a short presentation or open it up for any additional details. I also have um some comments that I want to make and so I will do that now and then um start uh to discuss the packages in the um order of areas. So, we'll start with the activities package first, but I wanted to just again thank um the 80 plus community members who worked with our administrators to identify $6 million in proposed reductions. Of course, thank Val for her excellent management of our district and Dr. Helman for his leadership. Um, also all the administrators who um helped identify and define what the
007reduction in a given area would entail. We also thank all the district stakeholders who emailed us, connected with us, attended um the forum and generally followed the whole process, even being here tonight. Um and we so we thank you for staying engaged and for helping us sort through those reductions. Um a reduction of this size cannot be accomplished without impacting staff and programs. 80% of our budget is salaries rightly so because as much as as much technology as we use we still need the humanto human connection and the need to reduce across the district comes due to years of chronic underfunding by of public education by the state um as well as other external factors such as declining enrollment which is happening nationwide. Um, our funding needs are not a moving target, but in fact
008a direct reflection of what it takes to meet the needs to educate students pre-K through 12 in 2025. So, I ask you to please advocate to your St. Paul and DC representatives to adequately fund adequately fund public education in our state and nationwide. Public schools are funded primarily on a per pupil funding formula and Northfield is also funded by our generous um community. Students are in need of mental health resources during the school day. They need academic interventions. They need academic and athletic coaches. They need to learn how to use technology responsibly, how to create with their hands, their voices, their bodies, their minds. They need to help. They need help and support of our licensed nurses. They need to be safe in their classrooms and buildings. They need bus transportation and they need staff
009who can can connect with them. School in 2025 is not just reading, writing, and arithmetic. And it's so it's this reality that makes the $6 million um budget reduction a heavy lift for our district staff and our students. Everyone will be doing more with less. and some will take a pay cut, some will go part-time, some will lose their jobs. Um, and none of their duties are being reduced and so it's um a real loss for all of us. Families will also share another part of that burden as they hear about bigger classes and students will have less staff to relate to um share their space with more classmates and possibly have less time in their schedule for electives. We did we heard from parents who are graduates of the middle school and the high
010school also um remembering the education that they received and wishing that there was more for their students. Um just to say that as a community we can't build a robust individually centered or individual centered education without the financial support of the state. Um the state for example requires only one licensed nurse per district and we understand that is not the best for our students. They require students to walk with elementary students to walk within a mile of their building. They require student testing and and teacher training without funding much of those expenses. It requires services to our most vulnerable population without funding adequately um and entirely funding that public school is a state institution and should be adequately funded to support a modern student population. We're very lucky that our community steps up every time
011we ask. I'm saddened by the need to make these reductions. We all are as a board. Um it's both terrible and necessary. If we don't maintain a healthy budget, we can't provide for staff and students into the future. So, we will now um begin the voting process on our reduction packages. Please wait to be called on as we discuss. Um aim to limit yourself to allow for other board members to speak. I will come back and call on you as much as um you need um but please do wait to be recognized. And so now we will have um I will um also ask if there's anything we would like to pull from each of the packages before we move forward. And so it'll be similar to our um consent agenda process. Dr. Helmet. So
012I we'll have Tim bring Tim is going to bring up the reduction packages on the screen so board members can see those. I really appreciate how board members have leaned into this process. You've been excellent listeners. You have heard people. You've actually genuinely heard people and their concerns. I wish more people could have seen the work session that we had last week. I think it was a model of what civil democratic discourse looks like. people have had a lot of opportunity uh to be engaged in this. Uh those that large uh budget uh reduction teams, the five teams met three times in February. We had 177 people at the uh community meeting for public input in early April. Uh we've had multiple board meetings where this has been discussed. So this board can really say
013we have done with this with the community as opposed to the community. And so now it's time to bring this to resolution and to move forward together. There's nothing easy about this. I want to just echo everything that Claudia said. Um, we are all experiencing grief and it's okay to be disappointed and sad and even angry about some of these things. I think we all should be. And then we look to the future with optimism and we know that we still have a staff who are going to do good things for kids every day. Um, and we're just going to have to move forward together an appropriate amount of time of of reflecting upon this. So, we'll we can start with the activities package. Yes, we'll start with the activities package and we'll allow for
014some um short presentation and then I will ask board members if they want anything pulled before we vote. So, you've seen the activities package several times. You've discussed it at uh three different board meetings, two board meetings and a work session. Uh on this particular slide, there was a number of questions. I do want to point out uh that we did include some ridership data uh for the activity shuttle service that was requested at the work session. you had that in your packet and so um we'd be happy to answer any questions that people have at this time about the any fur final questions people have about the activities package questions at this time the yeah the passing along of the credit card fees I don't believe it's actually Nope is line number seven It's
015in several different packages, but passing along the credit card fees to the users, that's line number seven. Yes, I pull seven. I have some questions on that. Okay. I'm sorry, Jeff. Do you do you have questions on it? Yeah. Should I ask now? Yes. I'm just I'm just wondering for you know and it says um if somebody's going to a game and they put something on their debit card or whatever I mean or a PayPal or a Benmo or something that there be no fee for that. So some of the straight transactions there should be no fee on it's only if they're using credit card. Correct. I'm going to ask Val if she can help us with that. So the the systems that we have the the primary driver of this dollar amount is our
016actual um online activity registration software. And so those would have um have a prompt. There's typically also an option to use an a like a checking account that's a lesser fee or um depends on each company. But that would be the typical I would say if they're if they're even if they're using a a debit card, it's typically still associated with Visa or Mastercard. Um but it would say we would always have a cash or check option if they didn't want to do that. Um but most of them, the ones that we have access to are Square. Um and then the Affinity is the registration software. So, are there options that they could use something that doesn't have a fee? Yep. We we would still allow cash or check. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Any other
017questions on this package? Not seeing any more questions. Okay. Um, is there anything that anyone would like to pull from the um from the activities package? Any item that I want to pull? I'm not seeing um anyone wanting to pull anything from the activities package. So, we will uh move on to the vote. Again, I have a motion on the activities package. Okay. Amy second. Second. Right. Thank you. Okay. All those in favor of accepting the reduction package activities say I. I. I. Opposed. None. So motion carries on that. Our next package is the district services package. And we'll allow for a um presentation and any questions on that package. So this package again you've seen several times in the past there were there um there were not a tremendous amount of questions on this
018particular package related to needing new information. You know, there were obviously comments and questions about the impact of some of the pieces. Um, the one item that there was a question on that I will highlight um line number 37 uh there had been a question about being able to use some other kind of software other than Zoom to be able to um broadcast uh board meetings and we have determined that there are other options other than Zoom. We had uh selected to to keep Zoom at this point because very stable has a number of different features that uh have been helpful but it is something that we are confident we can find an alternate service that is lower cost or no cost at all to be able to stream the board meeting. So if a
019board member wanted to add that $9,600 savings uh to line 37, you could. Otherwise, what you'd also be able to do is just let it um you know, let it go as is and be assured that the administration will is always looking to reduce contracts and things like that. And based on that comment that was at the work session, we would look into doing something different other than the Zoom webinar. Thank you for that. Are there any questions? Amy, I just have a question on the reduction of the custodian and how that would work because where do you how do you reduce a custodian? Thank you. So the uh what is to my understanding what is happening there is that we've uh redistributed that FTE to a different facility and then uh the we do
020have a person here who works full-time uh to support the building during the day and then there would be another district-wide custodian who would have part of their duties changed in the morning to come through to do uh any cleanup from evening activities the night before garbage um removal things like that. So in this building the it's focused on the district office and area learning center building. Any other questions? Just a general comment and kind of broadly for this package and a few others. First I just want to echo what you said Claudia about all the engagement pieces and the sacrifices and the unfortunate circumstances we're in. So I just want to make sure that's heard. Um I had shared throughout the process including last week's work session. I agree Dr. Hillman would have been
021nice if there was a way for more people to experience what we did in 3 hours to discuss this. And I shared this sentiment last week. Um, while I support what's in front of us, I do have concerns about a couple of the administrative position changes. That goes to the buildings as well. Um, I think what I said last week was um, people don't know what the engine is behind this. We still need people to do the work to help keep the structure and boundaries in place, but I take solace in knowing these are recommendations from smart, dedicated public servants who have weighed the pros and cons of all these and are willing to try to do more with less. Um, I approach that with some hesitancy, but I will support it. And again, this
022goes for other packages as well as terms of in terms of administrative positions. I'm curious if we approve what's in front of us tonight. I won't pick anything specifically, but um with an administrative position, whether it's in a building or district office, what process can we have in place in the next school year to get updates to see if it's meeting the standards that we need before we could potentially consider maybe stepping back from that and reconsidering some of those positions? Is that a something you've worked through in the past? How involved is the board in that? Um, and how do we if things don't go as well as we hope, how do we get in line for next year to maybe step back on a few? So, I I think Corey, there's a few
023ways that we'd be able to report some of those items to you. One, as you know, we regularly survey staff either in our annual employee survey. We also have an annual parent survey, which despite the reduction of the student education contract will continue. Uh, we also do a lot of what I would call pulse surveys. So after small team meetings or workg groupoups where we are getting feedback that way and also we'll be able to do some time study work too where we take some snapshots of the positions where these um duties are being redistributed to try to determine you know the um the capacity if you will of being able to complete those tasks to the best of our ability. There will be things that will not get done that we'll intentionally say we're
024not going to do. Um things that have been nice to do in the past but no longer have capacity. We can also we're doing an exercise right now of every district department going through areas of assignment. So it's a little bit bigger than a task if you will but it's an area of responsibility and how those are going to be redistributed. So that's something that we can show you a before and after and then we certainly can provide the board with updates through the year. Thank you. Any other questions? Amy, I just want to say thank you to all the district services staff. Um, they work so well and sort of invisibly because they do everything well and so they're not causing any problems and we don't always notice them. And I think we're asking
025a lot of the district services staff with these budget cuts. And I just want to acknowledge that they have gone above and beyond the initial request and that they are taking a lot on themselves and let them know that um I personally and I'm sure the whole board appreciates their willingness to give so much to our school district. So, thank you all. Anyone else question or comment on the district services package? Okay, not seeing any more questions and so we'll move on to a vote and I have a motion on the district services package. I move to accept the district services package as presented. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Is there anything anyone wants to remove from the district services package about that? get that piece. Is there anything anyone wants to remove?
026Any item you would like removed? Okay, then we'll have Corey's motion stand and Amy second to that. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? Okay. District services package reduction passes. Next, we have the elementary package. Um, do you have any comment on that? Um we did not have anything specific coming from board members at the last um meeting about this particular package and so you've seen uh a number of supporting documents in including projected class sizes comparisons with other districts and so I don't have anything to add from the time that we last met. Do you have any questions or comments at this point on the elementary package? Not seeing any questions. Is there anything anyone wants to remove from the elementary package for separate consideration? Jenny, I would like to remove line
027item 42 for separate consideration. Okay. Is there anything anyone else wants to remove for separate consideration? Can can I make a suggestion? I would just like to suggest board members if we remove line item 42. I'd also recommend that you remove line item 43 and the reason I s say that is that the uh specialist reduction is in co in concert with the number of sections. So if board members were to do something significant it it might be fine depending on where those sections would come from. I just I don't want you to approve this this if I don't want you to approve the specialist section reduction and then do something different with the classroom section reduction. Okay. So, we'll pull item 42 and 43 for separate consideration. Any other items board members would like
028to remove from the elementary package? Any other items at this point? All right. Then, um I move that we uh approve the elementary package reduction package without item 42 and 43. Can I get a second by Jenny? All those in favor say I. I. I. Post. Right. So, our elementary reduction package passes without item 42 and 43. We can now have a discussion on those items. Denny, do you want to start first? Sure. Thank you, Claudia. Uh so regarding line item 42 um reducing nine general education classroom teachers, I wanted to make uh a few points um as to why I struggled with supporting this reduction. Um, first I guess is that um, elementary students are just too little to really advocate uh, for a smaller class sizes. You know, they we can't expect that
029they would understand that that could be an issue or um, that that could pose problems with larger class sizes. So, I think that's important um, to keep kind of in the in the background when considering this. And then also within our own district, um we've had teachers that have given us information on the professional development um that they receive here within our district um that teaches and using researchbased information about the connection and direct attention it takes for students to learn. And this is coming from um not from electronics, not from other students, but from teachers. Um, kids in class sizes, larger class sizes are often split up into groups. Um, and you know, and that is meant to help each other. Um, but I have to mention that a retired kindergarten teacher once told
030me that sure a lot of learning happens in kindergarten, but he mentioned how much time he actually spends just teaching students to how to be students at that age. It's it's a it's a large amount of time of each and every day for the whole year and that cannot come from other students. Um students of the same age cannot teach um you know the other children um behaviors, proper behaviors and things like that. They can make examples but it's really difficult for them and nor should we ever expect them to teach behaviors. Um, also having fewer children in class reduces the distractions in the room and gives the teacher more time to devote to each child. Some say that it's really the teacher's experience level and having a solid curriculum that we should be concerned
031about, not so much class size. But in my years of working at and volunteering in ele different elementary schools um I have seen that you can have the most exceptional teacher and the most worldclass curriculum but if you have large class sizes with distractions um it takes the focus off that exceptional teacher and it takes the focus away from that world class curriculum. So at that point those two uh factors don't matter. Um, another point, um, that I witnessed, um, a broad spectrum of academic performance levels when I worked and volunteered in these schools. Um, for example, one classroom, it was a first grade classroom that I worked in. And we had I had one student that came to me and said, you know, I need help uh, writing the word mom. And but then
032in that same classroom, same day, I had another student that had written so many stories and they were pages long of stories that he wrote himself. And he had so many that he needed help binding them together to form a book so that he could be an author. These were both both boys were the same age, same grade, same classroom. And so we expect these teachers to just deal with these hugely uh very large um disproportionate academic performance levels and to do that with a much larger class size um you're just adding more more levels there and that they have to try to work around. Um I mean another area was um we can look at studies um that point out that class smaller class sizes are are um better but one in particular I
033think um that I studied a lot was project star because of the the long-term duration that seemed to um give me the most amount of confidence and in that particular study after four years it was clear that smaller class sizes did produce substantial academic improvement um and they their class sizes ranged from 13 to 26. Um and reducing class sizes to about 16 led to higher student achievement um compared to class sizes of about 24 students. But most moving to me um and this was the words of the study, not my own words, but was the effect of small class size on the achievement of minority children was almost double than the non- minority children. which then leads me to think about closing the achievement gap once and for all. We keep bringing that up
034year after year. It's an issue and I feel that with smaller class sizes that would really give us the chance to actually do that. And so that that was probably one of the biggest areas that I really struggled with um supporting this is that if we could close the achievement gap with smaller class sizes, that's something that I think um we should really be thinking about. And then also um something I realized was student outcomes will not change unless adult behaviors change. And so when I think adults in a school district, I think about um school board members, superintendents, and of course our state legislators. Um, I don't like looking at the issues of other school districts, um, and using kind of that as an excuse, such as we we saw some averages of class
035sizes from other school districts that were maybe um, larger than ours were. And I feel like that's really just kind of using that as an excuse to then increase our class size. But what happens then is when we start comparing to other school districts, couple years go by and we end up having the same problem that they're having and then we all say, "Well, but we're we're we're in the same boat as the other school districts. We have the same same problem only if we go back a couple years, we possibly could have prevented that problem for us anyway." Um, also another area is that state law governs elementary class sizes um in statute 126 C12 to maintain low ratios um and use their LDR class size revenue that we should use um the revenue
036that they give us for this and I believe it was around $800,000 um this past year. This is not a a standard or a benchmark. Um this is actually this is a law. It's state statute, so there is should be no interpretation it because it's state law and it was in place since 1993. And I was curious to see what class sizes they were recommending back then. So I went back to the statute from 1993 and it was the same. It was 17 students from kindergarten through grade three is their recommended and today it's still at 17. Although there was other areas of that statute that changed. um from then to now. So to me, when they changed other areas of it, but kept that number 17, that tells me how critical um they're trying
037to tell us that this that small class size really is when they have kept it for that many years. And and they also of course give us revenue to try to keep class sizes low. Um it was said during our workshop that the elementary level package did not have um much to reduce other than FTE. Uh which is very understandable. But it got me thinking if our elementary buildings are already operating the most lean which that package was 99% of that budget package a reduction was licensed teachers. 99%. the other these other budget packages didn't even come close to that 99% for um reducing teachers. Um that was alarming to me. Um, and thinking that maybe our administration team could have possibly given different parameters knowing that our elementary schools are operating more lean, if
038you will, um, or a different calculation or just taken that into consideration and then had the board decide maybe what those parameters might be um, in thinking about the elementary um, budget reduction package. So, I I do see a missed target there. Um, I also know that this is a reduction for the coming school year. So, we can always say, but we can hire those teachers back. But it was also said that we may be reducing every two years. Maybe even we'd be taking a look every year, every three years. But whatever it is, I can't see that we'd be recovering those nine teaching positions after this reduction period. Um, and then even if we phase outos, that would still leave us with the same amount of teachers, the same class sizes, I'm sorry, the
039same students. And so, while that might give us more balanced class sizes overall, we're still going to see those high um potential class sizes upwards of 28 in first, second, and third grades, which is still alarming to me. So, um, those are a lot of the reasons that I won't be able to support, um, this item. Thank you, Jenny, for sharing that. Any, um, board members have discussion, comments on items 42 and 43. Um, I just want to say, Jenny, that I, you know, I I don't want to see the elementary lose all of these elementary teachers either. I taught second grade for a short time and I know year in and year out what um um bigger class size felt like and when we would lose students throughout the year and suddenly it felt
040like a light class at 21. Um you know so I I connect on those points. Um and and I also um I also heard administration support this particular reduction. Um, and so for me it's about I want to say we we don't want to reduce to any staff. So the $6 million has to be staff and programming and I'm with you. I don't want to see it reduced and I agree with you that class sizes are important and make a difference. Um, I'd like to hear about the law that you mentioned. I don't know if Val or Dr. Do you know about the law that Jenny brought up? Um, I don't know specifically about the class size, so maybe Dr. Hillman can talk about that, but um, I believe it references our learning and development
041revenue that's part of our general education formula. Um, and we do get uh about $800,000 per year that's distributed between the three elementaryaries um, in terms of costing to support salaries. And what are the parameters for that distribution or requirements? Um there's not I mean there are requirements to spend it. We've always just spent it at our elementary buildings. Um and we've just but it's not connected to class size then not um it's part of our general ed aid formula that we get. Yeah. A and my understanding of this law over the years is that's intended to be able to support maintaining as small class sizes as a district can do with a goal of being at 17. They Jenny's right. They've used that 17 number all the way back because that is what the
042research is on class size. In fact, you know, if we do a broad look at the research on class size, it's actually quite mixed, right? There's the key part what Jenny shared is that it's got to be at the size actually around 15 really to see that return. And so I'm certain that that's why the number 17 was put in the statute all those years ago. And as as Jenny knows because we both looked at the statewide class size report. The way that it is reported at the state um indicates to me that they actually count more than just classroom teachers as part of that calculation toward uh 17. So it certainly is the what we would prefer. Uh and even with just just to go through what we're projecting for next year with the
043reduction. So right now um at kindergarten we're at all three buildings we are projecting um based on today's data we're projecting less than 20 students per class at kindergarten. That's with adding that fourth section using contingency at Bridgewwater. There is the one um contemporary size outlier right now that we're projecting for next year at Bridgewwater where we are seeing right now 27 as the average there. There's some work still being done about are there ways to shuffle some of the FTE to bring that down. In what grade? Grade one at Bridgewwater. At Spring Creek and at Greenville Park. Greenville Park, you're looking at an average of 23 versus 21 at Spring Creek. This is again based on today's numbers. Second grade and and this is just contemporary. Um we are looking at uh in second
044grade Bridgewater at an average of 20 next year and Green Bale Park and Spring Creek both at 23 much higher than 17. Obviously I'm just making sure that people have the data and then in grade three you are looking at an average contemporary size at um Bridgewater of 23 and at Spring Creek and um Greenville Park of 25 each. So that is what we have. We do put the the funding toward those lower class sizes. It's it's obvious we spend obviously much more than $800,000 on kindergarten through third grade staffing. So Jenny, you're not going to get an argument out of me at all on this. We This is one of those things we would prefer not to be doing it. Um and I would argue there's less um when you get to the middle
045school and high school, there's a more variety of different positions that are there. I think that's why the packages also look that way, the way the the makeup of the elementary school. And so I I don't disagree with you that the elementary package will always end up being um more general ed classroom staff than maybe other packages just because of the way that schools are structured. So again, something we prefer not to do. I appreciate your comments and we will certainly keep that in mind as we move ahead. Yeah, Jenny. Thanks. So the statute um under subdivision 4 revenue use revenue must be used to reduce and maintain the district's average class size in kindergarten through grade three to a level of 17 to1. So it is tied to it. All right. Ben, do you
046have a question or comment? Just a comment I guess. Yeah. I mean if that goes back to 93. I think about my mom who is a first grade teacher in Burough. was in Minneapolis district and I can guarantee you that they never had a class size of 17 in first grade in the Minneapolis school district probably 30 at some time. So, you know, I think I would love it if the legislature would allocate enough money to make that a reality. That would be great, but they haven't. And that's just sort of the reality that we live in. And I think that's kind of what we're contending with right now. You know, I think I just have to go back to I mean, I agree with Jenny in the sense that nobody wants to cut, especially
047teachers at the elementary level, you know, but I think this has spurred some good discussion. We've heard that, you know, from the parents and looking at just what other programming, especially as we go into next year and think about how do we reimagine kind of how we do some of the learning and and budgeting for that in that space. I guess from my perspective, you know, the board is here to pass a budget tonight that fits that that fund balance policy that we have. So, you know, that we're above 14% when we approve a final budget and and you'll hear me, you know, support pulling something in the secondary package just in a little bit, you know, but that pulling that still going to get us there. And obviously pulling a line item like this
048would put us well below that number. you. We've had this package for two months and this is the first that I've heard of any reluctance from another board member in terms of supporting that. So, I can support it just because we've got that budgetary requirement to meet. But, you know, I guess I always encourage other board members to lean into the process if that's something that's important to you. You know, have those conversations early on during work sessions, things like that. I think coming at the the night where we vote on it just makes it problematic for me. So to think about how those pieces fit together. So that's Sure. No, I appreciate that, Ben. And and just to add that um we are giving space tonight for people to have questions and to seek
049for clarification and we are asking board members if you need if you need to pull an item to pull it. So um it's it's really challenging. Um and so I appreciate all of you for working through it. Go ahead, Maggie. Um, yeah, I agree, Jenny, that the class size is important, especially with the younger kids. I liked your point that there's they're so young they don't know to advocate for themselves. I think that's very true. And then the students who are even coming into the district or families coming to the district, they don't, you know, necessarily know that this is something to think about. So I think I support this reduction but with great sadness. I think it's not something that um is a good uh thing to do for the teachers and the students
050in our elementary schools. I think especially also the specialist reductions that have to go along with that and um potential you know to have some specialists be traveling. That's not a great thing for our elementary buildings. But I sort of weigh this recommendation and I I think of it as a recommendation from the elementary group um that came up with this recommendation that rather than you know cut an entire specialist area from the elementary school or rather than go down to four days a week I don't think elementary parents would love that. um go down rather than consolidate schools. Do we you know I think there are other ways to get to a budget number and to me this is kind of like the lesser of those evils. And I just I feel like this
051is the moment to do this and hope that we don't have to continue to raise the class sizes. Okay, Maggie. Anyone else at this time? Okay, Amy. So, um, Jenny, I appreciate your championing the elementary school teachers. I think that they are very important to our district. Again, though, we don't have any options here at this point. So, we're not deciding between things. We're just looking to reach a certain goal. And none of us, I think, would want to get rid of classroom teachers, but we're stuck in this unfortunate situation. So, while I wish I could vote to keep them, I think at this point I still feel like I need to um unfortunately uh reduce the number of classroom teachers. Thank you, Amy. What else? Question or comment? Okay. So, what'll happen now is
052um we'll have a motion to approve line item. Can we do both together? Okay. So, we'll approve line item 42 and 43 will be the motion and then you can vote it up or down. Okay. So, um I move that we approve the reduction of line items 42 and 43 as presented. Can I get a second? Okay. Second by Ben. All those in favor say I. I. I opposed. The reduction passes. Okay, we are now on to uh the secondary package and so it's the um same format. We'll have uh a small presentation if any. Um board members can ask questions and um then we'll see if there's anything people want to pull. uh we'll vote and then discuss any items that were pulled. Yes. So the change between the work session and today is
053that you'll see we as we said at the work session we added a line item 49.1 that uh essentially retains the seven period day. Um you saw that uh that was presented in the sample schedule option one that was shared um at the previous board meeting or excuse me at the previous board work section line item 49 remains as is. um from the previous one. The other items that were changed, if you go down to based on board member feedback, item line item 67, 67A, and 67B, these are all about high school parking fees. And so the original recommendation was increasing from 100 to 150 per pass. Uh we heard at the work session board members wanted a few more options. So we have offered um a line item 67A and 67B. Um, I do
054want to point out that 67B would actually generate $60,000, not $50,000. So, those are the other options should board members uh be interested in looking at those. If you choose to uh uh remove either of those, um I recommend you remove all of the ones that are associated with the same topic and then we can discuss those just like we did in the elementary package. We do have Mr. Gelano who's on Zoom. I'm told though, just do a do a technical issue tonight that should we need to bring Mr. Jello and that it will have to reboot the system which will be about a 3 minute or so time frame. So if there's questions that we can't answer, we certainly can do that as well. Thank you. All right. Any questions on the secondary package?
055Hey Jeff, I guess uh point of information just for clarity on this 4949.1. So it seemed to me that the consensus from our work session was that we did want to keep um the seven period days. So, however this is looking is that and you said you were going to go back with Greg and figure that out. So, a voting this proposal up or down, it would include, if I'm correct, keeping the seven period day. That's correct. Should a board member want to retain the seven period day, what I would recommend is that you remove both items 49 and 49.1 for separate consideration. And if that was Jeff, to your point, if you'd like to maintain the seven period day, the recommended motion I would have would be that you would vote to uh you
056would vote to approve line item 49.1 and reject line item 49. That would be the motion I'd recommend if that is what you'd like to do. If someone wanted to do it in reverse, you would just flip those around. So that's the recommended. If you first thing you'd remove it from the package and then the recommended motion would be that we move to approve 49.1 as presented and reject item 49 as presented. Okay. Anyone else questions or comments? Amy, I have a question about if the board votes to keep the seven period day. We were given a number of different scheduling options and it was unclear to me whether uh uh you know the administration was looking for some thoughts or perspective on what scheduling approach we preferred or you know general guidelines or if
057they wanted us to choose one and so I'm just wondering what you what you want from us. So, just to be uh to be clear, we know that there were two um general options that were shared as ways to um be able to retain the seventh period uh schedule at the middle school while meeting standards specifically in the fine arts in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. We know that the uh direction that the board was interested in was looking at more of that semesterbased art. And so, that's the way that we would go down that road. I don't think the I've I don't think the board has ever gotten into scheduling. You know, that's typically more of a management issue. What I would say is that we would intend to be able to um follow
058through on the option that was presented that we know that was preferred. Um you asked Mr. Gelano what was his preferred schedule and he shared with you option one was his preferred schedule. when he goes to make that schedule, you if you look at all the other things that were in there, I it's not appropriate in my mind to tie his hands based on that sample that he gave to show how it works out, knowing full well that the intention would be to meet it in the way that it was described, but scheduling is not something that is for the faint of heart, right? There's a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes. It's not just the master schedule itself, right? It's making sure all of the students get into the places that
059they need to be. So that's why we removed the option one to specify that knowing that um full well that that is the direction that we intend to go. I answer it Amy. Okay. Yeah. You have a question too. Well, I was just going to say what I hear you saying, Matt, is right. We're creating the budget for that to happen. How it gets executed is ultimately up to Greg and you and the administration. And and as the superintendent, I do not micromanage the principal scheduling, right? We we give a set of parameters. We get a set of FTE we give a set of criteria and then it is the principal the assistant principal the counselors who are involved in that process of registration and all those kinds of things and then of course you
060working with appropriate other staff uh on the course offerings and things like that but I don't typically micromanage the scheduling of the princip right yeah nor should the board I think any other questions or comments Okay. So, seeing there are no more questions or comments, um I am going to pull uh item 49, 491, 67A, and 67B. You also want to take 67 as well then. 60 and 67. Yeah, I see that now. Thank you. I didn't catch that. So, we're pulling 49, 49.1, 67, 67A, and 67B. So, I'm um I move that we approve the secondary package. Oh, I would like to pull something as well. Um right. Oh, you want to also pull. Is there Right. Excuse me for that. Any other items that people want to pull, Amy? Yes, I would like
061to pull 56 and 57. Okay. Apologize for that. Okay. Anybody else have an item they would like to pull for separate consideration? Okay. So, we can um I'll move to approve the secondary reduction package except for line items 49, 491, 67, 67A, and 67B, as well as line item 56, and 57. Can I get a second on that? My All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. All right. Uh we have u several items that we pulled. So we'll have uh discussion on those. So 49 and 491. Anybody have any comments to make on 49491? I would just reaffirm our discussion from last week that it seems like consensus is we are supportive of a seven period day and just as Ben said we're setting the budget oversight today and we'll let doc or
062Dr. Jello Mr. Jelano uh move forward with his staff to figure out the best way to allocate that FT and I will be voting in support of 49.1 and rejecting 49. Okay. All right. Anybody else have questions? No, sorry. Um just a clarifying question for Val or Matt. So by voting in support of 491 and rejecting 49, we're going to essentially bring 255 back into expenditure. Correct. Just for the record. And then and you know I would just voice voice my support for that largely based on a lot of feedback that we had from the community but I also what I said in the work session seems like a substantive and significant change that impacts a lot of students really for a very small amount of money relative to the overall amount that we're having
063to look at in terms of budget reduction. I understand it has some FTE impacts you here and there especially in terms of what Mr. Gelano and the administration decide to do in terms of staffing and schedule. But for me, it's the structural kind of impact that it has especially on middle school population who we know is you know transitioning from elementary before entering high school and the avail the availability and chance to have those electives seems like a high return on investment for that money. So that's why I'm in support of keeping that at this point in time. Anyone else comment or question on these two items? And I wanted to I'm sorry you have qu Yeah, I will be I mean penny the discussion on other items. Um I will be as Corey stated
064in favor of 49.1 and rejecting 49. Thank you. Um, and I I wanted to add that I'm um I'm not opposed to a change in the schedule at the middle school, but I do think it needs more time to discuss and more um stakeholders at the table. I just wanted to add that comment. Anyone else at this time? All right. Then I move that we approve line item 491 as presented and reject line item 49. Can I have a second? Goodby Cory. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. That reduction passes. Next we have line item 6767A and 67B. Does anybody have any comments on those items? Hey Amy. So I think we have a couple things to think about. First, I' I'd like to say I would be in favor of increasing
065it from $100 to $200 in the first year and then maybe in the second year increasing it up to $250 because I I think doing more than 100% increase is a huge sticker shock initially. So, there should be some phasing if we decide to go that high. Um, I also think we need to uh hear more about what the parking situation might be like at theos at the high school in the next few years because with the re-imagine high school, are we going to lose spots? Are we going to is it going to are we charging a lot for a big mess? You know, so I'm just wondering if you have any sense of that, Dr. Hillman. um what the future of high school parking looks like in the short term. Well, in the long
066term, when the project is complete, we'll have the same amount of parking then as we do now, but the interim is what is going to be challenging. I can't tell you how many fewer parking spots we will have, but it stands to reason that we are going to phase the project so students can continue to attend classes at in their in the Northfield High School as it is now. the project will need to be staged, which means there will be need to m be materials and equipment and personnel on campus. And when you think about the um the site that we're talking about, we're obviously not going to be doing that on practice fields or on athletic fields. So, it leaves parking lots as part of that. So, we will have reduced parking. I do
067not yet know because we have not gotten to the point of we are starting to talk about phasing the project. Um we have been thinking through are there ways to create other temporary spots throughout the different um over the course of the couple of years of the project. Maybe one year some parking is here, the next year it's someplace else, but we don't have those plans finalized yet. The only thing I can tell you for sure is there will be less parking and I do feel it will be likely substantially less parking to begin with. Now the Rockfield parking lot, which is currently the free parking lot, that does not that will not be impacted. Um, so that lot will be as is and I I don't actually know daytoday if that's full. It's quite
068a walk uh from the Rockfield parking lot to the high school itself. But in order to put up with the rain to get the rainbow, that might be something that we students have to use. So we have not charged for the Rockfield parking lot, nor do I intend to charge for the Rockfield parking lot at this time. It will be less, Amy. I don't know how much less, but it will be time limited, right? It'll be for a couple of years, three at the most. Uh, Ben, did you have a question? A comment comment. Okay. And then was that were you through Amy for now? Okay. Go ahead, Ben. I just, you know, I think similar to what I said at the work session, it would make sense to me to just match the high
069school parking fee with whatever we end up charging for the bus fee because I just I view those as almost equivalent. So rather than landing on a number tonight, that would be what I would recommend or allocate for. That's just my comment. Okay, Maggie. Yeah, I was going to echo that. Um I personally will be paying $225 next year to send my daughter on the bus. Um and it's going up from zero. So initially I was surprised. You know, 100 to 250 does feel like a big jump, but 0 to 225 is also a jump. I have a neighbor who will have two kids, so 550. Um, so you know, I would like to uh also maybe incentivize bus use a little bit and so maybe 225 is a way to incentivize that a little
070bit. It's a little less. Um, but I I will be supporting the 250 per pass. Anyone else question or comment? Amy. So, does that mean we have yet another option that we should be considering, which is 225 or not? Yes. As as I laid out in that voting procedures document, this is one of those line items that a board member could modify one of the recommendations. So, if a board member wished to modify the recommendation, how I would suggest is that you say something to like this. Um, I move to increase high school student parking fees from $100 to $225 beginning with the 2526 school year and to reject line items 6767A and 67B. That makes it very clear, you know, you've created your own level and then we reject the other pieces as well.
071So, if that's what a board member would like to do, they certainly can do that. Good Corey. In thinking through the numbers, I I think 250 is okay. I think 225 is okay. I think it's reasonable to increase the rates based on what we saw for comparable and pure districts. I also think Maggie made a great point last week about making sure it's fair in consideration of the bus pass or the bus fees. Um going any less than 225 I think would be incorrect an incorrect move here. So with what's in front of us, I'm fine with 250. If someone wants to amend it and do 225, I guess the difference is $10,000. So that's potentially depending on the ridership or the number of passes available. But I also think the construction period is irrelevant
072to this conversation whether we're charging 100 or 250 or $1,000 for the spots or the spots or the spots. So, um, after construction, we'll have the same number of spots and then hopefully it's a easier line in the budget for what revenue will be, but I'm okay at 250. If someone wants to amend it 225 or even to make it exactly whatever we end up on the writership, that that's okay, too. Jeff, did you have a question or comment? Yeah, just a point of information on, you know, parking at Rock Fields. Is that I mean from what you know parking at Rockfield now is that you know all the four seasons um can you make it a fairly straight shot and a safe shot to walk over to the high school or Yeah, I do
073think it's used year round. I think that it is um it's a it's a hike to get there for sure from the rock fields to to the make it is it a straight shot or do you have to walk? I think it depends on the time of year. Yeah. Wow. Because when when there's no snow, you can walk straight there, right? You've got less options obviously when there is winter weather. Yeah, I drove every year I went to high school and that's how I mean I parked but I you know I look at that and I think well of course back then I didn't pay any fees but you know the points are valid and I think you know when you're looking at different things I think whatever you know whatever lean you know I
074guess is kind of the direction of where we are today. Anybody else question or comment? Amy. So, I enjoyed this discussion actually and hearing what everyone has to say. And I just want to say that I'd like to move that we approve 67B with $250 and just do it. And Amy, I'm just going to see if there are any other questions before we move to a motion. Okay. Anybody else? Then I just call out in the district services 28 the transportation fee says 150 to 300 annually at valley I think you came up with 225 kind of based on you know so I don't know that that's a hard and fast number right now am I correct to think that so I would make a motion to got a motion on the floor we got
075someone who's made a motion so oh dang all right so we need to see if there's a second if there's no second it can die okay so I'm gonna Um, sorry. There are no more questions or comments then at this point on this item. Okay. So, Amy, you would like to make a motion and we'll vote it up or down. What is your motion? I move that we approve 60 line 67B increasing the parking fee to $250. And can we add that? So if we just say 67B, do we need to mention 67A and 67 or does that cover it? If you do just 67B, it does cover it. If you add 67 and 67A, it just makes it very clear for people reading the minutes. Well, and that we go ahead then. And then
076also that we do not approve 67 and 67A. Okay. So the motion is that we approve 67B and reject 67A and 67. Is there a second? Second. Okay, thank you, Corey. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. Okay. Um I did want to say we had a suggestion that if the um voting was not unanimous that we would go to a roll call vote. Um it's obvious that there are more uh in agreement than opposed. Should we go ahead and do a roll call? There's no requirement. I think we're required. I think you're fine with what you've done. Okay. So, um, the A's have it. 67 B passes. Okay. The other items that were pulled from this package are line items 56 and 57. Okay. We can have a discussion on that. Amy,
077go ahead. So, the reason why I asked for lines 56 and 57 to be pulled is I thought it would be nice to have a discussion among the board about um my concern is that we're losing two highlevel support positions, the vice principal and one of the counselors at the same time. And I would like to suggest that instead of having them both go at the same time and the and sort of all of the confusion that might happen with that and and um a significant drop in support that we phase it a bit and hold on to the assistant vice principal position for one more year um and see how it goes having just lo lost the counselor um and then move from there possibly to move to the dean of students. But I
078think we're asking a lot of our high school administration to lose two very important support positions. At the same time, at a time in our culture where we're always being told how much support the students need, how much uh mental health issues people are having, and I just I I know when we lose the counselor position, it only ratchets us back to precoid, but when we lose a second administr assistant pres principal, it. We've had two assistant principles for over 30 years now and no one who's currently at the high school has a memory of what it's like to do with just the work with just one assistant principal. So, I think looking at this as phasing might be a better approach and not asking the high school to make such a drastic change all
079at once. Thank you, Amy. Anyone else want to comment on 56 and 57? Yeah know I appreciate that comment Amy given that a lot of thought as well. You know I think there's there's a lot to be said for that. I think the thing that I struggle with is that when I kind of put all those pieces together we're talking not just about kind of one FTE. There's I could really probably go and make that argument for any FTE in this package. And where I was able to support you know the middle school piece largely because of the structural change to the seven versus six period day. You know I think I have to look at for me I have to look at the budget in its totality and say rather than this position or
080that have the board play that role or as a board member play that role. I I don't I don't feel like I can come to that in good conscious I have to think about the package as a whole. And you know, I think it will be hard. And you know, I think that's what we look at next year as we work through kind of an earlier budget process. And if that really rises to the four is something that is a pain point at the high school, you know, then we'll have learned that maybe a tough lesson. Um certainly don't want to see us lose anybody in any of these roles. So I just that's the lens I'm bringing to the to my decision-m process. Thank you. Anyone else? Amy and then Corey. Well, and the
081reason why I pulled out the um 50 the uh 57. Yeah, it was 57 for the dean of students is that that would be a savings at least, you know, the first year. So, the initial hit wouldn't be as high. But again, I'm looking at sort of a phasing process um where we would provide a little additional support over the next year and see how things go. But I I would imagine at this point that we would probably drop down to the Dina students after that. Good. Corey, just want to say I appreciate you bringing this forward, Amy. I I've had some reservations about this transition as well and I've reflected a lot in last week in particular and um I had thought about pulling this as well in my question to Dr. Hillman earlier
082about if thing about the district services package, if things do not go as well as we hope, where can we reassess and come back? And I was also including this kind of in part of that conversation because we've heard a lot about just the overall need in our buildings nowadays. And I recognize that for 30 years, we've had these two roles. Uh, and I would guess anyone in the audience here today or anyone watching at home knows that schools have not gotten easier to manage in 30 years with the education requirements, with the mental health requirements, social emotional learning, belonging, the whole collection of needs. Um, financially though, we need to move forward with a budget that works in the long term and this is a step we can take this year and see how
083it goes. And if our administration who put forward this uh Mr. Byer believes in it, let's give it a year and if it does not land where we think it should, we can reassess. So I'm in support of you know begrudgingly of this reduction. Thank you. Anyone else? Maggie. Um I agree. This is one I've thought a lot about since our work session. Um and again it comes down to that structural change versus um kind of positional change. And I think in this in this situation I will um kind of rely on the process leading us to this point. Um that if they think it can be done with a dean of students, let's let's go that route. Um and it's probably not going to be easy or great. Uh but this is another one
084where um it's you know with reservation that I will approve this reduction. Thank you Maggie. Anyone else question or comment at this point? And I and I also wanted to say that um the thought of the high school losing a counselor and an assistant principal seems like a lot. And I'm sure it's all of these items are a lot for the the staff that are picking up the additional duties. As I said, we we're going to have reduction in staff, but not a reduction in their duties. Um, so I absolutely agree with you that this is going to um feel heavy and it's going to hit them hard. Um, I I I like the idea of delaying it a year and so we can, you know, see how the the board votes on that. But
085um I I do agree that similar to the other staff reductions, we don't want to do any of them. We we know it's going to be um really challenging. If I can make a comment. Y just to the point of um you know getting it done you know with a I I think we could make the same case for any reduction of the positions in all five packages. Uh I was at the meeting with the high school staff when Mr. buyer was describing you know how a dean of students may work or um you know alternate to an assistant principal and thing is very clear is that it is not the same and things that people can expect are you we'll still do all the work that we can but delayed response time and again
086we can say that for all of the pieces there but I want to be clear I don't think that this was saying that it can get done you know with at the same rate with a dean of students but that this is a piece that would help reduce the budget and we would still endeavor to do as much as we are able to. But things like response times, there's just less coverage at evening activities, those kinds of things. And again, we can say that for all of the uh position reductions in the package, there's some kind of loss, right? There's some kind of whether it be more students in a class, right? Whether it be more students for an administrator to be supervising or managing on a day-to-day basis. So, I don't want people to
087think that it's going to be exactly the same because it won't be. That's we've tried been very clear throughout all of this. But given the parameters and the budget that we have, these are the pieces together when we look at the entirety of it because part of the reason this is so that there could be more teaching FTE at the high school. So that was that modulating different pieces together to put together the best package to hit the budget target and do as much as we can with the people who we have. So I just don't want people to go in thinking oh a 16 will take care of it. They will do they'll do everything they can within the time that they have and the other people will step up and and do the
088best that they can pick up you know as many duties as possible but it won't be the same just like all of these reductions it will not be the same moving ahead. Maggie I guess I'd like to know a little bit more about can we do a phased recommendation or is this something where we would simply kind of remove the line and then we would be amending the language. So I would imagine we can do a phase in. That's at the board's pleasure. I I do I think it's my job and Val's job to explain to you what the consequences are. What the consequences are is that we reduce less this year and you've seen the financial scenarios. The less that we reduce this year, that means the next the next round of reductions or
089next round of reductions comes sooner because we'll drop below the fund balance target more quickly. So, we didn't, you know, we didn't put some, you know, a a recommendation for it of, oh, if we recommend $6 million and the board approves five and a half, you know, we've got some, you know, wiggle room there. That's not how we roll. We tell you the number and then it, you know, we we try to do the best that we can to distribute in the best way possible. So, you can choose to do anything that you desire as the elected officials of the community. The consequence will be it just means that we'll have um less reductions which means that the expenditures will be more than what we projected and it would be possible that we may have
090to make some more difficult decisions sooner rather than later. Now there's lots of decision points. Maybe we get a miracle at the legislature. I'm not holding my breath but there's a number of things that could happen but it's just our responsibility to make sure that we tell you what the consequences of those decisions are. Do you want to add anything to that, Val? Yes, Corey. I just want to say I also don't think it's responsible to go through this process and then say, "Oh, we're going to hold this position for one more year, but then we're going to phase it out." I think that's disrespectful to the person in that role. Um, and I don't know that it does much for us in the long term if we today would decide we're just going to
091remove that position next year anyway. I think it's better just to move ahead with the plan in place. Um, I just it makes me uncomfortable thinking about doing a phase approach with this type of position. I know we've done in the past with some other positions, but that was more about curriculum than a specific role. Um, I think it just sets us up for a weird situation if we went that route. Yeah, I I don't have a problem with phasing it because we're talking about a support role that is um not just the only one that they're losing. The administration is losing two support roles there. So, I I hear what you're saying. Um, and I also um feel like it's appropriate to delay it one year. Um, and it has consequences if we delay
092it. So, my understanding is Amy was saying delay it one year and then cut it next year, not delay the decision to see if we want to keep it beyond next year. Unless I misunderstood what you were proposing. I'm actually open to either one. I mean, we could review it in a year, but my initial proposal was that we delay the implementation of 56 and 57 until fiscal year 27. Right. So, reduce it with a year delay. Anybody else question or comment on these items? Anything else? Sorry, just I would echo what I just said with my initial interpretation. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm going to make a motion that we can vote up or down. Um and that is um on sure I get this right. So, I move that we approve reduction item
09356 and 57 as presented. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ben. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Nay. The reduction passes. Thank you Amy for bringing that up. Okay, those are the only items that were pulled from the secondary package. So, we're moving on to the special services package, our last package. Uh, Dr. Helman, do you have any uh comments or Val any? There were no changes in this package from the last time that the board saw it. All right. Are there any questions from the board members? Any comments or questions on this um special services reduction package? Okay. Are there any items that anybody wishes to pull from the special services package? Ben? Yeah, I think we have to pull 76 and 76A. Yes. Thank you. I would move to
094do that. Yep. Anybody else? Any other items? All right. I move that we approve the special services reduction package without items 76 and 76A. Is there a second? And by Jenny. Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Okay. The reduction package passes without 76 and 76A. We can now have a discussion on those items. Um, is there anybody who wants to make any comments on 76 or 76A? Jenny, thanks Claudia. I just wanted to make a general kind of observation throughout the process because I know we started um we started without the alternative there first um and we saw um the repercussions from the community and the concerns. But I think throughout the whole throughout um trying to learn more about both um reductions, the hardest part for me was that
095the state did not give us uh the duties, I guess, if you will, of um of these of these staff positions. um and you know they don't have to. But for me that was just kind of difficult in trying to to figure out um you know is this going to you know um leave some of our students um without without being able to um without having someone to take care of those specific duties um and without and I always looked to kind of state and law as you probably know um to help and of course they that that gave me no help at all. So, I um that was a struggle for me and I just I just kind of wanted to make that general comment. Thank you, Jenny. Anyone else on either of those
096items? Okay, just want to share my appreciation to this uh administration for listening to our early feedback and coming back with an alternative that not only my eyes is a better choice but also is a bigger cost savings as well. So, thank you. And I am supportive of 76A. Okay. Just just to clarify, 76A would give us one licensed nurse assigned to each building. Correct. That is correct. So, we would go back to the pre2023 staffing levels. And so, we would have one um RN or LPN in each building. I do want to point out that this is another example of us doing the same or more right with less staff. The one required licensed school nurse which this person would also be serving a building does have a variety of additional responsibilities as you've
097heard. And so we I do want to acknowledge that there it's like many of the other um administrative or administrative type positions um we are consolidating administrative duties with other um other duties if you will. So this is what we had done prior to 2023. So going back to that, but I also want to acknowledge and recognize that the person who's in that official licensed school nurse position has some additional responsibilities. They're also paid differently than the regular building nurses, but they will be both supervising a building and uh executing those additional uh requirements from the state. Thank you. Anyone else question or comment? Seeing none, then we will move to a vote on item 76 and 76A. I move that we approve 76A and reject item line item 76. Is there a second? Second.
098All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. We um are done with our reduction packages. Thank you so much for organizing us, Dr. Helman and for all of the work that the district did to um present us these reductions. Are there any comments board members want to make at this point? Just want to open the floor to if you'd like to say something. Ben. Yeah, I would just you thank the administration, fellow board members, but also the community for, you know, just giving us so much thoughtful input and feedback. This is a very difficult process to go through, but I think, you know, really demonstrates how to do it. You know, there's a lot of units of government that could learn from this approach and what we've done and certainly end up
099making some very difficult choices this evening and choices that'll have long-term both short-term and long-term ramifications. But I feel thankful that I'm able to represent a community that can show up and have thoughtful and meaningful input and come to a you know a consensus at the end of the day. So thank you to fellow board members and administration in the community. Thank you. Anyone else want to have a final comment before we move on? Dr. Helmet. So I want to just reiterate what Ben said. If you really look at the numbers, hundreds of people involved in this. I want to first of all thank the board for trusting this process. Right? It is a process where we do this work with the community and not to the community like so many organizations execute this process.
100So over 80 people on the budget teams, 177 people at that public meeting, 87 uh emails to the board from constituents. And the thing that I really want to emphasize is nearly I mean almost all of that engagement was constructive. It was not pitchforks, right? People expressed their understanding of the need for action. How many times did we read people saying, "I know this is what we have to do. I don't I don't have to like it, but I know that's what we have to do." And people advocated fiercely uh for their perspective. And they also did so respectfully. So, I reject this notion that we can't have these hard discussions in our current democracy um in a way that is civil, respectful, and seeks the greater good. This board did not approve all of
101the 86 line items. Right? That's a good thing. That shows that the vast majority of what those committees brought forward were palatable, right? They were palatable to the large amount of the community based on the feedback we got. They were palatable to board members who voted in favor of them. And yet in those areas where you surgically said not ready to do this yet, that's exactly how the process is supposed to work. So we can I've said it many times, two things can be true. We can disdain the actions that we just had to take uh to take that very difficult step to make sure that our budget is in order for future uh teachers and classes and parents. And we can also be be proud of the work that we've done. Mostly I'm proud
102of the number of people who are involved and with the decorum that people maintained in doing it. I think we should all be very proud of that. So thank you to the community. Thank you to our staff and people who step forward to share their perspectives in a way that understood we all have to do this work. What's the best way to do it and we'll we also will not waste what we've learned. There are things here tonight that people discussed and some things that people didn't discuss that we will bring back again next year for discussion, not necessarily for reduction, but to say is that particular program, is that particular schedule, is that particular approach the right thing? We never waste a good crisis. There's that old political saying, right? And so we'll make
103sure that the things that we didn't act on tonight or even some of the things that we did that merit additional discussion, we'll make sure that those things are done so in an honorable way as well. So, thank you to the board for your exemplary leadership. Thank you to our staff uh for being involved. Thank you to our community, for our district youth council students who have been uh instrumental in this process. And we had the kids who showed up to the district youth council um hearings. You know, we now we're well into the hundreds. So, I'm just uh I'm disappointed in the actions that we had to take, but pleased that we did so with um such respect and and recognizing that there are um there's going to be weeks, months, lots of time
104of uh feeling that sadness and that Absolutely. And that's appropriate and we will, you know, even though we're not in the building, in the classroom, um, we feel it, too. Okay. Our next item, item nine is items for information and we have a construction update number nine. So the construction update this month is that uh we have really brought the first phase of the planning to a close. So our core planning team uh met for its eighth and final time on April 16th. Uh they continue to provide feedback on conceptual floor plans. The same for the activity subcommittee. The activity subcommittee uh met for its fourth and final time on April 16th. Now, um, W will shift to that point where they're doing more finite details. The next step will be user groups where they
105start to work with representatives from each department, literally looking at what is the front of the room for teaching, where should uh where should the light switches go, that level of detail, where should the windows go, things like that. And so those will begin, in fact, I think the first round of those begin next week, maybe even this week. This week or next week. Um and then I do want to point out that the next board meeting um Sal Bagley and the team from W will be here to share with you publicly for the first time some of the sketches and drawings that the core planning team had worked together to come up with. So still again at the beginning of this but uh people will start to get to see what the building is
106going to feel like in terms of where things are located in those floor plan kinds of documents. So very exciting coming up on May 12th. That's the construction update for tonight. Thank you board members. Do you have any questions for Dr. Helman at this time? Or comment? No. Right. Then we're on to item B, which is our graduation update. The ALC graduation is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Friday, May 30th in the middle school auditorium. Our Northfield High School graduation is scheduled for 2 p.m. on Sunday, June 1st at Memorial Field. Our future meetings are Monday, May 12th, 6 p.m. It's a regular board meeting in this boardroom. Tuesday, May 27th, 6 PM, a regular board meeting. Monday is Memorial Day. And so we've moved it to Tuesday. And Monday, June 9th, 6 p.m. another
107regular board meeting in this boardroom. That is all the business that we have tonight. Again, we thank you. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion. Thank you, Jeff. Second. Is there a second by Maggie? Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you.