January Monthly Board Meeting

001Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting of the Fairfield Community School Board of Directors to order. The time is 5:31 p.m. Monday, January 19th, 2026. The regular monthly meeting of the board of directors of the Fairfield Community School District is to be held on the third Monday of each month. The meeting is open to the public and the public is encouraged to attend. Time is provided in the meeting for public input. The mission of the Fairfield Community School Board of Directors is we empower all students to achieve their highest potential through strong relationships, collaboration, and accountability. The vision of the Fairfield Community School Board of Directors is a destination district where we all belong, learn, and grow. Roll call, please. >> Christy Kessle, >> here. >> Dave East, >> here. >> Mark Porter, >>

002here. >> Mark Thornton, >> here. >> Megan Dell Robbins, >> here. >> Terry Wells, >> here. >> Cody Freeman >> here. >> And Marley Wall >> here. >> All right. Uh, are there any changes to the agenda as presented? >> I don't either. >> Okay. Uh, is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So, moved. >> Second. Christie and Dave. All in favor? >> I opposed. All right. Motion carries. So, we'll begin uh this evening with a discussion with Mr. Shipley. Um welcome. Yeah. So, yeah. Uh we're, you know, happy to have you here to kind of share, you know, from your perspective and we, you know, have a conversation. We prepared a few priorities that we can discuss with you as well, but if you excellent kick it off, feel free.

003Sure. Well, thank you everyone. Uh, so I'm Jeff Shiffley, state representative, District 87, Fairfield, Van Beern County, uh, Mount Pleasant. Um, so yes, just thanks for the opportunity. I really appreciate it. Hope we can further the public education discussion in our state, in our community, and appreciate each one of you for taking responsibility in the district and for the progress that's been noticeable over the last few years. I think last time I was actually here was probably in 2022, so it's been a while. Um there's a lot of ways I conceptualize my job. One basic thing is just uh you know whatever discussions we're having at the capital uh I bring that back to you and vice versa. Whatever discussions you guys are having the board that is present back at the capital and just

004facilitating the transmission of information that way. Um since I'm really only acquainted with probably about half of you, I'm probably not doing a good job at that uh in that particular metric. So I'm glad to hopefully make some progress in changing that tonight. There's obviously no shortage of things to talk about when we talk about public education. Um I know certainly the financial discussion is very important to a lot of you and the members of the public. The property tax conversation which you guys have been very much involved in uh locally that's happening across the state. Um a lot of rural school districts in particular are having a lot of questions with facilities and upgrades and long-term planning infrastructure, those sorts of things. Um, and so anyway, the property tax conversation is a big one

005at the capital. Um, I do serve on the education policy committee as well. Um, and there's actually a higher education. So, um, there's a lot of policy moving through both those uh, committees that we can talk about if you'd like. One big thing in terms of what the Department of Education, the state's been focused on over the last few years in shaping curriculum has been upgrading the standards around reading and the personalized reading plans and then mathematics and then civics and history overhaul um which is in process. And then there's also just initiating a review of the computer science standards and a lot of the computer tech questions have been um coming up quite a bit more. I think probably a lot of people are familiar with the Jonathan Height work which has been very

006popular. A lot of people have been reading that helped lead to the cell phone restriction uh law that we passed last year. Uh we've gotten a lot of good feedback about that. Uh other questions have come up from parents acutely concerned about tech and frankly the legal question of if a parent comes to the school district and requests a technology-free environment for say an IEP or something of that you know what's the district's legal responsibility in supplying that? So that question's actually been um has actually officially come up as well and that's something that certainly is on the eye of the education committee. Um so that's just kind of a brief overview. Um a couple other things to mention in terms of things that are a part of the conversation. Probably the biggest perennial topic

007that I've seen since I've been up there um is the child behavior or classroom management type issue and basically the whatever tension exists between federal special education law and the practical realities of what's happening in the classroom. And to put it bluntly, there's uh likely a lot more students needing accommodation than maybe there were back in 1970. And so that's also a conversation you've seen locally and nationally come up in terms of, you know, uh, what are the special needs accommodations that students are needing to be successful in the classroom. >> I don't know if you guys send any students to the Blakeberg, Eddieville, Fremont. >> We have in the past. >> Okay. So, I know >> we don't currently have anyone there right now. >> So, for instance, like it's one sounds like a

008great thing and it really is. You know, we need better environments for certain students. Um, but yeah, I know Van Beern County sends three students there and it costs them $50,000 a student. So even when there is a great thing that comes online to really help students, it's it's coming with a price tag that has to be, you know, be accounted for one way or another. So that that's a a very big stress point as you guys all know and I I even, you know, in this room several summers ago, I know the special education thing kind of boiled over. So that's something we've certainly noticed um in terms of what the federal law says on that and kind of how that has been affecting the real life day-to-day of students and the districts. Other

009big thing is the teacher lensure. Um I think we have done a good job trying to increase teacher salary and fill the pipeline of future educators. Um and yeah so that's just something we want to keep working on and making sure that there are qualified people um that they're not hung up in some obstacle course of lure that we can get them fully licensed as soon as possible. Um and even maybe putting a lot more local control in that conversation in terms of who's licensed to teach spills over to the board of education examiner conversation. um which I don't know if we want to go down that rabbit hole right now. So, those are just some of my opening remarks. I guess I'm happy to open it up as wide as possible and what's you

010guys are most important. I know I've had good conversations with a handful of you guys over the last few months. Um but yeah, we want to make sure I'm having a lot more conversations. So, tell me what's on your mind and how I can best be of service to you. >> Sure. Yeah. Um we, you know, our strategic planning committee met last week. We drafted a few points. It's not comprehensive of everybody, so feel free, you know, to jump in. But I'll just start by talking about a few of the funding um priorities that have been in conversations um in some of our committee meetings. Um the first is kind of looking to broaden the management fund uh to cover more workforce stability and risk mitigation. Um so things that we would want to use

011it for more are like teacher recruitment and retention um uses. And then uh maybe even to offset, you know, extraordinary uh health insurance costs, we're we've just switched to >> self-funded >> and so we have like stop-loss um insurance and so >> well that that's not directly insuring um our employees, but it's mitigating the risk that might come from from that. So being able to use that management fund to kind of mitigate risks like that. >> So just so I understand, are you asking for a greater levy under that fund or just being able to more flexibility in how you use your flexibility? >> Flexibility. Okay. I'm sure we could get consensus on that then. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um and you know obviously then that would preserve dollars and other funds for us to

012use. Uh and then uh beyond the manage management fund um you you might speak to this a bit Evan our categorical at risk funding has been uh it was frozen at 4% um and I guess districts uh across the state range from 1 to 5%. It' be great if we all had the ability to go up to that 5%. Am I speaking clearly? Okay. >> Um >> I think that was on the floor last year though too. um that at risk bill I think it died on the floor last year. Um so 2012 there was like a cap I think we were managing levies again that but you used to have the flexibility to tax up to 5% or 1% and the board decided that every year and but in uh 2012 they capped that

013levy with where you're at that year. Okay. >> So Fairfield was at 4% but we can't go up to the 5% anymore even if the board wanted the opportunity. >> Did you there already was legislation drafted to fix this? Is that what you said >> in 2012 was this one took place and last year there was one on the floor to >> uh essentially do away with to open that back up the bill >> and then it >> Yes. >> Okay. Yep. >> Yeah. And I hope you're going to follow up by email on all this. I'd love to get to work back tomorrow. >> And then you know obviously in SSA you know making sure that that is you know obviously that's that gives us the ability to provide high quality instruction and to

014support a high quality workforce. uh you know pay the competitive wages that we need to pay to be that destination district that we want to be. Um and so you know that needs needs to keep pace with inflation and with you know cost of living increases that everyone is experiencing. So >> a question on that. So I um I didn't deliberately omit that but so the governor came out her kind of benchmark proposal was 2% which has been rather typical. Um I assume you guys came up last year and took part in how difficult some of those unpleasant discussions are. Typically what happens is the House kicks up a little higher number and the Senate has a lower number. I'm hoping we can get that resolved up front. Um typically what we've seen is you

015know 2% and then some and then we try to either you know para educator pay or increase um transportation equity or other certain categoricals. Um, so that conversation should be happening soon on the inflation thing because obviously I've heard this every year and I guess what the feedback that would be most helpful for me if there are specific budget line items that you are seeing a specific amount of inflation I know for instance a lot of people with insurance costs you know those have risen quite a bit year-over-year or if there's a particular you know line item um I guess I just want to get a little more granular than just basing off a CPI um figure, but any any more figures? You know what I'm saying? So, um >> yeah, so CPI is a

016common um thing that I know we reference a lot, but the other big piece of um SSA that we take into consideration when we're setting our annual budget is the arbitration law. So, we know if we were to get sent to arbitration when we're negotiating wages, it's 3% or CPI, whatever is lower. So, for clarity or for transparency, we budget 3% every year. So if SSA comes in at 2% and for some reason CPI is 3.1, I know they're going to get 3%. So I'm already behind. So mathematically, >> so it's the CPI in your that's mentioned in your labor contract specifically what you're describing to me, right? >> That's that's law. >> That is a law. >> That's law. That's arbitration law. >> Okay. My apologies then for my uh cleaning up my remarks.

017>> So when you hear us talking, I correct me if I'm wrong. We budget 3% every year. Just assuming we might have to see over. We don't. But >> we settled a 5-year contract last year. So it's not going to impact us in the the near future, but you know, as things continue to kind of change and with uncertainty, it just can be hard at times for some people to see. >> Well, no, obviously fair enough on the CPI point then, but uh still I if there is a particular line item where, hey, our cost is 10% or 20% higher than it was last year, the year before. Definitely feel free to flag that. That's the kind of >> thing I would say that specific kind of line item work would be anything construction related

018in the last couple years definitely has gone far above what the cost of of living and um the increase has been that's definitely a space and we can use ppl and save for some of that so it doesn't impact the bottom line quite as as intentionally with with the SSA um which is what we've done so >> well so I know the complaint the school nutrition budget is definitely valid that the schools the states as me reimbursement is has stayed very flat I think some of those federal dollars have too so I know there are p places in the budget where expenses are exceeding or probably higher than CPI in a lot of instances So, >> property and casualty insurance too. We've seen a lot of 13% raises there, 13% increases. >> And so, yeah,

019the state has tried I wouldn't say the state, an entity within um the state has tried to help districts so you can lower that a little bit and we joined 130 some districts, right? >> Um >> in the insurance pool. >> Yeah. >> Is that 13% over one year? >> Yeah. So, it's 13%. Yeah. So I mean those are numbers that for me do kind of invoke a lot of fear. Um I think the one kind of saving grace in the economy is price of energy is low but as a lot of people have talked about rural Iowa has not seen a lot of growth. Our local manufacturers are flat uh minus Dexter with their expansion. So that's that's a very important conversation we need to be really realistic about in terms of um you

020know what are our short-term prospects and and you know the global macroeconomic indicators we're seeing. So, um, yeah, not to get too off track, but it's that's why I also kind of encourage this is a good time to be very conservative with the budget, which you guys have, you know, done in terms of building up that unspent authorized budget. Um, because I I don't know what the economic future holds, I guess, what I'm trying to say. And, um, it's hard to I don't know. I don't want to be pessimistic necessarily, but I don't want to be you know what I'm trying to say. uh just who knows what the future I guess one thing I've been telling myself is during Trump's first term we had COVID now we're in the second term so whatever's going

021to happen might be two or three times more as crazy as that so just be prepared for the unexpected I guess what I'm trying to say is how I'm approaching the job >> so uh what's the what's the go I know the governor came in with a position on save funds for the future uh what is the what what's the legislative on the use of save funds and those kind of things some taking it back >> I thought say I thought that was already good for like 2045 or something I don't know the status of that >> no so yeah there's a proposal to um move roughly 30% of the current save funding um out of save into the general fund >> that was in the governor's proposal >> yes >> so this is the

022first time I'm hearing of it >> yeah So, and this is something that that I think, you know, for us just in in the real time kind of making a decision on what we're going to do with our next construction project in the middle school. Um, I think, you know, at our next board meeting in February, we'll have a vote that connects directly to bonding capacity towards those save dollars. And I and I and I'm hopeful that we can get that done prior to July 1st if something were to change, right? Because if it does change, then I think that's going to lower the capacity that we have. Does that fit your timeline that you would be able to get something trigger pull the trigger before? >> It does. But at the same time, it's

023like, you know, is that best use of those dollars to move into the general fund when like you said 2045 is when they were allocated to continue to kind of stay there, right? >> Well, that's allocated to school back to the state general fund is what you're referencing. >> Correct. Yeah. >> The intention of them is to to help, you know, >> infrastructure. >> Yeah. and be more equitable across districts that are wealthier or not as wealthy. So that's >> and buy down the levy. >> Yeah. And buy down to save people from >> it was kind of sold as a property tax release measure as recently as 2019. I don't know the exact year that it was scheduled to be good through, but I didn't again my apologies for not being more prepared. I

024didn't realize the governor proposed that. Um not to get into the weeds too much. The challenge that some of the ways and means committee is running into is they want to fix some property tax dilemmas. And if you raise uh the sales tax, you trigger the I will outdoor recreation trust fund, which um a lot of people have been very hesitant to do. So I think therefore they're trying to soak up some other revenue. Um so on these specific notes, I would also just throw out here now, I think this forum is great. Um please also pay attention to those local forums. I think we have two uh ones. It's not until February, but um you know that's really the best time to really interact with your legislature and get some things on on the

025record. I know some people came to the capital last time. Sometimes that can be a productive trip, sometimes not, but those those weekend forums um for some of those types of issues, uh be sure you're making sure your voice is heard there or that the district has somebody there to say these things. So, I would imagine we're going to be collecting feedback. Um, and again, it's been a pretty perennial conversation and in some ways we haven't made a lot of progress in the last three years. Um, it has been very frustrating and so we're feeling a lot of pressure to get something done and what exactly that looks like I think is to be determined by the public input we get. So, >> Yeah. And, you know, obviously you've seen how the geo bonds have

026have worked for us over the last few years. Um, the 60% supermajority is a high threshold. um you know other states around us like Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, they're all you know 50% plus one or 53% they're a lot lower. Um so just this threshold really makes it difficult to address the critical facility needs that we have. Um, and you know what it's doing is it's it even you know we've we have clear community support you know 58% 56% we're we're up there but every year that this doesn't pass it's getting a lot more expensive to address our needs. So instead of saving taxpayer money you know we are in fact creating a much larger you know financial problem for our community. So anyway, just, you know, as a measure of of trying to really

027be fiscally responsible, you know, I would look at not needing such a high threshold. >> There is a lot of considerations of that conversation. I don't know if uh I think the threshold is recently within the last three or four years. Um I mean just the other side of that is you are taxing people's property for a period of 10 or 20 or however many years. Um, that is a pretty blunt use of government force where I don't I you'll probably think this is stupid, too, but like for the people who voted yes and it fails, I don't know if there's a way we could put an envelope in with their ballot that they're more than happy to finance their share for a year or if there's a way, okay, I can give you this

028money up front. Maybe my property is only taxed for a lesser period of time. Um it's just I mean for the political it's just a political philosophy of taxation and just how far you can take things. So um yeah I I don't have an easy answer to that or how that's going to look in the future. Um but you know thankfully at least you do have the save dollars and other uh things in place that you can move forward with some facility. And I think that's the other big thing too for the board members that a lot of these projects, you know, do have a 5, 10, 15 year horizon that uh we have good community members at the helm to guide through long-term capital infrastructure projects, especially in an inflationary environment. I mean, that's

029that's no easy task and you need good steady leadership for years at a time. I know there was a bill that got killed last year that wanted to require school districts to, you know, accumulate more capital upfront before they could ask the taxpayers. Um, and you know, groups like Farm Bureau were in favor of that. And so there are other people kind of pushing the conversation from the other angle. Um, I think one thing is are you guys currently restricted to only bond once a year? >> Yeah, that's the other part I was going to bring up. >> That changed recently, too. So, I think some people are looking to possibly unwind that. Um, but again, I do know there's other legislators who they're talking about moving things on the even years that they don't

030like the low turnout that we have in um, you know, local elections in the odd years and then maybe we got to put everything on one ballot. Maybe that changes outcomes somehow. So, there are there are a lot of voices in that discussion. Um, but yeah, it was very interesting. At least, you know, the ballot measure did drive turnout. It was kind of the top of the ticket item that um a lot of community members had a lot of opinions on. Um but yeah, I I was surpris I thought it was going to pass this time. So I was surprised. >> Yeah. >> Is there very many legislators up there that have pushed to change that super majority? I mean, it's just such a hot topic with so many districts in the >> 60%. >>

031Yeah. I I just can't believe that there hasn't been more representation up there trying to >> I think we saw it about half and half that some districts went down in flames. Um but other districts with like de mo school district had a huge overhaul that passed overwhelmingly and other districts were able to make it pass. We've seen a lot of variance at the local level and even at the municipal level leadership makes a big difference and so school districts that are having a tougher time I think it's because you maybe had less competent people um making worse decisions. So Cedar Rapids school district is going through a heck of a lot of growing pains right now. Um but I have not heard the 60% threshold. Um, I haven't seen a proposal yet, but I

032don't know. That could be I think there's going to be a lot of bargaining with however this property tax thing turns out. Um, so again, the more highly populated areas like in De Mo and whatnot, they have a lot higher tax based access. So, lots of times it's not affecting their property taxes individually as much. Not to mention, you're not diving into rural community that doesn't have a vested interest in the district itself near as aggressively either. So, >> yeah. Um, I've never served on the ways and means. I've never had a kind of direct voice in those discussions. Um, uh, also reach out to Senator Dicki if you guys have a strong opinion on something. Sorry to pass the buck off that way, but uh, just being realistic. >> Uh, just a couple more

033points on my list here. Um, uh, we we've seen some parents wanting more flexibility to, you know, and to some degree opting for dual enrollment in our district, um, to meet the needs of their child. Uh currently the funding um the waiting for a dual- enrolled student is.3. >> Dual enrolled >> meaning they're homeschooled part of the time. >> Oh, the home school. Okay. Yeah. 3. Yeah. >> Yeah. And so but that applies to a child who might be in six of seven periods in a day. So >> Okay. >> Um we're we're really not seeing the full funding that we we should get. you know, that funding along with special ed waiting um could I think certainly, you know, maybe you guys could speak to >> and it's not a huge number of students,

034but there's definitely some districts that have higher amounts of kids that are dual enrolled. So, say we have 33 kids that are dual enrolled and of those 33 20 of them are in our public school, more than half of their day. We're only getting 30% of the funding. >> Do you know how many students you have in that home school program? >> That's what 62ish 64 either full-time home school or dual world. >> I'm I'm certainly open to that. I mean, because the ESA kids are getting 100% of this per pupil. So, if there's a way that Yeah. If the money's there, I think that makes sense. >> Yep. >> The education weight, the special ed, I know that's been talked about for a long time. Um, I think just the hesitation is is when

035you we run some of these numbers, it sometimes they do add up pretty quick. Um, but >> anyway, that's been a pretty consistent request. I guess I'm trying to say that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um and then uh just on you know local control and I I think last year the legislation passed so that schools could apply to have year- round calendars um and allow more flexibility. One other point would be to allow the you know local control over when the start date of the school year is. >> I'm very optimistic we can get that done. The legislature that was holding that up is um stepping away from his position. So again, there's some things there that just kind of defy common sense to me that make a lot of sense. The school start date is

036one of them. I I think I have been wanting to get that done for three or four years now. And yeah, it's Anyway, um >> yeah, >> so yeah, point well taken. >> Okay. Yeah, and that's really the extent of my list, but you know, if anyone this this has brought up anything else that you guys feel like chiming in on, feel free. Um, I would just say one area that we've struggled in locally that I think we've seen across the state is um some of the higher level classes and finding teachers for those, you know, specifically around the higher level science classes and math classes. Um, you know, I don't know what the what the state could do to maybe incentivize um, you know, some students to go into those subjects and study those

037subjects so that we have more people graduating in those areas or maybe provide some sort of incentive for um, you know, school districts looking to hire those positions. Um, but that's definitely an area that we've seen um, difficulty in. teacher workforce has been a priority for a long time. Um, and yeah, nothing immediate kind of comes to mind. I know one thing we did a couple years ago is we help for retired teachers to help keep their hypers intact to get back in the classroom because there were some financial things keeping people away. U so if there's anything specific you think we can do, I'm happy to help. Otherwise like I have talked to people that I feel would make great educators um just they don't want to spend 18 months trying to get a

038lensure and a certificate but if they are qualified um making sure there's no obstacle there. So and that's been very frustrating too because we actually did pass a law um designed to really accelerate teacher lure and then um somehow when the department of education brought it online we ended up not being anything. So, this is another frustrating part of the job is you think you're doing things to improve the situation and you find out that oh, for whatever reason it fell through the cracks of the bureaucracy and um it didn't work out as intended. Um so, but yeah, anything else if there's any other ideas or suggestions on how to uh cater those people? Again, as you mentioned, a destination district and having a really high quality of life here and a cool town to

039attract cool people and um engage the entire community. I think just in general there's been a lot of conversation about um the generation gap between teachers who've been around for 20 or 30 years versus the newer generation and their ability to engage with students and that there is um you know an art form to it that's not necessarily built overnight. So um yeah I don't know we hear all sorts of complaints so I don't know. Sorry to ramble off on that. >> Yeah. Anyone else? Yeah, really appreciate your time. >> Yeah, it's good to start this conversation. >> Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity. Good practice. Again, um I should have brought a card or an email, but hopefully I'm easy enough to get a hold of. If anything else comes up, please let us know.

040Um our first funnel deadline is already in a few weeks. Uh we should have those SSA numbers soon. Um anyway, yeah, feel free to stay in touch and again, just uh great to be with you. So, >> thank you. >> I'll let you guys have a good meeting. >> Thank you. See you. All right. Um, let's move into our committee reports. Um, each committee chair will share two to three minute update connected to their work. We'll start tonight with policy. Mr. Thornton. >> Yes, we met um we moved it out because the first Monday we were still vacationing I guess. I don't know which way you want to call it. a minute on the 9th uh the Friday went through another um set of policies that you'll see today for first reading. Um they're all

041in the 711 series I think. Um just ones that were up for review again. So nothing dramatic, just some tweaks to pulling new IASB uh wording and then we'll have the rest of the ones for second reading as well. So, >> transportation stuff for the most part. >> Yeah. >> Great. Thank you. >> Uh, strategic planning. Christy, you were absent, so I'll go ahead and speak on your behalf. Um, we met on January 12th at 4 p.m. We reviewed the priorities for our upcoming work session um in February, you know, to kind of discussing what we wanted to make sure we had in hand from FE and Cano so that we could have a productive discussion um and, you know, related to what a $43 million middle school project would look like, you know, option

042A, option B, those sorts of things. So, just kind of made sure we were um all on the same page for what we'd need at that. Um we also uh discussed the next edition of the Trojan Times um identified content and key messages and we wanted to have in that communication um that is going on how many times a year? Three, three times a year. And uh and then we also discussed um notes, talking points for our meeting tonight with Representative Shipley and then next steps uh for marketing and communications director um if we choose to you know move away from Donovan Group. Um >> yeah, I met with Jerry and Evan um >> I think it was after the strategic planning meeting was we highlighted kind of what we were thinking and they're great

043to kind of go month by month before we kind of finalize our decision as to how we're going to move forward. Right. Yeah. And that's it from strategic planning. >> Uh finance. >> Okay. Finance committee uh met on Wednesday, January 7th, 8 a.m. Uh we started in reviewing the FY27 budget assumptions. The tax levy rate facilities plan start in on that work. Um it was noted the expected UAB was above the financial targets and the solveny ratio indicates the possibility of excess cash. So uh capital allocation decision needs to be made to investing into the district to achieve uh a return on performance for taxpayers. uh investment uh the investment into special education, teacher compensation, coaching and sponsor compensation, admin support for Washington school custodial food service worker compensation, substitute and driver contracts were all

044uh reviewed for their financial impact and I think we have those on the agenda. >> We do >> this uh coming up. So we would recommend approving those um based upon the financial position the expected financial in uh position of the of the district. >> Anything else Megan Terry? >> That's okay. >> Operations reporter. >> Yep. Uh we met on Tuesday, January 13th, uh and met about 4:00 in the afternoon. It was a pretty simple meeting. Um we primarily just talked about the middle school next steps and then we looked at the upcoming projects throughout the upcoming year. Um the middle school just is kind of the same thing that we've been talking about. Um talked about the current property tax levy and what the property tax levy would be if we were to pass

045a bond. Um we also talked about the upcoming uh contract with Carly A Nelson and all that entails basically between the FE structural assessment cost, the Canco cost and full envelope cost. I think we're looking at that costing around $14,000. And I think we will be voting on that coming up on the upcoming February 19th meeting. I know everyone's a little bit hesitant about spending that money, but you know, in my mind, you know, we have to figure out uh where we're going to move forward from here. And I think that's money well spent to come up with a deciding factor on uh what we want our next steps to be as far as the bond goes. Um we discussed the three options that we talked about in our last work session. Of course, it

046was uh fixing or repair fixing and repairing the existing building, the phase approach to building a new building or tearing down uh uh the existing building and building a new building. Of course, that is the option we've been trying to do for several years now and has filled a vote three times now. So, have talked about that upcoming as well. And then, um talked about all the upcoming projects uh throughout the upcoming year. I don't think anything is coming to a vote tonight, but they do have a pretty uh extensive upcoming list. Uh um that kind of entails uh replacing basketball hoops at Washington, which would be approximately $8,000. Uh new gutters at the administrative building, which would be approximately $4,500. Uh um replacing it outlets, which should be $7,300. Uh the new softball fence,

047which is a high ticket item, which will cost about $71,000. But of course, I think we did that last year at the high school baseball fields. So, that's something a lot of the softball families have been requesting as well. Um, our new school sign at Washington, which cost approximately $15,000. Um, uh, water fountains and bottle fill stations. I think they estimated that around $2,800. And then seamless gutters of Washington, which I don't have a note on the price for that, but none of that's coming to a vote tonight, but those are just kind of the upcoming uh project list that they're looking at throughout this year. So, just kind of be mindful of that as we're making all these decisions moving forward and how to address the middle school options as well because just keep

048in mind, you know, what we decide to do with the middle school, that's going to have a huge effect on the money in the budget that we have to attend to all these other issues throughout the rest of the district. So, we we're going to have a lot of big decisions to be making in the next several months. So, that's about it. >> Yeah. And and we are tonight looking at that CanCo proposal. >> Oh, it is tonight. I thought it was February 15. >> New business. Yeah. tonight. >> Um, >> sorry, >> HR negotiations. Mr. Freeman, >> we met on Thursday, January 8th at 4 p.m. Um, we'll have admin representing uh Fairfield School District at the University of Northern Iowa and Iowa State University's career affairs. Um, we kind of echoed Dave's report

049here, but we uh we discussed the special education stipen, the substitute teacher and driver contracts, custodian and food service wages and benefits, which are all on the agenda for tonight. >> Great. Thanks. And welcome Marley. Do you have a report you'd like to share? >> Yeah, I have a few things. Um overall um the like this month like the school had got new cafeteria seating which gives like the students more places to sit which was really nice. Um students seem to really enjoy that. Seem to be like um socializing more from what it seems like. Um, and then Key Club, our community service group at the school, is planning on making Valentine's for the staff and teachers to show their appreciation to them. uh which is a really I feel like it's a nice thing

050to do and just um because we want to appreciate our staff as best as we can to and then obvious and then we have a basketball game tonight and we've had several games throughout the month and I just wanted to compliment their player the players on their hard work and determination and also we have speech competitions coming up this weekend so good luck two of those in there. >> Great. Thank you. That's it. Right. We hit everything. Um all right. Uh do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? >> Is there anything we need to be mindful of on that? No, I just make sure you look at those quarterly financial reports. We're sitting in a really good

051spot. So, um again, just thankful for the continued uh work by all of our our people um to be mindful of how we're spending money >> and the fifth grade lunch prices decreasing from $3.30 to $3.15. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. All right. Moving into public participation. >> I have none. >> We have no public participation this evening. So, we'll move along into new business. Um, do I hear a motion to approve the middle school building envelope and site assessment proposal as presented? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Mark Porter, seconded by Mark Thornton. And I'm sure we'll have a little discussion here. Um, so yeah, Mark Porter obviously spoke to this and I think we've all reviewed this in our work session. >> So my

052my question is um what what's the timeline? Will it will it because we're we're going to be making have to be making some decisions early. Is this going to be in April by the time they get it? It doesn't seem to me that their timeline's meeting up with the decision timeline that we're going to have to have or are we going to be delaying it until after we get is the intent to delay it until we get this information? >> The only part that's really going to be, I would say, fully delayed is the envelope assessment. So, um FE was actually on site today at the middle school for probably five, six hours. Um we're going to have some good information to bring to the table on February 9th for that work session, but we

053won't have that building envelope assessment that they are Cano is um hiring that that we try to get it over Christmas during that the warm period, but they really need 10 days at 40 degrees or higher. So it's going it's going to be whenever we get that that's so I would say April at the earliest probably. Yeah, that one component. An important note on that one is we had a question around do we need a full-blown one or do we have to do the envelope assessment? Can we just do an specific criteria and we talked about that in our Friday meeting with FE. I think Megan was there and part of that envelope assessment was a thermal imaging of the whole building to find leaks. Not necessarily just water leaks but like where like air

054is coming in and drafting. >> Um so that's kind of the response to that. Do we have to do a full-blown one? I'm sure we can tweak it, but the full-blown window assessment and airflow was kind of the response on that. >> So, are we going to have enough information to make a a decision between our courses of action before April? >> I think we'll have information that we haven't had yet. Come February 9th connected to cost. Um, but as far as the full-blown assessment, I no, we're not going to have that February 9th, but we're going to have more information that we've had so far. We meet with them again um in a week and a half to kind of see where they're at with that with both KCO and FH. >> I mean,

055with you guys' opinion, I mean, when when do we need to be making this final decision by I guess, Dave? I mean, what's kind of our date there? I guess >> I think that the sooner the better. I agree with that. But >> I would say after this work session and we get, you know, these two options and here's the costs associated with those in a again a fairly >> broad spectrum. Um, but I think if we have consensus that way, we'll be able to give them some direction to to keep keep diving in. We won't have that final envelope assessment yet, but >> that I think that's okay in my mind. But what what what we need to do is approve if that's the way the board wants to go to bond against those

056save dollars that that we can have access to before July 1st. So I would say if we can do that by March, >> that would be ideal to have a decision on which we were going to go. I met with the middle school staff today um that also wanted to come just kind of give them some insight as to where we I think we had maybe 12 or 13 teachers that showed up over kind of a working lunch and got some feedback from them as well that I'm going to share with the board at the table on um February 9th at the work session, too. So, >> well, as I say, at this point, we know at bare minimum, we're going to have to make part of that building work for a pretty extended period

057of time here, right? So, we need to have this information to know how to move forward because right now, we don't know where to start, where to stop as far as repairing, replacing, etc. in that building unless you want to go back down the exact same path that we've gone the last 5 years, and that's go towards, you know, tearing it down, rebuilding, which >> Well, I think that's a that's a that's one of our courses of action. Well, it is, but but that that's >> that's a viable course of action. >> It's a viable course of action, but again, we as a board have to assessment. >> Yeah. >> Let's go back on the motion on the table. >> Well, I know that, but what I'm saying is is that my my only I'm

058not against doing this. It's just that my fear is is that we won't we won't have enough information to at least eliminate one course of action on February 9th. >> Um I I think I think it'll be really close. Yes. from a Yep. >> So we could at least eliminate >> we're what FE is working on currently is essentially it's about a 40,000 square foot program of space that would be new kind of a phase one with that option A or option one. The other option is going to be the $43 million new project. Is is that the route we're going to go? We're going to have a lot more information in detail around this so you can make a decision or not if you think that's the right course of action. If it isn't,

059then this is the way we're going to go. But again, that's at the work session. So it'll be, you know, coming to consensus so that we can make a decision after. >> Okay. >> Well, and I think the assessment too is important either direction we go, right? Because we either need to tell the voters why it's such a bad idea to put any more money at all into this building it's going to cost rather than going the other direction or if we're saving some of the building, we need to know what targets to hit. Yeah, it's possible there's some very simple solutions that could help mitigate some of the water in the next three years. Even if we opt for option B, I don't know. We just don't know what we don't know. I guess

060in terms of that building, >> I think most people in that building probably believe your major problem areas is pretty targeted in certain areas of that building, you know, and I think I think, you know, they can help us dive into that. to make decisions moving forward on what we can try to keep of the building or not keep part of the building and move forward, you know, cuz again, total tear down and rebuild is something that, you know, we're going to have to reevaluate if that's the right move at this point or not. So, >> did they tell us when they're going to start the initial assessment or they not going to start any of it until they can do? >> Yeah, they were on he was on site all all day today from

061FH. He came and got all the original plans that they they saw and had access to. So with us even not approving this or going forth with it. >> Um they're just doing that. So because I said I want you to have this and they're not charging us. Gotcha. >> Um any other clarifying questions? I guess we can just take a vote. All in favor? >> Opposed? >> Okay. Motion carries. All right. Um, sorry, one moment here. Click into my All right. 7.2. Um, do I hear a motion to uh set a work session for February 9th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Cody, seconded by Christie. All in uh favor >> opposed. Motion carries. Do I hear a motion to move the June 15, 2026 board meeting to

062June 22nd, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Porter, seconded by Wells. Uh any discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Do I hear a motion to set a public hearing on February 16, 2026 for the proposed fiscal year 27, fiscal year 28 school calendar at uh 6:30 p.m. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Eastburn, seconded by Thornton. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. All right, moving into our policies. Uh, do I hear a motion to approve board policies at the first reading? >> Second. >> Moved by Terry, seconded by Mark Porter. Uh, any discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Do I hear a motion to approve board policies at the second reading? >> So moved. >>

063Second. Moved by Dave and seconded by Cody. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Do I hear a motion to approve the board policies for removal? Um, >> do I need to read these or no? >> No. Okay. >> Um, do I hear a motion to approve board policies for removal? >> So moved. >> Second. Moved by Mark Porter, seconded by Terry Wells. Any discussion? Is it no longer required by IASB? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. All right. Uh 7.6. Do I hear a motion to approve the custodial and kitchen staff proposals as presented? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Christie. Seconded by Mark. Any discussion? clarifying questions. I think we've all looked at this a fair amount in committees. All in favor? >> I

064>> opposed. Motion carries. 7.7. Do I hear a motion to approve the substitute teacher pay rates as presented for the 2026 2027 school year? >> So moved. >> Second. Moved >> by Christie, seconded by Cody. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries. Oh, any opposed? >> Sorry. Motion carries. Do I hear a motion to approve a 3% increase on all drivers contracts? >> So moved. >> Second. Moved >> by Porter, seconded by Eastburn. Any discussion? All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. 7.9. Uh, do I hear a motion to approve the issuance of a professional services contract for all special education certified staff? >> So, second. >> Moved by Christie, seconded by Mark Porter. Any discussion? >> The only caveat to that motion I would just it's not for

065all that are certified in that. It's for all that are certified and serving in that capacity every year. And so this will be something that we'll bring to the board table each year. Okay. >> Um because that could change because we'll have some teachers that are certified in special education but they're teaching second grade or something different. These are this will be specifically >> in that capacity. >> Certified and in that capacity that next year. >> So I think you presented this to the staff from our committee meetings. Did all that go okay? Yeah, from a feedback standpoint, it's all been positive. I'm sure, you know, it's it's hard for some that that maybe don't see that the same um thing that a lot of us do in regards to the differences in in some

066of those um those those duties, but we're very specific around, you know, what that extra service contract is going to cover um in regards to um special education teachers. So, uh, overall, I mean, it's been very, very well received. So, >> so we approve it this time every year or >> Yeah, it'll be around January, February, probably, just depending on kind of where we're at with staffing and master contract work. >> Okay. Any other questions? All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. All right. That completes new business. moving into superintendent updates. >> Yeah, since we didn't really have the focus on learning because we had Shipley here, um I wanted to give a little bit more insight around the the newer um release of the Iowa school performance profile, but it really is just

067connected to the district as a whole. And so this went public on December 16th, which was right after our board meet on the 15th. So I couldn't at the board meeting share this publicly just because we weren't supposed to yet. Um, but I thought it was important enough to to bring it to whomever watches this at any point and for you guys just to kind of walk through it collectively. So, we can kind of go to the next slide. John, >> give me one second. >> Yeah. So, what I'm going to start with um is really something that was shared from the Department of Ed with all superintendent connected to Iowa delivering on their five uh priorities. And so I'm not going to read every single one of these, but you can see that it's

068up 10 percentage points overall compared to the number of schools that saw um growth in those rating categories, which is a positive thing. Of the 1,200ish schools, um 528 of them moved up at least one category or more. Um only 17% of them move down. So I I think that's a positive. Next slide. Yeah, 11% increase in proficiency from 23 24 to 2425. We'll see where that that lands come, you know, end of April, early May. This year again, um they've the department of ed has placed a lot of um priority on creating these individualized plans both in ELA as it was and now math which um starts right now. So, it it's going to be um a lot of extra things for for our teachers um from a duties kind of accountability standpoint, but

069it's part of our our our mission. Um accountability is an important piece. So, it aligns well with that. Next slide. Yeah. So, again, since the pandemic, you can kind of see where we're at from a chronic absenteeism standpoint. seen significant decline in that number um over the last four years uh as a state. Um we've seen the same here. I will highlight one area where I think we need to continue to get better at um once we get into our data. Next slide. Now, I think this might might be a little bit deceiving potentially just based on kind of some coding um some coding inconsistencies, but if you see I mean a 76% rate increase over two years is really really high. And I don't I don't truly believe that we've seen that big of

070an increase in the number of students involved in some type of work-based learning CTE um kind of world. I I do think there was a component of consistency around how we were coding certain courses and classes. kids were in them. They may they just may not have been pulled that way based on SK codes or how they were were coded. So, it's still a positive um that that this is something the state's prioritizing and we are as well. So, I'm excited. I'm excited about that, too. Next one. And this comes back again directly to the school performance profile. Um the number of of of schools that need kind of that intentional support. Um you can kind of look at that the data there, 136 schools were able to exit that targeted status. Our high school

071is one of those um which was good. But now we have that subgroup um of students with IEPs that um are connected to our middle level right now. So next slide. Yeah. So, like I said, um this is a live link that takes us right to there. Um but if you look at that number, 67.63, well above the state average, really the highest in our region when you're looking at uh compar comparable schools and size, demographics, and others that are just really close to us. Um but if you look at the next slide that number um you know puts us towards the top end of the commendable but because of that targeted subgroup it brought us down in rating. So that's why it says acceptable on the slide before John if you want to go

072back to the one before. So really that 67.63 63 is at the very high end of commendable. But the reason that it's saying acceptable is because of that students with disabilities or IPS. >> That's where it's saying the rating category is dropped. >> They just dropped the rating category. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Why did they do that? What? Explain to explain to me why if you're in commendable >> Yep. >> I'll show you. >> Okay. Y I I I read this and I've read it several times and I don't understand it. >> Yeah. The rationale behind it um is really to make sure that publicly um people see that there's a specific subgroup of students that need significant support to allow and you keep going to the next slide. I'll get to in

073a second. Next one. So these are how all these kind of points are are are tallied. So there's 900 total points possible which is the middle column. Each of these are a set of points that you can get a certain amount of. And you can see here our attendance growth and what this would be is um number of students that were considered chronically absent last year who saw that the growth that was needed. This is this is low. So right now we've got two of our buildings actually have this as part of their plan on a page to to to make this better. That that 18.5 the that raw score is is too low. Um and that's one of our lower ones. the other the other ones on here that you can see um that

074were low comparatively. >> Yeah. Growth in mathematics. And so that's what gives you this 608.69 total points then equates to the percentage of possible points which is your score. Go to the next slide. or our score. So what this provided um us and again if you want to go into this deeper you can click on this it's a live link I shared this pre presentation with you the data gaps piece you can see that of all of our kids there's the number but the students with disabilities this 35.32 you can see how this compares on the next slide. So this chart shows two different displays about the achievement for students in Fairfield. Chart on the left shows how how much student groups are above or below the overall statewide average. So you can see that

075our students with disabilities are minus 27.96 points below where they where the state average is. See that? Um now the majority of districts with demographics like ours are below that, but ours is ours is high. Um so on the right side then you can just read that how much student groups are performing above or below the cut score that designates whether a school is identified for targeted support. And so that number because it's again so negative is why Dave we had to go down a rating. Now why arbitrarily if it if it was any of these it could it could have been that that reason. Um there also has to be a certain number of students in that subgroup. So for example, if you look at our English learners, this is this is really really

076positive. Um a lot of districts that have high populations of second English learners, it's either below or I mean not yet below for sure, but you can see over here we've we've done a really good job with that specific population, but there's some districts that have a the designation lower for that. There's some that have it for this. The majority I would say are for students with IEPs, like 130 districts. >> How do they measure the IEPs? Is it based on the students IEP? >> No, it's based on their their um performance on standardized assessments with the accommodations in place from a growth standpoint. That's how they get it. >> And and each student with a certain IEP should be expected to grow a certain amount. It's it's one and a half >> standardized amount.

077>> It's a one and a half. Yeah, it's 1.5 years growth in one year is what students in IP should grow. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it seems like potentially hard metric to >> it is >> because it's not like you can compare. It's not an equivalent sort of group of people. There's uh definitely there's definitely a push I would say at >> at the superintendent level to get rid of that dropping um and show what it truly is as opposed to making it go down a rating. And the the majority of I would say superintendents that are pushing for that is we see that there's a need that it doesn't mean that we're not going to address that need if if you don't drop us or knock us that level. That's that which I I

078understand that. I think for us, I mean, this is something we've been able to utilize to kind of prioritize some of these next steps and things we've done to get better in this area, too, because it has been a >> a a significant um >> it's area of concern. it. I I understand I suppose to keep visibility on these students and and and uh I understand that, but it's pretty pretty difficult when you're sitting overall at 67.63 and you're acceptable while Mount Pleasant's at 67.42 and they're commendable. >> Correct. Where we're our overall score is actually higher. >> Exactly. We're both in the commendable category, but what the public sees when they when they look at that is acceptable because of that subgroup of >> which is okay. >> How many of our kids are

079considered under that? You guys remember? >> 200 of our,400 students. So, it's a it's a high it's a high population. That's crazy. >> Roughly 14% as of >> that won't that was as of the last kind of data collected. So it's higher than that probably >> like Mount Pleasant is at 13 or something. I mean it's >> but when you look at so if you look at like just compare comparable so Mount Pleasant if you look at where their special ed specific number is they were at 45.75. So it's it's 10 points higher than ours. >> Okay. >> So they're doing a better job. So that's >> in that specific area, >> we need to do a better job with our student with disabilities. >> Correct. >> And hopefully the allocation of those dollars we

080did today will help us >> potentially. Yes. Um now what I've shared with every group that we've talked about that there's there's no real data that that we found that backs paying more paying teachers more money um is going to increase student output. We there's no data that backs that. So, and we talked about that with all the special ed teachers, too, at at our meeting with them. So, we'll go to the next slide. Yeah. So, these are some things that that had already happened over the last couple years and then things that we're continuing to create um in regards to next steps to to addressing this. Um, one of our principles is now our our special education um overseer. Um, she's done a great job just con continuing to to meet with them, communicate

081with them. We've created PK4 512 specialed CLTs. They get time to meet together collectively. Um monthly the SPE director is meeting with them. Um at our weekly administrative team meetings, this is the third thing down on our agenda every single every single time we meet on Thursdays specifically. You know, what are we doing? What aren't we doing? Are there things that we need to change or be be u aware of heads up wise? Um yeah, fidelity checks with achieve that really wasn't something that was happening consistently. So are our are our IEP PS in achieve being progress monitored properly? Are we doing things the way that we should be? Um that wasn't I wouldn't say yeah it wasn't happening with fidelity. Um adding special education staff, you know, increasing the wage for our paras as

082well. Those are all connected directly to students with IEPs. And then this creative compensation for um the 22 special ed teachers we have currently. So those are all some next steps um connected to that specific 201ish students that we have. Yeah. What what questions you have? Um what clarity do you need? I yeah one of the the big celebrations again I just want to hit reiterate it u John if you go up like two slides yeah so the English learners the e um when you look at the again I've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 districts that I looked at a fair amount of those don't have enough students in that subgroup to even have a rating, but of the one two three four five that do,

083I mean, we're almost 20 points higher than all of them. And that could be, you know, the demographic of our eels may be different than other places, too. So, that's kind of hard to to compare, but um yeah, that's that's a that's a highlight for sure. Um the other thing I wanted to hit on just update wise, this is something um that Indian Hills provides us um just a showcase of last year's current enrollment. um the profile of how many kids, you know, took a class. We had almost 200 students. Um what did that actually save our kids and our families? $340,000. Um which is which is pretty pretty amazing, pretty awesome that we were able to do that. Um it's only going to continue to to grow, too. So, this is just a a

084a document that they provide and I wanted to share it with all of you so you so you've got it. Um yeah. Um, I think that's probably good update wise. >> Um, we'll move into highlights. Why don't we start? Terry, do you want to start tonight? >> Sure. Um, just thought it was good to see the financial reports looking positive and also looking at the the rating system. I know it's not Uh, perfect. But definitely looks really good. >> Great. Thanks, Dave. Um, yeah, to piggyback on that, um, I'm very happy with the, uh, financial position of the school district and going into FY2027 and the ability to reallocate some of the those dollars back into our and reinvest them back into our classrooms and and our teachers. And even though there's not a correlation,

085um it's kind of the measure that we have to to give our uh our our taxpayers a return on their investment with us is the performance that they see. So I was happy that we could do that. >> Marley, we just kind of share a highlight from the meeting or from the week. Um yeah, I one of my highlights was that uh there was a 10% overall school improvement rate and then just like looking at this that there there are pretty high success rates for people taking the classes um in high school college classes. >> Great. Cody, >> uh very thankful for the private donations that were in the consent agenda there to local churches and an individual family. I think that's that's just uh so amazing of them to think of the district and

086think of the kids um that might be less fortunate to have have food or milk um every day. Um so I'm twofold though. So that's number one and number two would be uh the compensation increases. I think we're uh again very fortunate to be in a a situation where we have the funds available to compensate our staff um and uh for the job that they're doing. Great, Mark. >> I'd certainly like to echo everything that uh everyone just said, especially the stuff the compensation that Cody just said, but um I'm really like to see uh what Anita Hills has done with concur concurrent enrollment with the high school and the fact that there was $340,000 saved in tuition for by our students. That's um fantastic. I've also noticed that there's a lot of kids that

087are starting to get out of uh these four-year schools and, you know, three, three and a half years because of all these early credits that they're getting built up in high school, which is phenomenal. You know, it's really given all these kids a big jump start on life. And uh I'm really thankful for what Indian Hill has done for our community and what it's doing with Fairville High School. I think it's a great community college. I think we should all be very appreciative of what they're doing for the community here. So, it's fantastic. So, >> great. >> Agreed with everything Mark just said. It's a great partnership for us. Um, also echoing everything um, surrounding the financials, it feels great to feel like we're able to, you know, be adding positions and and giving our

088staff, you know, um, increased pay versus, you know, cutting positions and, um, you know, just how far we've come in such a short time and all the hard work that all of you guys have put in to to get this um, turned around in such a short time period, I think is is really cool. So, I think that we all just need to definitely celebrate that. >> Thanks. >> How do you say ditto without saying ditto? Um, a lot of the same things. So, it's always good to give back where we're seeing increase from the good decisions being made um as well. and um I think just the last couple meetings we've had, there's just been good discussion. Um constructive dis uh discussions happening. So looking forward to the next board meeting or the next

089working session February too to just continue those and thankful to have the wide variety of ideas that that that we have. So bring them all to the table, make a good decision and move forward. >> I just want to add one more thing that I just remembered. Um, so specifically around special ed, I just feel like that was such a huge thing that I kept hearing from our employees. >> You know, when I first got on the board was that, you know, we were really lacking in that area and in the support of our employees and how overwhelmed they all felt. And so, you know, just your work around that and being able to provide some of that support and reward them for their work really I feel like is making an impact. So yeah,

090even though there's no correlation, maybe if there is retention of teachers and you know, culture changes and and the outcomes do change. Um, and then yeah, I just I'm really happy Marley's here. Excited. You know, when I was in high school, I feel like I had a lot of ideas I wanted to share and report on about the high school and everything else. So, uh, you know, just really excited to hear from you and and the students. So, please feel free to speak speak out to us, share with us and and kind of be that that connection back to students. >> Just one more thing. I I um appreciate getting to getting coordinating with Jeff. >> Yes, >> Mr. Shipley. For him to be here and to to make contact. I know that >> he

091was wanted to do that. And so, >> yeah, we >> I really appreciate you guys making that. I think it's a good practice once a year have our reps in front of us. >> Absolutely. >> Just some dialogue around where they're at and what our priorities. >> We should try to get Mr. Dicki see if we can work on >> Yeah. So, thanks for, you know, initiating the contact with Jeff in December and I think this was this is a good a good practice like you said for moving forward. good for us to kind of contemplate, you know, the connection with De Moines and and kind of what we need to be doing too in terms of advocacy and >> even just to hear what's even on their radar or not on their radar is,

092you know, kind of a good >> Yeah, definitely >> test. So, >> all right. Um, believe that's all. So, do you have do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So, moved. >> Second. Moved by Christie, seconded by Terry. All in favor? >> I adjourned.