GFPS Regular School Board Meeting (March 23rd, 2026)

001Mhm. >> It is 6:00 p.m. I'll call to order the meeting of the Grand Forks School Board this Monday, March 23rd at 6:00 p.m. First item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. Item two this evening is the approval of our agenda. I would seek a motion for approval. There's a motion for approval from Bill. Is there a second? Second from Amber. >> [clears throat] >> We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. Klevin Yes. Larson Yes. Lunn Yes. Flynn Yes. Hodak Yes. Manley Yes. Palmesano Burger Yes. Anderson Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. Item number three on our agenda is our public comment period. Um we are about to enter our public comment period. The purpose of the open meetings law in North Dakota Century Code is to provide

002members of the public with access to meetings of governing body of a public entity, allowing them to observe and monitor. By state law, every regular meeting of the board must include an opportunity for an individual to provide public comment. The law requires [clears throat] that an individual providing comment at a meeting provide to the governing body in writing their name and address. Public comments must be pertinent to the district and may not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting, may not be defamatory, abusive, harassing, or unlawful, may not include confidential or exempt information, >> [clears throat] >> and may not be directed at personnel. At this time, I have three public comment cards filled out. Each individual is allotted up to three minutes to speak. No individual may speak on the same topic more

003than once. School board members shall not engage in a response or enter into debate about any issue brought to the board during this portion of the meeting. Public comments and concerns will be directed to the superintendent of schools who will address them in accordance with policies adopted by the board. Finally, please know that member know that members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit written comments via email in lieu of speaking during the public comment period also. The first public comment card I have is Andrew Kraulik. Please come to the mic, state your name. Appreciate it. All right. My name is Andrew Kraulik, Grand Forks resident and business owner. I'm here tonight regarding two topics. First item 4C, the proposed revised process for TIF and pilot tax incentives. The agenda packet shows Mayor

004Bochenski's original proposal from January 9th. What's missing on the packet is what the County Commission and the City Council amended and voted on and passed unanimously on January 20th. Mayor Bochenski's proposal would have limited citizen engagement with shorter speaking times and an overall cap. Some citizens would possibly not be allowed to speak. And it would have an would have forced you and the county to vote at a second joint meeting which could put pressure on the voting process. The county proposed and then City Council also approved a better approach. One joint informational meeting with the full City Council, full County Commission, and full School Board. The developer and city would present. Citizens would be allowed up to five minutes each to speak with no overall time limit. >> [snorts] >> Everyone who wants to speak

005could do so. Then the item returns to your regular board agenda for independent discussion and vote in your own chamber. And the same for the county. And then finally back to the city for the already required public hearing. I respectfully ask that the School Board align with what the County Commission and City Council already approved on January 20th. A modification to what Mayor Bochenski proposed initially on January 9th. This preserves your independence and gives your gives citizens proper engagement. Second, I continue to urge you to advocate for the school district and our students against the city's continued abuse of the five-year pilots for apartment complexes and retail. These do not legally require your consent, but you still have a strong voice, a much stronger voice for the students than we do here in the bleachers.

006Two more five-year pilots are being discussed tonight actually at the Committee of the Whole. The Domain and CK Commercial, representing about 2.5 million dollars in exemptions. Dakota Commercial had signaled to the city these projects weren't going to be able to take place without larger incentives. But miraculously, now they're saying they can. I'm hoping City Council will finally call the bluff of our local developers and say no more to these apartment complex and retail pilots. I emailed you all today an image showing The Domain's planned amenities. Their plans show two golf simulators, an indoor pickleball court, indoor basketball court, four bowling lanes, and a fitness center. Then outside a pickleball court, putting green, and ample space for gathering and socializing. Yet the developer wants nearly two million dollars in property tax exemptions. If they cut all

007those amenities and the associated space and maintenance expenses, they'd shave off more than two million right there. Can you help me, all taxpayers, and the students in our school district by speaking against this abuse of these five-year pilots? Our school district is facing a 4.4 million dollar deficit and cutting programs. I ask that you become vocal on the issue. Send notes, make calls, speak at city meetings. Please push back against these tax incentives on behalf of our students, taxpayers, and business owners. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Second public comment I have is Vivian Mayo. Hello, my name is Vivian Mayo and I think these cuts to elementary music are not fair. I heard what is happening and as a first grader, I have been looking forward to all of the fun I was

008going to have in second grade music. I saw the performance this year and it was amazing. I couldn't wait till it was my turn. All [snorts] of the elementary music teachers work very hard to make sure music is a great place to learn for me and students like me. They deserve to be paid for all the work they do. The music opportunities are important to this. I hope these cuts are gone soon. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Last comment card I have is Dr. Whitney Mayo. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Dr. Whitney Mayo. I am a parent in this district. You just heard from my daughter. I'm also an assistant professor of music education at the University of North Dakota. I am not speaking on behalf of the university tonight.

009However, I'm here as a music educator, a researcher, and a parent who is watching her 6-year-old daughter advocate for an opportunity that she hasn't had yet. To be clear tonight, I'm talking to you about the CODA cuts for your elementary music teachers. Um her statements and the statements of students like her are the what I want the board to hold on to. You've heard from students in the past months who have said that the music programs at the lower levels matter. Um that they got to do it. My daughter here is fighting for a chance that hasn't come yet. She's the voice of every child in this district who's waiting for their turn, who may not get one if CODA is not protected. Um you've heard from teachers, community members, alumni, and students who can

010trace a direct line from their elementary music experience to who they are today. I trust that the board has heard this testimony. I'm here to talk about something slightly different, something about labor, equity, and about accountability with the elementary music teachers. Um what's happening to elementary music in this district is not simply a budget budget crisis. It is a question of priorities, and the upper administration's recent decisions have made these priorities very clear. At your last meeting, uh a motion was introduced for board members to voluntarily forego their own stipends for a year where the motion failed 8 to 1. I'm not here to relitigate the vote. In fact, President Burgers um uh articulated something important in response to it, that it is not appropriate, in his own words, to pay for budget problems on,

011quote, the backs of these people here. Um that is precisely what is being asked of the elementary music teachers in the district, and this board should hold that standard consistently for those elementary teachers as it does for themselves. Keeping the elementary music program, second and fifth grade programs, and chorus costs approximately $3,000 per campus per year. Across all 11 elementary schools, that's approximately $33,000, a small sum relative to the expertise and dedication required to run these programs. Um another inequity specifically to name, the fact that the cuts, once again, target general music and vocal music. Your band and orchestra teachers receive a stipend for their after-school performances. Your chorus teachers, at the moment, would not. Um this uh reflects a pattern that music education researchers have documented for decades that elementary general music is consistently

012treated as less essential, less present professional, and less worthy of compensation than every other level and setting around it. I want to address the notion that the teachers are being given options, that non-monetary pathways are being considered. Um the pathways being considered, quite frankly, are not reasonable. They are obstacles dressed as solutions. While these teachers decline the arrangements that would ask even more of them without fair pay, they'll be positioned as the ones who chose to let those programs die. It is not a choice. It is a setup. I'm not let's see. My students here observe and teach in Grand Forks public schools. Many of the teachers work with me regularly in a professional development capacity, offering often on their own time and at their own expense. I offer my expertise and my ongoing work

013with the community, and I apologize that I'm out of time. I trust the board will reflect reflect on fair compensation for those elementary music teachers. Thank you. Thank you. I missed an important item, so I want to offer Mr. Paul Mascino the opportunity to read our school board meeting norms at this time. Be prepared, be on time, value and respect each other, exercise thoughtful deliberation and conversation, be professional at the board table and when visiting with the general public, speak up when the norms are not being followed, advocate for on behalf of students, and keep the community in mind. Thank you. Item four on our agenda is our superintendent's recommendations for discussions discussion. 4A is our budget realignment and is administrative updates. Dr. Glattch. Thank you, uh Vice Chair Anderson, tonight sitting for Dave Berger,

014who's online, by the way, if the public did not figure that out. So, in your packet, you can see a memo from Dr. Brunner, who was unable to be here tonight regarding the recent steps taken in our budget realignment process. The intent of this memo is just to inform the board and the public to the fact that we continue to have discussions about the ongoing effects of the budgetary realignment and how we're going to resolve some of the impending issues. So, on March 12th, there was a school board policy review committee. This came as result of a direct request from the board here to take a look at the reduction in force rubric as it had been proposed. Rachel Brunner, who's our guiding attorney, was present at that meeting, and that document was reviewed to

015make sure that it was there to be instituted in equitable practice. On March 16th, there are two concurrent and a little bit conflicting, because we ended up changing course in the middle of that meeting that occurred. We had an executive cabinet meeting in which we shifted course away from the reduction in force following the lead of our attorney, Ms. Brunner. And so, when we took a look at the broad scope of the the path that we were going down, we were going down a path in which we anticipated this evening bringing forth a list of teachers who are recommended as part of our realignment process for reduction in force. What we discovered under the leadership of our attorney is that there was an alternative option that we could examine that would actually preserve really good

016teachers within our district. And so, what we did from there is that we took a and I'm getting a little bit into Griffin Gillespie's territory here, but we took a look at those that were qualified for reassignment and paired them against our current openings and were able to offer people positions in order to preserve our workforce. And so, that meeting happened in tandem with the meeting that is the um executive cabinet and the administrative cabinet meeting that you see there, that we were going through the process again in the detail of the reduction in force process. So, those things were happening concurrently, which can sound a little bit confusing, but really what we wanted to do in the end is make a decision that landed in the best interest of our overall organization and the

017people that we serve, including the great teachers that we have in the classroom. And so, you can see those occurring on the same date and um because of that, there was a some additional information that we shared there with our administrators about how to proceed. That leads us to the last week or so, between March 17th and March 23rd, supervisors, alongside of Mr. Bakke and myself, met with affected certified staff that we are recommending for realignment or reassignment to other positions. We have been able to have all of those meetings with the exception of one. One is in motion, but it has not yet occurred. During those meetings, we have offered those individuals alternative placements within our district. If there was the ability to give choice, if they were certified for two current openings, for

018example, we would we gave some choice to empower those people to be aligned and land someplace where they felt empowered to do their best work. In addition to that, there were there were no alternatives, meaning no openings for the reductions in force of two individuals. Um their contracts were reduced from 100% to an 80% contract that still allows them access to full benefits. Both of those individuals signed a waiver to a right to grieve that 20% reduction in force. Um all the conversations, we have to give kudos to the individuals who are on the receiving end of them. Um very professional, really thoughtful questions. Um appreciate the collaboration that we felt from those individuals. Um those folks were given the next steps and the opportunity to ask questions and seek additional support, and some of

019those questions are continuing into today. On March 19th, a district communication was also sent out from Dr. Brunner to all staff regarding that shift in the approach that we're taking to the reduction in force. So, again, the things to emphasize is that we were able to meet our budgetary goals by realigning people for other positions for which they are certified um instead of um asking people to separate their employment with us. Um overall, I just want to make sure that in the closing comments there, this phase of the budget realignment process underscores our continued commitment to balancing fiscal responsibility with a people-centered decision-making mindset. We'll continue to keep the school board informed as this work progresses and as we move toward final recommendations and outcomes. So, I'm posed to take any questions at this time

020from the board. Any questions for Dr. Glattch from board members? Okay. Seeing none, this was an item for discussion, so anything further? No, thank you. If nothing further, we'll move on to our next item. Item 4B is the Valley Middle School North Dakota First update. Back to you, Dr. Glattch. Thank you, Chair Anderson. So, in your packet, again, is a memo from myself regarding the North Dakota First, which stands for Fostering Improved Results for School Transformation. In short, North Dakota First is the next phase of the comprehensive school improvement effort. The board is aware that Valley Middle School has been identified for comprehensive school improvement for consecutive years, and this is the Department of Instruction's next attempt at helping resource districts so that they can move themselves out of comprehensive school improvement. Um what is

021important for you to know is a few different things. Number one is Valley has engaged with an outside consulting um entity called uh I just lost some there. Called the Elevate, and there's a longer name to them, but we just call them the Elevate team. That team has met with us on consecutive occasions. They have spent some time in Valley Middle School doing walk-throughs and really assessing the lay of the land when it comes to looking at Valley's systems for instruction, their systems for interventions, that's both academic and behaviorally, and the best practices in teaching and learning in the classrooms. From there, they have worked with Valley to identify some core goals that address systematic behaviors, adult behaviors, and student behaviors, and you'll see those listed at the very bottom of the memo. From the

022board's purview, what you need to know is that, similar to the B Legendary process, which was required for the comprehensive school improvement efforts, you are being asked to hold Dr. Brenner, who holds the rest of us accountable for these school improvement initiatives. You should expect that we are giving periodic updates on the progress that Valley Middle School is making in addition to the periodic updates that come out of the building levels that which come annually, they should come more frequently from Valley. They are on a 3-year cycle of improvement, and so we're not going to see results right away, but we should see improvements in increments over time underneath the leadership of the Elevate team. Another responsibility that you have as a school board is to make sure that we as a district are looking

023at our resource allocation through what I'm going to call an equity lens. Equal means everybody gets the same thing, equitable means people get what they need in order to close gaps, and that's one of the things that they are going to audit as they review the progress that Valley makes, which means are we resourcing Valley differently than we might be resourcing other schools? Are we providing additional professional development? Are we providing perhaps additional staff to conduct the interventions, mentorship, expertise, things of that nature? Valley does receive title dollars. What I heard directly from the North Dakota Department of Instruction instruction personnel leading these efforts is that we need to look beyond that and make sure that we are providing additional resources and expertise, and so that's another thing that we ask the board to hold

024us accountable for executing. To review their school improvement goals, and again, some of these address systems, some of them address adult behaviors, some of them address student behaviors. They're looking at instructional rigor, so standardizing the Marzano observation framework across all classrooms. That really has to do with that guaranteed and viable kind of tier one high-quality instruction in every single classroom. In ELA and math, increase proficiency in ELA to to between 42% and 49% and math between 31% and 35%. I'm going to explain that a little bit. We set a new normal last year when we shifted to the ND Plus test. I think you're aware of that, so our longitudinal data has been thrown off a little bit, and so the new baseline will be set by this spring's results, and so we can expect

025a report from Valley Middle School on what that number will actually be in the end. From a student engagement standpoint, we want to decrease in the number of students reporting as disengaged from 28% to less than 18%. Flex time, which is that tier two methodology where we are reapportioning components of the day for direct instruction for kids and intervention for kids in academics and behavior, we want to ensure that 90% of students receive targeted support based on current data. And from a teacher efficacy standpoint, we want to increase staff morale and efficacy scores to greater than 4.0 on a 6.0 scale. And so again, Valley Middle School should provide the board with baseline data report following the spring of 2026 assessment cycle to verify the starting points for their academic goals. And so I'm entertaining

026or here to entertain questions at this time. Questions from board members at this time. Dr. Hodek. Could you explain to me who is on that Elevate Collective Consultant team that North Dakota Department of Public Instruction put together? Thank you. Yes, so Doug Greer is is the lead. Doug comes to us from another state that's not on the tip of my tongue right now. We have a consultant from Hawaii. We have consultants from all across the nation that are part of this team. I would like to report that I have been entirely impressed with their work. They are realists. They are people who have given us concrete action and direction. They, in the time that they have spent observing, have really identified strengths that Valley has worked on systemically. They've they've recognized the fruits of that

027labor, and they've identified places where there are pockets of excellence, again, kind of affirming some of the hypotheses that we have generated from the administrative and the leadership team. They're really sharp individuals. Some of them are expert in instruction, some of them are expert in systems work, some of them are expert in multi-tiered support systems work. They they really have a comprehensive perspective that can allow us to lean into their expertise to move the needle forward. Who pays for them? This comes out of the Department of Instruction, so similar to the B Legendary team, and I know that we had to pay a fee for B Legendary in the end, but I don't I do not believe, and I'm looking at Brandon, I do not believe we spent a dime on this. It's part of

028the state's commitment to our comprehensive or now ND First improvement efforts. So, there's no payment of mileage, them being here, room, board, anything? No, I think we bought them some chippers to say thank you. Thank you. And that wasn't us, that was Tad Shire, his team, so. Thank you. Other questions? Jay. Thank you. Um on the proficiency for ELA and math, how do those ranges compare to what our strategic goal is currently defined? >> I'm glad you asked, I should have mentioned it up front. They are not in complete alignment, and that was under the direct guidance of both our state department and the ND First initiative. Their their pathway is different than the B Legendary approach. They want to set goals that are incremental and yet aggressive enough to meet so that we're building

029momentum instead of setting goals that feel more arbitrary because we're trying to close gaps immediately. They know that the work takes time, and so they're looking more at that 3-year improvement plan. And so that's why there there will be a little bit of a discrepancy between that and what we have aligned as from a district under the B Legendary guidelines. It it makes a bit I don't want this to sound contrary to the B Legendary work. It's really helped us look at systematizing our student achievement, but their approach is a more practical approach, and it's more based in what we have seen as some evidence-based practices than trying to shoot for the stars and do too much at once and and disenfranchise people cuz we didn't quite get there. Will this is there a chance

030that this in these goals would lower somehow the aggregate we're trying to achieve? No, I really think it is designed to do the opposite because it builds on the improvements of each individual instead of lumping all students together into one category, and and which can give you some false indications of what subgroups might be improving or not. And so again, we're just relying on the expertise of the and the guidance that we're being given from the Elevate and the Department of Instruction themselves. And it's it's a different approach, but like I said, it feels more tactile, it feels exciting, it seems right. And the fact that they're looking at the systems, the adult behaviors, and then the student outcomes all together really is resonating with the team there. And adult behaviors is staff in the

031building, or is it in the building and outside the building? Great questions. Primarily the staff within the building. It's getting consistent and agreed-upon best practices and making sure people are trained in those practices, that they have clarity around those practices. That deals with both academic deliverables that will increase student engagement that will tie to the student achievement outcomes, and it also has to do with how we manage kind of lower-level behaviors um in the classroom to keep students engaged. So you when you think about things that can distract kids from learning, it can be because of frustration because the content isn't accessible to them, so it's scaffolding, it's engagement strategies, etc. Or it can be because students aren't in a place where they are feeling able to concentrate at the time, so it's providing teachers

032with tools on how to redirect in that essence in that case as well. And then the behaviors of the system go within the responses within Valley Middle School, but also that's where the district level work entails. So how are our offices supporting that work? I've been able to attend the vast majority of the Elevate meetings myself, and been able to then apprise Amy Bartsch's department. We've been able to have some synergy there with some of the people here that have those expertise as well to fill some gaps, provide some supports, and then Dr. Brenner's been rolled into that as well, so. And tonight you are, so welcome to the welcome to the effort. Thank you. And we're glad to be here. Other questions? Amber. Um because there's three grades at Valley, and we kind of

033are on a 3-year plan, I can see this really benefiting that sixth grade group as they move through. Um but what happens to the eighth grade group as it transitions is there a plan of taking those individuals who are in the statistics of where we're at now and following them at all? Another great question. So, the students who are in eighth grade and seventh grade now right now, I think have reaped some benefits from the comprehensive school improvement efforts that have been made. And so, as as I tried to mention before, maybe not very clearly, Elevate really has validated a lot of the great foundational work that Valley has done to try to get teachers on the same page instructionally, um, some of those intervention systems in place. And so, they actually have seen an

034improvement in many of their formal test results. Um, they haven't quite reached the benchmarks of others. Um, but so there are benefits from from students who are currently in the system there. Um, following them forward is something that we will do. What is more important to this process, um, and then let me rewind that a little bit. So, one of the things that is on track for student intervention as they move forward really is built around the literacy and the mathematics goals. And so, the majority of students right now feed into, um, Grand Forks Central High School. And so, things that are all already aligned include the AVID programming, which is an equity-based instructional framework, relational framework. It's a framework that's designed to close learning gaps, get kids access to rigorous instruction. That's already in

035place, so students will continue to benefit from that. The other component that's in place right now, um, for Central is additional math support and intervention. Um, Central's actually piloting and this is a um, a conversation for another day, but they're approaching some of their, um, kind of remedial math work differently. They're doing some team teaching and spending in a different component of the time in the in the classroom revisiting some of those automatic skills, mathematical skills that kids might be spending a lot of cognitive load on, but um, don't have down fluently and then getting into the grade level instruction. So, some of that is already in motion to to take care of the current students moving forward. Um, part of this process and our one of our next steps is to bring in an

036alignment more with our elementary level, um, classrooms. And that's where again the AVID programming as well as the Wit & Wisdom literacy programming, um, and then the math pilot, which has been put on pause right now because of the budget realignment, but that's where those structures and alignments come in place that are really important to this effort. Thank you. Other questions in the room? Dave, anything on the phone? Thank you, Chair Anderson. Dr. Hodak asked my question already, but I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Anything else in the room for Dr. Glattch, questions or comments? Okay. Hearing none, we will move on to item number 4C, our reduction in force update. I'm going to look at Mr. Gillespie, um, to come to the mic and provide us that. Hello, board members. I feel like Catherine

037kind of walked through all of this already, so I'll just maybe touch on some high points and if you've thought of some questions from when Catherine was talking, I can help take those now, but um, essentially when you look at where we were at the beginning of this, the 25 FTEs that we originally for certified looking at reducing, um, really we walked that down to about 15 by the time we got to the scope of the reduction just through some attrition and movements itself. And then, uh, within the last couple weeks got that down to 11 FTEs. So, really in looking at that felt like it was very reasonable to make some moves to to keep everyone employed in the school district. Um, and a couple just things to highlight is it it it didn't

038feel great to think about posting positions in the district and then having people that were losing jobs. So, it felt like it was necessary for us to make those movements, um, and not have positions posted for people that can be moved internally. And secondly, with that if if we were to have gone through with some hearings and some reduction in force, that individual would have the rights to call back and would be called back for a position that we already have open. So, that didn't make sense as well. So, we thought doing that sooner than later for those people, um, allows them some opportunity to continue throughout looking for other opportunities in the district after they've been reassigned as well. So, I think Catherine kind of covered everything as far as how we got to

039this point. Does anyone have any questions on specifically the the RIF process? Questions for Mr. Gillespie from board members? Dr. Lun. Not not a question, just just a comment. I I appreciate the effort of all the people involved in this, in particular the people that were affected by this and their their willingness to make some, I'm sure not easy, decisions. But also all the administrators that looked at this. I just want to thank everybody for a process that's at often times not not easy. I think everybody performed wonderfully. Yeah, thank you. And I know there are even some individuals out there who had conversations with myself and principals about moving to other positions so that they could, you know, essentially save that position for someone else within their area. So, a lot of kindness out

040there as well. Phil. Yeah, a lot of times we talk about certified. Uh, there was still a lot of classified people that will be losing their job. I know people that work at the Mark Sanford Education Center. The so, do you have a rough idea how many of those people will? Cuz we hear a lot about people complaining about budget cuts, but we still have a lot of people that will be losing their positions within the system. Yeah, so that's kind of the next step now that we've we're finishing up these conversations with certified is to focus on classified. Some of that has already happened. For example, uh, my HR position, the person left in January and we haven't replaced that position. There's some conversations already that I know Brandon has had with some people

041affected in in his area that they've been informed. Um, but there are some other, um, areas that will start to need to have some of those conversations, um, considering custodians and and some of the ML paras, some things like that. So, I don't know if Brandon if you have anything else to add to that. Yeah. Um, thank you, members of the board. Just to address the question to Griffin got it right on the head is where we had to have those appropriate conversations for those identified um, that could self-identify based on the 52 concepts. We've had those conversations. For other groups, um, take the custodians for example, it's been worked through, um, on a plan compared to square footage, etc. where the direction uh, reductions would take place. And then through attrition we're able to

042continue [clears throat] to work through that plan. So, of the custodial group, I'd say even right now roughly half of those have voluntarily stepped away so we can capture those savings and it's working with those others that remain about how to handle that workload. Um, if [clears throat] that doesn't all happen through attrition, then we'll have conversations nearer the end of the fiscal year. Other questions or comments? Dr. Hodak. From the memo that came out to us, um, March 23rd, which of course is to is today, um, in a in there, um, the bullet on the second page that said, "All certified staff members who have been identified as subject to reassignment or or who were subject to a partial reduction in force met or will meet with their direct supervisor." Has that been completed

043with those staff members? And if not, when will it be completed so we would know? I think Catherine mentioned there was one left, right? That is correct and that is scheduled for tomorrow. Other questions, comments for Mr. Gillespie or others? Dave, anything on the phone? Nothing for me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further in the room? Yeah. Yeah, Dr. Glattch, please. Um, Dr. Hodak, I do want to make you aware, however, that the conversations are occurring with those that are being reassigned to different teaching assignments. We still will have a ripple effect, meaning that we will need to redistribute and reassign persons to other buildings, for example, within their content area. Those conversations have yet to be had. So, that's as Griffin said, yet another phase, um, moving forward. Just wanted to be

044transparent about that. Mr. Rocky. Yes, thank you, uh, board member Anderson, board board member Hodak. To clarify or just to make sure to reiterate exactly what Dr. Glattch stated, but that's if they're changing programs. So, if they're changing programs, they have been identified in that conversation and those conversations have occurred with the exception of one. I'll use ML for example. All of the ML staff then would be potentially redistributed throughout buildings to make sure we're covering all the necessary buildings, but they'd still be staying within the ML program. Does that make sense? Okay. Anything further? Board members, questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, thank you. We will move on to item number five, Superintendent's recommendations for action. 5A [clears throat] is our consent agenda. I would seek a motion to approve. So moved. Motion by

045Joel. Is there a second? Second. Second by Bill. We'll take a roll call vote. Is there an opportunity for discussion on this? There is not on consent. Pomasino. Yes. Bond. Yes. Morrison. Yes. Cleven. No. Flynn. Yes. Hudeck. No. Manley. Yes. Burger. Yes. Anderson. Yes. Seven yes, two no, zero absent. Motion passes. Thank you. 5B is our general fund financial statements. Mr. Bombach. Um thank you, Chair Anderson, members of the board. Uh the financial statement here reflects the first 8 months of the year. That's July 1, 2025 through February 28, 2026. Total revenues accounted for 83.58 million dollars and expenditures at 75.77 million. Putting the net revenue over expenditures of 7.8 million. The first report is that variance report. That's a budget to actual comparison and you can see those local proceeds are starting to come

046in about 32% of the budget and you can see the state proceeds have largely come in about 82% of the budget. With those federal sources coming in on reimbursement now showing about 35% in total, 64% of of revenues budgeted are received in by that point, whereas the expenditures are closer to 55, 56 um percent there. If I can skip lower on that report um just to show one thing that I'm watching is in the salaries. You can see um we've expended on the classified side 65, almost 66% of the budget on classified. That would be, you know, a little bit over what we'd expect. At the same token, you can see subs or others um just under 50%. That's a little bit lower. I think there's a relationship between classroom specialists and then needing to

047go out and seek daily subs that's taking place there. So, there's a little bit of trade-off. And a similar trade-off I'd point out here lower in section C of other expenditures, there's a line five from the top, purchased services, which is showing um 1.9 million dollars on the 4.1 million dollar budget. So, about 48%. That's been trending well. Um so, expect that to be under budget. Whereas the service agreements a little bit lower down, 2/3 the way down, you can see that's that's well over that budget. And that's largely explained. I had a couple of different contracts there, but it was taking a closer look here over the weekend and and also identified a Johnson Controls contract we have where we have two individuals within our um organization that keeps everything running really well as

048far as HVAC systems go. And last year we actually had that in a purchased service line and we had moved that I think more appropriately to a service agreement line. So, that's pushing that budget beyond what we'd expect, but I'd want you to know this is that it's it's a trade-off with what was budgeted within purchased services. So, the net within the budget is not to expand, but if you were to look at the service agreements line like I did, I'd say what's going on there. And that's what's going on there. So, I wanted to point that out. On the second report is that comparison report. Uh again, watching those local sources, those property taxes, it's showing, you know, comparatively at this point last year to now where we'd be about 10% lower than. And

049talking to the county, it's it's still related to that primary residence credit. So, as those are coming in in March a little bit, I think the bigger payment will actually be in April. I noted March last meeting we had or a month ago when we discussed this. I'm seeing that would be coming in April. So, I'm expecting that to true up in the April time frame, which is two financial reports from now. But just wanted to point that out. Federal sources, last time we talked about this, we said that that was trailing and it was comparatively lower. You'll see it's still at a negative number, but we've caught up quite a bit where we've brought in over 4 million dollars. What's important to note if you were to compare what we would have budgeted or

050expected in federal reimbursement, it's changed quite a bit. Our our literacy grant has now gone away, our CLSD grant, which has gone away. Um some ESSER funds or other retired grants, we just bring that overall expectation down. So, when I see 25% less, I'd say that was expected in that case. So, I just wanted to point that out. And then maybe lastly at the end of that comparative report, page three of it is just watching those utilities. We've seen some rates come up this year, but we've also been working with Excel on some difference in billing, some questions we've had in wanting to correct that as they changed some meters last summer and they haven't been doing their job entirely right. So, we're working to get that straightened out. I do not know how it

051will affect these numbers exactly, but I just want to show you where we're seeing some of those increases. The last three slides here are those visual representations. You can see um how revenues show, expenditures, and then when they come together on that general fund balance sheet. Happy to answer any questions on anything I've said or is within the report I didn't address, but you know, otherwise the administrative recommendation would be to approve the general fund financial statement for the period of July 1, 2025 through February 28, 2026. Questions or comments from board members? Dr. Hudeck. Uh regarding the grants and that we had heard something that we might possibly be hiring a grant person. Can you just fill us in where you're at with that? No progress has been made. Uh we hit pause on

052that just wanting to make sure that we would be following the right standards of practice. Um and so, it's under examination right now. Other questions? Amber. I have two questions. One would be on page one of the financial statement. Um I had asked this question last time, but on Encore fees, they're less than half of what was budgeted and just curious if you had an update on that. I appreciate the question um Chair Anderson, Board Member Flynn. I did go back and look at that and what I had found here was [clears throat] we had overstated budget number for the fees um associated with that program. Um but so, that's that's something we'd want to see because I do not expect that number to come to that. I did a little bit of modeling. I

053expect it closer to $650,000. So, that's an overstated revenue number, which I'd characterize as is not great news, but where you look digging deeper, we also had overstated our expenditures with that program. So, the net difference on that program uh there will be no net difference in what we had here. Overstated expenditures and overstated uh revenues. You just don't see the expenditures cuz they're blended with some of the other items below. So, the hope is that like moving forward to next year, the modeling of more exact numbers and payments would be closer. Yep. We had some changes within that program that that kind of threw off that calculation there. So, um we absolutely want to get that number a little more dialed in. I'm glad you mentioned that. I I intended to bring it up

054and I missed my note. And um does that include Encore during the summer as well? Is there a payment for summer Encore or not? As far as revenues go? Yeah. Um so, ideally this this line, I will just comment and you can go into the program, would would capture all expenditures from July 1 through June 30. And so, any associated revenues or expenditures would be within those lines. Ditto. Mhm. Okay. I mostly meant for the summer revenues. So, the summer revenues, Board Member Flynn, Board Member Anderson, what I would say is the summer revenues as far as summer Encore, there there would be a charge if we run a program. Yes. >> Okay. Yep. Thank you. And then the other question I had was SPA activities revenue. Um is that largely through like fundraising efforts?

055Um cuz, you know, it usually it's more closer to June, July time frame for revenues, but is this due to fundraising? Yeah. Um Board Members, it it would be a combination of it'd be all revenue sources associated with SPA. And you're right that SPA kind of straddles the fiscal year start and end. And so, vast majority comes in June. But if you were to try to look at a season of SPA over the summer, you'd be looking in two different fiscal years to pull that together. So, you'd see some probably at this point, yeah, some early money in might be associated to a sponsorship. And then you'll see the registration fees for students come in in a hurry, bringing that number way up probably just before the June time frame begins. Okay. Thank you. Other

056questions? Dr. Bond. Just a comment about that. I think that also uh a lot of people donate to SPA through Give to the Max Day, which is in which is in February. So. Mr. Cleven, did you have something? No? Any other questions or comments for Mr. Bombach? Dave, anything on the phone? >> [clears throat] >> Nothing for me. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Seeing nothing else, the administrative recommendation is to approve the general fund financial statement for the period of July 20 July 1, 2025 through February 28, 2026. Do we have a motion? So moved. Bill makes a motion to approve it. Second. Second by Jay. Take a roll call vote. Manley Yes. Flynn [clears throat] Yes. Lunn Yes. Hodak >> Yes. Klabo Yes. Pomasl >> Yes. >> Larson >> Yes. Burger Yes. Anderson >>

057Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. Five C is the consideration of Head Start third year of the five-year grant, Mr. Bakke. Yes, thank you, Chairman Anderson. Board members, I have the opportunity to actually I'm just going to basically hand over the microphone right to Ms. Tracy Johnson, the director of the Grand Forks Public School Head Start program, who will present the information relative to our third year of the five-year continuation grant. Just so you're aware, the administrative recommendation is to approve the third year of the five-year grant in the amount of $3,166,508. And so, Ms. Tracy Johnson will go through the details related to the grant and and kind of where we're at with all the grant dollars and and our programming, and then we will answer any questions that you may

058have. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Can we get the microphone on there? Uh, no. There we go. >> It's on. Yes, now it's on. Thank you. Um, thank you, school members, for having me. >> [clears throat] >> On January 12th, we received a letter from the Office of Head Start confirming that we were eligible to apply for the third year of our five-year grant in the amount of $3.1 million serving 154 students. I have attached the budget justification and the budget line items for your review. The Policy Council unanimously unanimously voted and approved the grant on March 17th. And I would answer any questions that anybody has regarding the budget justification for the fiscal year 2026-2027. Questions for Tracy from Amber. Perhaps we could just get a sound bite from Dr. Hodak since she's on that

059committee. Dr. Hodak, can you share? She is outstanding. This budget is outstanding. Since you're asking though, board member Flynn, I am do have a concern about our attendance. And that's because I asked Tracy to get me the information about why we have tough time and 25% of our attendance is impacted by no transportation. So, I think that that's a huge issue that we need to do something about and help to address. The good thing is when I asked that question, Tracy had all the data and was prepared to answer that and respond. But when we're doing such a look at attendance within the district and such, I think we need to note that that's what they are up against with some of these parents just not having transportation. Otherwise, the budget looks good, the grant

060looks good. We did have the feds come in for that review, and I don't know if you were going to go through those as well, too. Okay. So, I won't steal her thunder. >> [clears throat] >> Um, I I wasn't going to go through that at this point, but I certainly can. So, we were put on an under-enrollment plan for two years. I was unable to hire an 11th teacher to have 14 students enrolled. But since our last May, I secured a teacher and we've been fully enrolled with our students since August of 2026 and happy to say that we are no longer on our under-enrollment plan. So, that's great. We did just have a focus area review the first week in December, and we were found non-compliant in two areas, and we knew that

061as we were meeting with the federal reviewers. One of the areas is because the school board members don't all receive the Policy Council information. For 30-plus years, we've had a school board representative attend Policy Council meetings. I think the two members that we've had that are currently on this board are Dr. Lunn and Dr. Hodak, who again I will say when we've had a school board member present, they've been very involved, asked great questions, and been just really a a great advocate of early childhood in our community. But that is why you guys are now receiving the agenda and the packet [clears throat] for all Policy Council meetings through Fighting Falcons. So, that was fixed. The second area that we were found non-compliant in is [clears throat] um we were not we were hiring people

062prior to the federal FBI fingerprint check coming back. And why that is is because our HR department does a fabulous job with background checks. Every employee through the school district has to go through a background check that is conducted through HR. And then they meet with HR, they go through the paperwork, they get their badge, they go to their school for the orientation, and start working. Again, for 30 years, that plan was worked for the Office of Head Start. Moving for- And we And let me preface, we do a state criminal background check and an FBI criminal background check as well as the background check that our school district does. So, every employee for Grand Forks Head Start goes through three three background checks. They need to go through all three prior to starting their

063first day at Head Start. So, again, moving forward, we've already corrected that as well. Any questions with the review that we had? And the only other comment is we continue to have a wait list. And so, anybody drops, we've got students that are picked up immediately. Yeah. Thank you, Dr. Hodak. Anything else, Amber? Just to follow up, sorry, Dr. Lunn, I couldn't remember who the [laughter] other one was. So, I looked at Dr. Hodak, but is there potentially an opportunity for future grants for Head Start to write in some transportation costs, or have you talked about that at all? Right now, the federal government is not releasing any new monies for federal [clears throat] programming. Next year, we did I mean, we we received money, but it's flat funding. So, we're going to be operating

064under the same um cost not cost, but the same value that they were we were given a year ago. >> Okay. Um, with that said, it appears that Congress will approve an increase in Head Start funding for the 2027 fiscal year. Um but with I don't know what kind of programming will come with that. Thank you. Bill. If it is approved and we got more money, do we have space? Or are you tight on space? Well, that is the million-dollar question. We are tight on space. Currently, we are using a small a smaller classroom at our main site. We're connected to Lake Agassiz. And because of usable square footage, we have we can only have 35 square feet of usable space per child. And so, that particular classroom can only have 10 students in it.

065So, yes, that is that's always Yes, it's always a hurdle. Other questions, comments from board members? Dave, anything on the phone? No, thank you. Thank you. Seeing and hearing nothing else, the administrative recommendation is to approve the third year of the five-year grant in the amount of $3,166,508. Dollars. Motion by Dr. Hodak. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Manley second. We'll take a roll call vote. Larson Yes. Klabo Yes. Pomasl >> Yes. Hodak Yes. Lunn Yes. Burger Yes. Flynn Yes. Manley >> Yes. Anderson >> Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. Thank you. Moving on item number five D is our proposed revised process for TIF and pilot tax incentives. I will certainly start with the memo and then I will turn over to Mr. Bambenek for some additional information. Just regarding the

066background and purpose, just reading reading the beginning of the memo there, Mayor Brandon Bochenski has formally requested that the three primary taxing entities, the city of Grand Forks, Grand Forks County, >> [clears throat] >> and the Grand Forks Public Schools work collaboratively to establish a more transparent, coordinated, and informed process regarding tax incent in increment financing and payments in lieu of taxes pilots. >> [clears throat] >> Particularly for projects requesting incentives greater than 5 years. This request request is responsive to prior feedback from both the Grand Forks County Commission and the Grand Forks School Board emphasizing the importance of earlier access to project information, opportunities to ask questions and receive detailed answers, and meaningful engagement as governing bodies as governing bodies prior to final decisions. Following these discussions, uh Mayor Bochenski convened leadership from the

067city, county, school district, Grand Forks Region Economic Economic Development Corporation, and the Grand Forks Chamber of Commerce to develop a proposed revised process. Um we do have a handout at our table that goes through that and I'm going to turn over to Mr. Bombach to kind of give us some more um information about this. Yeah, thank you, Chair Anderson, [clears throat] members of the board. You actually heard a little bit about this revised process during the public comment period. I thought they did a nice job overviewing exactly that. So, I just received some of this information here and worked this into it so you had the the latest and greatest for your consideration this this evening. Within your board packet, there's a process that was early defined by um Mayor Bochenski which is a variation,

068but it included six steps. The one in front of you is a four-step process. The biggest change has to do with a uh second meeting. So, I will first start just to articulate the current process. Currently, we even a little bit further, for any incentive that would exceed well, prior to some time ago, any tax incentive or payment in lieu of tax tax increment financing was completely handled by your city municipality. That law changed some time ago where each taxing entity would have a weight and a say in their component or their portion of any tax incentive provided if it should exceed 5 years in length. >> [clears throat] >> Through early I guess um application consideration, there was feedback from um the county and the school board saying we want to be involved just

069a little bit earlier in the process, and the city in response to that formalized a local government advisory committee, um which would each of the bodies would send representation to a meeting for the first hearing of some consideration. So, a developer would submit a a pre-application to the city of Grand Forks, it would go through some amount of third-party due diligence, and then that group, the LGAC or Local Government Advisory Committee, would review that information with the expectation that when those, you know, they carry that information of the conversation back to their boards, respective boards, for firm approval before the city would adopt or or not adopt the um tax uh um incentive. This [clears throat] um proposed idea was to even further move in that direction, as I understand it, where you would have

070uh a not just a representation from each board to the LGAC, but you would have all boards in a joint meeting between county, city, and school board here um for the first time from the developer after they've received some of that initial third-party due diligence. So, everybody's in the room hearing the information at the same time. That plan was I think first put out in January 9th, and that's what the memo describes, but in six steps. So, the initial meeting of all three parties would be the first hear it, and then there would be ultimately about a 6-week waiting period wherein there would be a second meeting of all those bodies together. The memo articulates an expectation that during that meeting, all of those um political subdivisions would make a formal decision on that before

071it returns to the city for final uh moves. I understand that it was from um conversation between the city and county that said, you know, appreciate that effort, but we'd rather we like where we all meet, we all receive the first bit of information. There are components to that regarding public comment, etc., but when it comes to a formal decision, we'll take that back at our board. And so, that's what this um proposal at your table side reflects. So, it's simply one meeting of all the body or all of the entities together, and the formal decision be taken back at the municip- or each taxing entity's board before returning to the city. So, to be clear, because the action is all around um your consideration of whether or not this process is adopted, I'd like

072to just articulate that process. Firstly, a pre-application is filed from the developer to the city of Grand Forks where the city will take it up for consideration. They will um retrieve or um invoice a fee of $10,000 to developer where they use those dollars to pay for third-party due diligence on those. In this process then, the um combined city council, school board, and county commission would meet uh in one setting to receive a presentation of the project itself with the third-party due diligence. There would be conversation and and uh diligence done there at the meeting, but no decisions made. From there, there would be [clears throat] about a 60-day period. It's important to note that the law would say um there's a 30-day period in between when uh the city formally sends over the application

073to each of the taxing entities that they have to weigh in on, and if you don't weigh in within 30 days, then you would um by default give permission to your participation in the tax incentive. This is a 60-day window, which is uh a little bit longer, of course. Uh or Yep, I got myself tripped up there. I'll keep going with it for a second. A 60-day window here, and it's meant to or 6 week, that's why I got myself tripped up. 6 weeks, that's a little bit more than 30 days. 6-week window, that way it is to allow for ample time for um the taxing entities ample conversation of the topic. So, once the joint meeting is left, there would be a proper public notice, which would kick into the time period of 30

074days. It would be up to the school board in this instance then to review the project on their own time at their own body, and then get back to the city of whether or not they'll participate in the tax incentive. So, perhaps a little bit of an over-explanation, I apologize. There was a a late uh incorporation of what the city and county had adopted already at this point, and so the consideration is if for this four-step process, it would be in par with what the other entities are proposing doing. So, tonight they'd be looking for um ultimately a discussion and consideration of to adopt this process. Okay. Anything further? Items? Dr. Lun? Before we get into discussion, I'm confused. So, so if we look at the the the memo dated January 20th, and you look

075at the bottom, it it talks about during this work session, which is the first one, a second local taxing entities governing boards combined meeting will be set for approximately 6 weeks. So, did somebody not write the memo right? It looks like according to the new memo, there's still two combined two meetings of the combined boards. Am or am I reading reading that wrong? Um members of the board, um Dr. Lun, uh I don't think so. I apologize, too, cuz I was getting caught up with this a little bit, but you're referring to in step two. Correct. The 6-week period is set to allow sufficient time for further fact-gathering by the LGAC. This joint governing body work session meeting will be scheduled as needed on dates on which the governing bodies of the city, school, county

076do not meet. Anticipation, you're saying that inclusion of that paragraph? Well, if you look on the first page at the bottom, Mhm. uh under step two, it'd be the third paragraph. It says, "During this working session, a a a second local taxing entities governing boards combined meeting and vote will be set approximately 6 weeks after the initial joint governing boards work session." So, it's maybe I'm reading that wrong, but to me it sounds like they're still recommending two two combined meetings, which which I would not be in favor of. Mhm. Yeah, I follow your logic. Um it was not my understanding. I could see your conclusion there and why there's a question there. I'm not sure of the author's intent. Amber? Um I too had this concern. I had um engaged Brandon in discussion earlier

077today because I believe that this the one that we had wasn't the correct version, and that specifically was the concerning piece for me was coming back into a second joint meeting and voting instead of going to our respective like um entities. And so, I believe overall this process um is better, and they were talked about that, but the inclusion of that sentence still remaining um gives me pause on wanting to take action on this before it's corrected, personally. I was told by Mayor Bochenski, I called him today, and he said that's not the intent. The intent would be that we don't have a second meeting and we would go back, but this wording is confusing. Yeah, I would say it certainly reads as though there is a second meeting. Right? Question, Dr. Hudak. I concur

078with Dr. Lund and board member Flynn as well. I think from everything that was sent to us, so I studied, read that, was prepared and then to receive this and then quickly reading and going through this, I'm I'm very concerned about the second meeting, us having to make our vote there, but I'm also concerned about the public input and where I'm not sure if that's just us or if it's not until where they say in step two at the end, five minutes per speaker um and then they they go on that will not have a maximum time limit. So, I think there is a lot of clarification that I will need before moving this forward and my last point is are we doing this just for process or is this going to be something that

079we would be doing for policy and if so, then I would anticipate that it would have to go to the policy committee first and that group to do the due diligence and come back um to the board with a recommendation. Sure. Um Um Chair Anderson, Dr. Hudak, fair enough. I did ask the question about any sense of urgency on this or or whatnot is from the city's perspective anyways and I think that there would be some time to take this back, get clarification on the intention here and bring it back at our next board meeting for any action. Um so, that is I mean it's always a possibility, but I just point that out from from that perspective. As to as it relates to process or policy, I don't I don't know that I've understood

080this to need to be a policy, not that it couldn't be a policy of the board, but rather a process and so that'd be an administrative process, something that we love as administration, clarity from the board as to meeting your expectations. I think that helps. Not that it would be required to be fully embedded into policy. Other questions, Amber? Just a point on that. I mean I think it's helpful to have policy, but as this is sort of a new process that's happening, I do think it would be a better as an administrative process personally just because it can ebb and flow and things can change and certainly I feel like there will be more transparency and awareness to the process and so we could probably give on time feedback, whereas policy might be more

081strict in how things are followed. So, I personally would vote for it to be an administrative process, but I just don't know that we're there yet and it might be helpful to seek clarification and then also invite maybe the mayor to our next meeting. So, if we maybe choose to just postpone this to the next meeting, I think the board action could do that. Yes, Dr. Lund. I think I would like to see tonight at least the opinions of the board members of what they would like to see change, so whoever is going to talk to the city council can say well, the school board is in favor of the of an initial combined meeting, but we're not in favor of a second combined meeting that we should think that should occur at our at

082our home board meetings. Uh In in answer to Sherry, I I would see public comment period being at the combined meeting with all the entities, that five minutes knowing, but I also would see that there would be allowed public comment at a school board meeting or at a county commission meeting. I mean by state law. So, I would see that the citizenry should be able to comment at that combined meeting, but then should be able to comment at the individual meetings. I would certainly be opposed to anything that says that's not the way it's going to be. Yeah. Yes. Jay. Everything said so far matches the questions I would ask. So, my only comment is in step three, the second meeting is also referenced. So, we just need to make sure the whole document's reviewed

083and references to second meetings be edited and changed and I also don't think we should formally take action on this today. Thank you for that. Yeah, I think it would be important to gather any extensive feedback that people have you know, other questions or comments so we can make sure we have everything before we come back again with you know, with the desired information. So, are there other questions, comments from other board members? Amber. I as part of our process would like some clarification from our district administration that each tax incentive review is also done by our attorney um because this process as outlined looks like the only attorney review is by the city's attorney and if we are simultaneously voting as the same process as the city I would like to have our attorney

084review the project. I know that's costly, but if there's something that's missed or if there's something that is different I do think that our attorney should be reviewing all of these and advising us on what possibly action possible action we should take as well. So, that may not be in here, but as part of our process, I would like to see our attorney review every single one of these. Other items, Bill. I would agree with you, Amber, but I think that the our the review of our attorney should be paid by the developer because I I I think the fee has gone from I believe it was only 2,500 prior to this, now it's $10,000. I'm not sure where all that money is going to go but I don't think we as a board should

085pay for our attorney to look at it. I think the developer should. Dr. Hudak. >> Very good point. Very good point. I support that completely, Bill. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Dave, anything on the phone? I have a couple things that haven't been said yet. Let me first say I agree with the collective conversation. The two things I would add one, would it be a part of our process that in that six-week period we would always have two meetings regarding the application? In other words, a meeting for discussion and a meeting for action. And and the reason I'm bringing this up is we don't always have two meetings in some of our months and so I just want to make sure that that six-week window would give us enough time for discussion and public

086comment to Dr. Lund's point and and others. Uh so, I'd just be curious to hear others' thoughts about how we would use that six-week window and my second unrelated question is, would we have any ability as a school board to say even in advance of the first collective joint meeting, the school board isn't willing to hear any applications that are more than X percentage or for longer than X number of years? In other words, to already set some parameters so that we're only hearing the applications that we are reasonably likely to debate and possible Just that question to the rest of the group, if anyone else would have that sort of appetite to say before we schedule these joint meetings, whether they're quarterly or twice a year, that just so that you know as a

087school board, this is our broad position. So, I'll I'll mute myself here and listen to the rest of the conversation. Mr. Clevin. Yeah, thank you. Um I think that first meeting should always be entered into with an open mind without any preconceived notion or idea or concept of a of an idea because we don't know what's going to be presented at that meeting. I think going in there with a blank open slate and open mind is a prefer preferable way to go and not have any preconceived ideas in advance. So, just a gentle rebuttal to Mr. Burger's idea. Dr. Lund. Well, after an 18-hour meeting last week, I just love love meetings. So, I I do agree with Jay. The problem is is we could say well, we're not going to do anything more than

08810 years or we're not going to do anything if it's not you know, if there isn't a gain in employment in the community, but there's we're we're going to be comparing apples and oranges and grapefruits. I mean all you know, you all have sit through and sat through enough of these. They're all uniquely different and and and and I I I do think we probably have to get get some initial information and some conversation going and as much as I love meetings, not going to meetings, I think we almost probably should go in with an open mind and say yeah, we we need to look at that. Okay. Amber. I just have a clarification on what Dave said. So he his opinion was the two meetings, one for discussion and one for action. Would that

089be outside of the joint meeting? So essentially we would have three is what he was suggesting? Okay. I think Dave, you can clarify if you would wish, but I believe it was within that 6-week window he was looking for the two. >> I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. What I was saying Ms. Flynn was if we held a joint meeting and then we knew we had a 6-year excuse me, a 6-week window, uh would it be our practice to look at this application at two regular meetings of the school board within that 6-week window, one for discussion and one for action. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Dr. Lund. The only comment I have about the the two meeting it is possible depending upon when we had the joint meeting that 6 weeks we might only

090have one scheduled meeting, but as we all like meetings so much we could always have an extra meeting for that second meeting. We could. True. Other? Dr. Hodac. And the other comment that I would have is when it says in here a copy of the tax incentive pre-application is sent to all local tax entities. And that's saying step one. Um I would expect that we would have that well in advance of the first meeting. Um so that it's not just handed to us a couple days before. I would like more time than that. Okay. Any other? Mr. Bombach. Yeah, thank you Chair Anderson. Just with however you consider the two meetings and you you're fully aware of this, but just to be super aware of it is whenever that public notice goes out from the

091city side, it'll trigger a 30-day and if you don't respond to them whether as to whether or not this body would participate in the exemption or not, it would be default you do participate. So you just probably want to be very mindful if you're trying to schedule in extra meetings to meet your process document. May I ask a clarification question to Mr. Bombach? But that 30-day notice period would occur only after that first combined meeting and then some period of time after. Like that is the concluding of the process. So we have 30 days to act upon that, but that's like the tail end of the deal. Yep, Chair Anderson member you're clubbing that's exactly right. So when they talk about a 6-week window, it's probably important that we really understand um just when they

092the city intends to submit that public notice. Um because it's going to fit somewhere within that 6 weeks that's mentioned, but the 30 days is going to be the hard legal trigger as to when a response is required. So we that may be one more point of clarification just to say how long will they wait, when exactly will that notice go? Um so that way we can count on the 30-day notice if indeed you plan to work it into your own process document. Other items? Amber. I just thought of one more question. Since it's a joint meeting, would it be clear as to who would be responsible for hosting, running, taking minutes? If we're there, do we notice our own and have to take like do we have to take minutes, vote on minutes? Okay.

093Mr. Manley. Just a clarification on the process moving forward. It seems like we're almost all in agreement that we're going to delay this. Um do we move to not approve this or do we table this for later? How does this work? What what I would seek is a motion to um postpone taking action at this time. When when we're when we're ready for that. If there if there's other conversation to be had first, that's fine. Amber. Not an attorney. Uh but familiar with parliamentary procedure and I believe we have to say a specific date or when we might revisit it. So we would just probably need to know the next date of when we're going to meet. Or when administration would then be prepared to bring it back. >> the 13th of April is our

094next meeting. After that it's the 27th of April. So Mr. Bombach, I guess I would ask a little bit of thought from you on when we would have appropriate information and answers to everything. Yeah, Chair members of the board, I would think that we should be able to get clarification from April 13th. Now I'm tracking in some of the notes. Um there were probably some items for clarification that are they're relatively easy to seek by that April 13th. Um there may be [clears throat] other come parts of it like where the legal fees would be paid from if it's a part of the $10,000 fee etc. that theoretically could take a little bit longer, but I mean I would certainly be comfortable by setting a April 13th post postponement until April 13th. At the very

095least we'd be coming back with everything learned by that point. If there needs to be more time, there could be action taken then for that. Okay, thank you. Dr. Lund. If we don't have all the information at the April 13th meeting, we can postpone it to the April 27th meeting. But yeah, I I don't think you'd want to table it because that that's probably not the correct parliamentary procedure. So I agree with Ms. Flynn. Correct. Well, I'd like to make a motion to postpone action on this until the April 27th uh scheduled school board meeting. April 27th? Yes. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? Can I ask why we can't bring it back on the 13th? Why why the two who made the motion don't want

096to bring it back on the 13th? Jay. I actually don't think the legal fee question will get answered then and I I like I heard earlier there's no imminently compelling reason to do this. I'm aware there's two two questions out there that might seek a pilot, but I'm gravitated towards the statement that there's no imminent need to take action. And I think I personally if I were on the working end of this question, I would prefer an extra 2 weeks to do my homework. That's the intent of the motion. Hopefully that answered the question. Okay. Any other questions? Dr. Lund. It answers the question. Just so you know, I will vote no on that because I don't see any reason why we can't start on the 13th if we're not done, we can delay it,

097but just so you know, I'm I'm in favor of doing all this. I just don't see why we have to delay it. So that's why that's why I'll vote no on the motion. Thank you. Dr. Hodac. My reason for voting as such um and the second to the motion is the fact is that we've received now um information that was from a January 9th, January 12th, the March 12th that there's been a lot of things that are happening there and so I'm still not um convinced that everyone that is working on this has truly put their due diligence into this and I'm concerned that we might be under rush. So that's the reason that I would prefer giving them the more time. Thank you. Other? Comments on the motion? Okay. We do have a motion

098on the floor. We'll take a roll call vote. Flynn. Yes. Hodac. Yes. Burger. Yes. Cleven. Yes. Larson. Yes. Lund. No. Manley. Yes. Palmisano. Yes. Anderson. Yes. Eight yes, one no, zero absent. Motion passes. We will move on to item five E, our finance committee report. Uh Mr. Bombach, I'll turn this over to you. Thank you, Chair Anderson. The finance [clears throat] committee uh had a busy meeting on March 16th. So I'll take just a little bit to go through these items. Uh I intend to take us through one by one. They're [clears throat] most of them except one requires board consideration, so we'll just take them one at a time. Um and even for the one that doesn't require board consideration, we'll pause at that time for full discussion or any questions that you'd like

099to have. The first item is consideration of audited financial statements for year ended June 30, 2025. Um there's two audit reports involved for one for district one, one for district 140 and also a management letter here. Um in cooperation um Brian Opsal with Brady Martz and Associates is here to help present the work that's been done on behalf of the auditors. So please come on up, Brian, and while you're doing that, I'll just give a quick high level you know, our our net position overall increased $10.7 million to almost $44. million, but really the story in my mind relates to operations. Our revenues are stated as 129 488. So it's 129 million 488,000 with expenditures being 134 million 228,000. So that's a net down of 2.7 million. And so, that [clears throat] has been long

100or not long talked about, but talked about for quite some time now. It certainly has led us into our realignment um conversation. So, as we go through the numbers, you'll see that you'll hear that. >> [clears throat] >> And I just wanted to provide um the administrative um note up front that that is what this report will tell us. And so, that is a big in large by lar- by and large reason why we have undergone a realignment process. So, Brian, thank you for being here and taking us through it. All right. Uh good evening. Thanks for having me. Uh the intent tonight is probably to go through really just a high-level overview of the audit. And uh as Brandon mentioned, we ran through this last week at the finance committee meeting in some more

101detail than I plan to go through tonight. Certainly, if there is any questions, feel free to stop and ask them. Otherwise, I'll open up for questions once I'm done. A couple high-level things before we get started. Uh there was no disagreements with management. Uh no difficulties performing the audit. Uh we certainly appreciate all the help and and support that we get from the staff um going through these reports. There's a lot of new standards and things that we end up fighting through. And so, we appreciate everybody's help in getting us timely responses. Um there is one new standard that was adopted during the year that really doesn't have effect on your day-to-day operations. Really an accounting standard or accounting exercise related to some compensated absences. Uh we did go through some detail in the meeting

102last week, but you will see some of those references to the uh GASB 101 compensated absences throughout the report, which just required, like I said, a change on the full accrual financial statements. The audit opinion is an unmodified opinion on the financial statements, which is considered a good or a clean opinion that the financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. It is management's responsibility for all the numbers and the footnotes within these financial statements. And then our responsibility as auditors to ensure that they're reasonably stated. And that is what our opinion is stating is that we believe that they are. Um as Brandon mentioned, I'll go through a little bit of the highlights in the financials and uh probably focus my attention on the fund financials. The general fund ended

103with a fund balance of 8 million 725,315 dollars, which was a decrease of 2 million 705,816 dollars from the prior year. Uh when we get to the budget here in a second, you'll notice that there was very close to what was anticipated for your budget. So, uh you know, I guess a good job budgeting and and making sure that uh um you know, you had a good plan in place for the year. One of the things that we like to look at for financial health is we take your general fund fund balance divided by your general fund expenditures. Um at the end of June 30, 2025, you're at 6.5% uh compared to 8.6% the prior year. Uh we as auditors like to see that at 10% or above um just for you know, it's really

104like a making sure you have enough operating expenses to cover um or enough fund balance to cover your operating expenses for a period of time. That's what that percentage is intending to do. So, uh just making sure that you're cognizant of that. Um making steps to improve that fund balance would be important going forward. Um the other funds all have positive fund balances. Uh the largest being the building fund with about 29.8 million dollars in fund balance. Most of that related to some long-term debt that was issued during 2025, about 67 million dollars. Um as mentioned, uh looking at the budget, the budget um was about 169,000 dollars off from actual. So, about a 134 million dollar budget was only off about 170,000 dollars. So, pretty good job, like I said, budgeting. Um you budgeted

105a little bit less than what you'd anticipated, about 2.536 million dollars. Um the rest of the audit report is really about uh some of the compliance side of things. And so, we have two basic compliance reports. One is the government auditing standards report, where we look at your internal controls on a high-level overview. Uh we had three findings related to uh internal controls over financial reporting. One was the auditor preparation of the financial statements. Uh this is a very common finding just because we have the expertise and the knowledge to help put these financial statements together. And with some of the new standards, we certainly help make sure that everything is properly reported. The second finding was related to some adjusting journal entries that we helped make sure that these financials are are fairly uh

106stated as well. And the third finding was related to uh the uh external fraud that occurred during uh I guess last fall or or summer. So, basically just indicating that your internal control process at that point uh was unable to prevent that from happening. Um lastly, we have a uniform guidance report, which is a compliance report on your federal dollars. And so, we did uh testing over three different programs: child nutrition, special education, and literacy development. All three of those reports were cleaner uh clean opinions. No findings when we did any of the testing on those programs. So, those are considered a a good opinion on those programs. So, um I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody might have or circle back to anything within the audit report. Questions for Mr. Opsahl. Dave, any

107questions on the phone? Just a question for Mr. Bambach. I I know it was alluded to about the uh operating reserve and and the percentage uh you know, trending at least to this point in the in the wrong direction. Any sense or is it too early to know with the budget realignment process, does that trajectory change in any way? Do you do you have an early expectation of what that fund balance might be a year from now? Um thank you, members [clears throat] of the board, Mr. Burger. Um so, the realignment process was really designed to um really stable stabilize where we're at. So, that 4.4 million was reflective of where this budget was set for fiscal year 26. And so, the the deficit that this year will um come to reality or has been

108developing is according to this year's budget, which is at a a loss of that 4 million dollars. So, that's why the importance of the realignment needs to take place right now. Where does that leave us for percentage? I haven't uh calculated exactly that number, but it would be lower than where the 6.5% which is talked about with um within the fiscal year 25 audit. And so, we need to stabilize, and then we would need to absolutely prioritize um growing back that safety net. Any additional questions or follow-up on the phone, Dave? No, thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Dr. Hodak. Just explain to me a little bit more about the process. I understand that this would have went to the finance committee, these audits, and you reviewed them and such. So, my question then really

109is to Brandon um with with the findings that they have found and uh with what they're, you know, recommending, how do you feel about them? And do you need any support, any further help within getting these things done? Yeah, thank you, members of the board, and Dr. Hodak, I I appreciate the question. And so, the the the three findings as as articulated, um you know, the first of those is something that we've become accustomed to until we have uh our CPA on staff who can help um prepare the financials before we hand them off to Brady Martz, we're going to have that finding because they help us prepare them, and then they're the ones who are auditing them. And so, it's just a a recognition of that risk associated with that. Um journal entries, uh

110that was um related to what I would consider as a one-time um issue, and uh we have a better understanding coming through that. So, I wouldn't expect that to be a recurring finding. And certainly certainly certainly with this fraud finding, would not be recurring. Um you'll note as we get to the management report, which articulates just a few things found that don't always percolate to a finding, it does include one that did, which is the fraud thing. And so, there's a management response to that. After that fraud finding, we immediately went through our processes, our our administrative process to um you know, largely without too being too descriptive, put more eyes on things, um verify more diligently. And those practices are not only in place in some books somewhere, but they're hanging on everybody's desks.

111And so, uh I have the fullest confidence that we've not been in a position than where we are now to avoid that finding again. Thank you. Other questions, board members? Mr. Opsahl. Okay. Thank you. Do you want me to go through management report, too? Sure. Yeah, let's let's touch on that. Thank you. Yep, sorry. No. Um there was also a management report that we issued, as well. That was basically designed to bring up some things that as we go through the audit, there are certain things that we come across that we consider to be best practices, but maybe aren't necessarily uh rise to the level of finding of a major concern. Certainly, if there are items that appear on this several years in a row, you know, they could become a concern at some point.

112But for right now, uh just brought to your attention. And as as you'll see in here, there are management's responses to help, you know, reduce these comments in the future. So, uh I'll just go through these relatively briefly. The first one is related to the child nutrition program. There is a standard where a lot of folks are submitting online applications, and so there's not really an internal control process there, but there are still some paper applications being received. And we just suggested that once those paper applications are received and entered into the system that somebody basically goes and checks to make sure that everything was entered in correctly. So, just to prevent some errors there. Uh the second one is journal entries. Um we like to have a second set of eyes review and approve

113formally journal entries. I think they are being uh reviewed in some aspects on at least for maybe some of the non-recurring entries, but we we do like to see the sign-offs just saying that somebody else looked at them versus the person that prepared them. Uh the third one was just some payroll liability accounts, and this happens quite frequently where I think you have a change in maybe a vendor, and so it gets put in maybe the wrong payroll liability account. So, it they net out to pretty small number, but just something to to take a look at to make sure that all withholdings and all the payments are getting made out of the same account. And then lastly, um there was a a project that had uh was over $200,000 that was advertised for 3

114weeks. The Century code at that time was to be advertised for 3 weeks. So, just missed a week there. Um once again, I think all these responses are are certainly indicating that they'll be uh removed going forward, but we'll certainly take a look and make sure we can clear them for next year. Mr. Bomback, any additional comments? Yeah, thank you. And thank you for walking through those just to provide those responses and and actually correct something I I said that the fraud finding was one of these that percolated up. It was just a finding in the other report, but these are four other ones. Um just as noted, I would take even those first two, the child nutrition program and even the journal entries. Again, we have a process of review, but not formalized. And

115so now we're talking about, you know, actually having the director initial. And so that way if the auditor ever says, "Was this reviewed?" We can show exactly. We do this with our bank reconciliations and other things, so we're extending that good practice beyond. Payroll liabilities, again, was just to ensure through a quarterly review from our accounting supervisor that that is happening. And then even on that bid um process, uh we we do bids all the time. We follow those guidance, I'm proud to say, really well. And we we had missed in this case where we missed a week. And so uh we will um retrain or make sure that that is a a top priority. And specifically speaking, just even within the buildings and grounds, it's about our own process of, you know, creating that

116checklist. So, if you have turnover at B&G leader or directorship or anything like that, it's it's a solid process that's supported throughout the department. It's not just falling to one person to do. Thank you. Other questions for Mr. Opsal or Mr. Bomback? Seeing none, this uh did come with the committee voted had voted to accept the audit reports and forward them to respective boards with a recommendation for approval. Um so, I would uh seek a motion for that. Motion by Bill, second by Second. Mr. Clevin. All those or sorry, we'll take a roll call vote. Thomasino? Yes. Berger? >> [snorts] >> Yes. Handley? Yes. Lund? Yes. Larson? Yes. Clevin? Yes. Fordahl? Yes. Swain? Yes. Anderson? Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. Thank you. Thanks. Have a good day. Okay. Item number two,

117Mr. Bomback, do you want to move on to that? >> And just as a side note, those packets you're welcome to them. They're there for you. If you don't want them, I'll take them. We'll keep them here um on the shelf, too, for posterity. Um consideration school led initiatives for capital enhancements allocations for 2026. This acronym is SLICE. It's an acronym that Jonathan Elwine first introduced to all you individually, but not to this body. It was to the facilities of the whole on September 22nd, and then later a further um explanation of it to a finance committee on November 17th. This is a concept that um largely puts into the hands of principals some determination over their capital project investment. We have a building fund. We use the building fund to address district needs, and

118that's led primarily by our buildings and grounds department. And so what that can be is I like to think we're getting all the top priorities for all the functional things to make sure that our our learning environments are um what they need to be for student learning, but sometimes it doesn't meet even principal expectation for other things they'd like to see get done. And so by allocating around a quarter million dollars from the building fund to buildings, they'd have a little bit more say over different projects um that would be a priority to them. So, the project the the program the SLICE program was articulated by Jonathan envisioned to be, like I said, around a quarter million dollars of building fund dollars allocated to all the buildings, and you can get to all those buildings

119over 3 years, excluding Twining, um Discovery, and uh Valley Middle School because of the newness of those buildings. Um but the because it's a building fund dollars, there's a certain scope to these types of projects. They need to fit the state requirements for our own building fund. So, that's that's not um maintenance of a building, it's repair of a building. It's capital improvement of a building, it's not furniture within the building. And so it needs to be um these improvements to the facility itself. We throughout the year have started the conversation with the first allocations, which would be to buildings of Central, Century, Phoenix, Viking, and Wilder. The committee heard about those projects. The committee um talked a little bit more about those allocations for each of those buildings and some of the ideas that

120are coming forward. The reason we're seeking the building fund allocation at this point is because a lot of those ideas have gotten to a certain point where they're ready to be um locked in with quotes and get ahead for the summer work, and we need a permission to do that. Not all ideas, though, have been um locked in completely. So, they're still working and developing some of those ideas include um sound panels within the gymnasium or the lunchroom can that can be quite loud. Um there's some of those concepts include painting um throughout the buildings, uh exterior gates over at Phoenix, some landscaping uh associated with Central, even branding within hallways for school pride depending on the need, and even one um storage shed um related to uh Wilder. So, this is uh committee heard

121from those ideas, uh continued to endorse the concept of the SLICE program, and they're recommending for school board approval uh consideration the first year allocations to use the building fund for SLICE projects up to a maximum of 255,650. So, that's an up to amount because they're going to be working through the final budgets that they've been allocated each, and I would expect that those would come under. They'll get as close as they can, but they'll come a little bit under. So, that's why it's an up to amount number. Happy to answer any questions for finance committee members. Any questions for Mr. Bomback? Amber first. Just wanted to clarify some of our discussion under the scope of each project was discussed. We asked questions like, "Are any of these projects over the bid amount? What would

122that require?" Um we talked about wants versus needs, and and where potentially some of these projects would be more appropriate. And there was a process that has been outlined internally. Brandon meets with building and grounds regularly, and they kind of run the request through that team and kind of um shore out a lot of those um different requests through their own kind of process. So, we felt comfortable with the answers as a finance committee after um asking some questions, and um you know, you look on here and it says like, "Oh, exterior landscaping under Central." You know, we're like, "Is that $100,000? What's going on there?" So, um again, we felt comfortable um with the answers that were received after asking some of those questions. Thank you. Dr. Lund? I'm wondering if you could explain

123more so for the public than than the board, actually, um how we can talk in 1 hour about buck budget reconciliation, and then in the next hour we talk about spending money on this. Why why we why we do that? Yeah, thank you, um Chair Anderson. Um board members, that's a great point. So, within our school district, we have a number of different accounting buckets, and they generally correlate to a property tax levy and then even state law on how they need to be associated. Our operational budget, our fund 10, is completely separate, excluded, discrete from what we're talking about now, which is building fund. That's fund 31. Building funds revenues are strictly from property taxes, and by far the most expenditures are associated with principal and interest payments with debt obligations. And they're usually

124tied to larger projects that we've undergone more recently, like the guaranteed energy savings program that we reported on last board meeting about some of the savings that are driving um some of those operational costs in fund 10. So, this would be separate and distinct, and by state law, you cannot cross those lines. Even if you would really want to use building fund dollars for operations and the things we have been talking about, you cannot. You would get in trouble. So, these are distinct. It's a really good point. Thanks for asking. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Clevin. Thank you. How will these be bid out? Cuz I mean, good faith, they all look to be under some procurement limits, but what is the process to get these under contract? Yeah, thank you, Chair Anderson,

125um Board Member Clevin, and thank you, Board Member Flynn, for reminding me of something you said I should have said it at the upfront, but I forgot to do it. So, as far as that process goes, um so, buildings and grounds still takes responsibility over it. And the reason being is we want to hear principals' priorities, but there's a recognition that there is an a uh an expertise in buildings and grounds, and there's also some standards that we've established over the years. There's certain color number of paints that we make available. This, that, and the other. When we have a painter on staff, we want to consult that painter. And so, we work with the principals for their ideas, their concepts. And then we would have buildings and grounds go and visit. Um that has

126involved a number of different people. It depends on the nature of the project, but we would walk through the building with them and say, "Well, what are you What are you hoping to accomplish here?" With [clears throat] that, we can give expertise of, "Okay, you want to build a wall right down the middle of the room, what does that mean for all the utilities associated?" But also, when it comes to those legal requirements of bidding. Now, most of these are going to fall under any legal requirements for bidding, but they do exist. In the case of Central's painting project, it should exceed the $50,000 bidding threshold for services. And so, we are there as guidance and support for that process to ensure it's done accurately, so Mr. Opsal doesn't have to write us up or

127anything like that. Um furthermore, when it does fall under a bidding threshold, um we still want to get quotes and an appropriate number of quotes, and we even have our own preferences on different vendors we've worked with, just based on recent history having worked with some more favorable point of view or not. So, uh principals have been great in respecting that we, as a B&G department, will still um have some of the final say on that, but it's only meant to be in support and for congruence with current practices. Thank you. Other questions? Dr. Hodak? >> When these projects are completed, will we hear that they're completed or what they were or something to that effect, and either from the building principal or from yourself? Yeah, Board Member Hodak, I think absolutely. I think it's

128a a bit of a celebration. I think there's going to be a lot of pride involved with those, um not just for the building principals, but hopefully the students themselves they can see some of the change that'll matter to them. So, we'll make it a point to be reporting back. Thank you. Other questions in the room? Dave, anything on the phone? Mr. Clevin took one of mine, so I only have one left. I I imagine this will build a tremendous amount of excitement, and and many of you have mentioned school pride. Uh Mr. Bambenek, can you remind us which set of schools would be in the next round, or has that not been determined yet? Yeah, Board Member Burger, it has been determined, but I don't know if I can remind you off the bat

129here. I'd have to find my notes. Or maybe Mr. Palmisano can remind us. Mr. Palmisano? >> Yeah, this year two will be Schroeder, South, Discovery, Ben Franklin, Lewis and Clark, and Winship. And year three will be Red River, Kelly, and Lake Agassiz. That was in a report we received at the uh facilities meeting at our last facilities meetings. Just happened to bring it with me. Mr. Burger, any follow-up? No, that's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Other questions? If none, the uh committee's recommendation on this one was uh for the school board to approve the uh first year allocations of use of the building fund for for the slice projects up to a maximum of 255,650 dollars. I would seek a motion. Jay has made a motion. Second. Is there a second? Mr. Larson

130has a second. We'll just take a roll call vote. Lund? Yes. Hodak? Yes. Manley? >> Yes. Flynn? Yes. Clevin? Yes. Larson? Yes. Burger? Yes. Palmisano? >> Yes. Anderson? Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. On to our third item, Mr. Bambenek. Thank you, Chair Anderson. So, this is consideration of use of building funds. So, this is that separate fund again, just for capital improvement, but at that district level, so not to not the principal or building allocations. So, this would be use of building fund dollars for roof restoration, and then the associated authorization to submit school construction approval requests and school facility plan. One more thing we have to do with projects that exceed certain thresholds. So, here, um what this is is something we had done actually a couple years ago. So,

131a few years back we had scanned our roofs um with uh a drone that could sense thermal loss or cooling loss, and you can get these hotspots where you take a closer look by doing borings into your roof, and you could find if there's damage to the insulation or the roofing. At the time we mapped a number of buildings and any hotspots, so to speak. Two years ago we began to address um a couple of those projects, um which I'm not recalling right now. Um but this is a continuation of that work now for two areas of concern, a portion of Schroeder Middle School's roof on the west side of the building, and a portion of Lake Agassiz's roof, the portion just above Head Start. Um through [clears throat] this process, just want to note

132on the the Through the process, the way we had done it before and intend to do it again is that the materials were procured through a state cooperative bid process, so they've already gone through the public requirements to bid for those materials themselves, but then we locally have bid out the labor for the installation. So, in this case, through the state purchasing contract with Weatherproofing Technologies, the total approximate the total approximately $276,944 would be for the materials with both roofs. A separate bid for that um installation I mentioned was we got a successful one qualified bid, but with Tecta America in the amount of $286,873 with some stipulated additional hourly rates, because once they get in there, if they should find that there is more uh damaged insulation or damage to the roof, they would

133be built in to be able to address that. In the cover memo here for the finance committee, I had included uh I had a typo, wrong number. I had the total estimated project cost, and what should read, like the finance committee memo that's included, it should read $563,817 um dollars. Uh and then that includes a 15% contingency to plan for that. So, ultimately here, the committee, after review of that project scope, recommended to the school board to consider approval of the roof restoration project and use of building fund dollars up to $648,390.16, and authorize the submission of the SFN and SFN 52813 to the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. And leading up to this point, I'd been holding as far as a preliminary budget number, uh 3/4 of a million dollars. So, um we

134were happy to see that that wasn't excessive amount to hold for this overall project, and optimistic that even with the contingency, it's going to be, you know, lower than the 648 for your consideration. Happy to answer any questions. Questions for Mr. Bambenek? Jay? And use of that state cooperative purchase agreement has been done in the past. Yes. >> And has been vetted and reviewed by legal counsel as appropriate. Yes, and it also um would have been a part of that audit that was just presented to you, and there was no associated finding. Thank you. Other questions? Dave, any questions on the phone? None for me. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing and hearing no other questions in the room, the committee recommendation to the school board was to approve the rest roof restoration project scope and

135building fund dollars use um up to $648,390.16, and authorize the submission of SFN and SFN 52813 to the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. Is there a motion for that? So moved. Jay, motion. Is there a second? Second. Bill, second. Take a roll call vote. Hodak? Yes. Larson? Yes. Flynn? Yes. Palmisano? Yes. Lund? Yes. Burger? Yes. Clevin? >> [snorts] >> Yes. Manley? Yes. Anderson? Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. To our next item, number four, Mr. Bambenek. Yeah, Chair Anderson, members of the board, last three items are a little bit smaller projects here. So, the first would be consideration of building fund use um to replace light fixtures at Discovery Elementary. School building's going on 20 years, we've started to see a number of them fail and I understand um the product

136is is not going to be available forever kind of thing. So the maintenance crew has asked about securing 75 light fixtures to go through what they would anticipate to be failures. So that wouldn't cover every single light fixture within the building but they would have it available so they're replacing and repairing those units as they break which again given that those fixtures are not going to be on the shelves for too much longer I understand is to secure the replacement instead of having to try to swap out and match light fixtures. The quote received included in the finance committee packet totals the amount of $38,385. The committee recommends building fund use dollars for building fund dollars for that purchase. Questions on this one for Mr. Bombach. Mr. Kleven. And thank you. And here we're just

137buying fixtures and warehousing them and installation will be by Grand Forks Public School staff at some point in the future. Is that accurate? Yeah, Grand Forks Public School District staff installation. They think they will try to take a large project attempt this summer to get most of those but there will be some that it wouldn't be replaced. They'd be there and ready for repair as soon as needed. Other questions? Dave, any questions on the phone? >> [clears throat] >> No, thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other questions in the room. Again the committee recommended the use of building fund dollars for this purchase of $38,385. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Bill makes a motion to approve. Jeff second. I'll take a roll call vote. Larson? Yes. Manley? Yes. Lunn? Yes. Palmisano? >>

138Yes. Hodak? Yes. Burger? Yes. Kleven? Yes. Flynn? Yes. Anderson? Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. On to item number five. Thank you, Chair Anderson. Item number five is a notice of committee action. So in this case it falls within the authority of the finance committee as treated as a change order. As to a project that has largely wrapped up but with Schroeder Middle School as a part of it some of the building was affected by the remodel for the safety and security on the east portion of the building. And we were able to find at the time two units I don't know a lot of the technical technical details of this but two units available for the air conditioners and so we snatched one up while they were still available to air

139condition a portion of that remodel and a few other buildings. So certainly doesn't address the entire need of air conditioning across Schroeder Middle School. But we got that on a affordable price and so with the project being under budget approximately $115,000 we did solicit a quote from Johnson Controls for installation of that unit at 47 500 done by crane gets up on the roof here. And so the committee finance committee considered that as a change order as a part of that project and approved the the labor contract to get that installed. Any questions? No no board action needed, correct? No board action required. Happy to stand for questions. Any questions for Mr. Bombach? Dave, any questions on the phone? No, thank you. Okay, thank you. Seeing or hearing none in the room we'll move on

140to our final item of the finance committee report item number six. Yeah, Chair this would again be a request for use for building fund dollars. So we do go through and screen and recoat our gym floors every single year like like regular out of the general fund but once every 8 to 10 years or so we need to do a full sanding and refinishing. Since this is the case for Grand Forks Central's main gym on the first floor. And so we've received a quote here to do just that work at 19,950. And we want to secure that but pay for it out of the building fund. So the request is for this board's consideration of use of building fund dollars for that activity. Questions for Mr. Bombach on this one. Seeing hearing none. Dave, any

141questions on the phone? No, thank you. Thank you. Anything further Mr. Bombach on this item? Okay. With that the committee did recommend that the board or the board approve up to 19,950 dollars in building fund dollars to sand and refinish the Central High School first floor gym. I would seek a motion. Mr. Manley. I would make a motion to approve. Thank you, Mr. Manley. I'll second. Dr. Hodak second. Roll call vote, please. Kleven? Yes. Larson? Yes. Palmisano? Yes. Lunn? Yes. Manley? Yes. Flynn? Yes. Hodak? Yes. Burger? Yes. Anderson? Yes. Nine yes, zero no, zero absent. Motion passes. Anything to wrap it all up, Mr. Bombach? Thank you for your time. All right, thank you. Moving on item number six on our agenda is other business. 6A announcements. Any announcements from anyone? Anything Dave from you

142on the phone? I don't have anything for 6A or 6B. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anything then for 6B board request for future consideration in the room? >> [snorts] >> Okay. Hearing seeing none we'll move on to 6C. Mr. Palmisano, how did we do? We did very well. Good discussion. Thank you. We are adjourned. Mr. Palmisano present.