Loyal Joint Board of Education Meeting, April 27th, 2026

001I'll call the meeting to order. Verification of agenda proceedings to TRSD school website. Walker. >> Here. >> Walker. >> Here. >> Warner. >> Here. >> Rowe. >> Here. >> I'm a Walker. >> Here. >> Yes. >> Here. >> Kristoff. >> Here. >> Nicky. >> Here. >> Matt. >> Tom. >> Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, we'll now open the public forum. I will invite the public to speak. All right. Let's slide that along to ad hoc committee reports. >> [snorts] >> So, the branding committee is on the agenda. Um, the question of logo colors used for co-op sports that we reviewed in the

002event of consolidation or until then. >> It was >> Either or. >> Yes, either or, but like every >> Are we using the Are we using the co-op that voted on Bucks logo and green, blue, and Are we using those colors now for That's the discussion. >> [clears throat] >> I think the reason why we brought it up to the joint boards was just that there was some question about, you know, moving forward with uniforms and things like that for different sports that we already have co-ops. Do we want to start using that? My only concern that I've thought about since we asked to bring this up was that um we'd be hard to use a logo yet, right? Because we don't have one and we also um said that that would come later if

003the consolidation passed and then we'd be looking at graphic design for a logo. So, it would more or less just be the name and colors, right, when I said Yeah. Yeah, I don't know if it's something that we, you know, gradually go into as sports are buying new uniforms and maybe change and we keep the black and gray and white until that, you know, I don't think we need to No. go buy all new just so they're the right colors, but >> Well, we're going to know in November if the consolidation goes through. And at that point we can then start transitioning to the new jerseys. I think up until that point either if the teams can hold off until then, we can have a discussion if the jerseys need to be ordered this year.

004But, if we waited until November, I don't think that really is that long a wait. >> The only thing that would be affected for next school year would be baseball, I think, because that's the only new co-op sport for next year, correct? And golf. So, and those are both spring sports, so we would know with enough time to order, I would think. >> Are there any fall sports that are up for new uniforms? >> I'm looking right now. I'll let you know in a minute. >> No, yeah, that would be the question. Would it be cross country or football? Volleyball is not co-op. >> So, next year it would be softball as well in the spring. >> All right, so no fall sports, no winter sports. [clears throat] So, that would seem good good shape.

005So, no action >> [clears throat] >> on any of that, just because we don't have to. Number seven, district administrative position. >> Question, are we going out of order of the agenda? >> Yes. >> Never mind. >> Oh, yeah, we're going in order. Taking care of the >> Okay. >> Hopefully quicker ones first, so we have longer time for discussion as needed. Um, district administrative position, this is on the agenda to clarify that in the In the of a consolidation, uh, the district administrator position would be a posted position. However, I do want to make sure that folks know it's a tight timeline with state statute and the renewal of administrative positions in the state of Wisconsin. So, and the board's aware of that, but they have made the commitment actually a few months ago

006um that the district administrator position would be posted. Um the discussion on that or >> I just wanted to mention I kind of throw this out there to the joint board's um So, lately, I don't know, last couple of years, I've seen more and more of when district administrators apply for positions doing it like a community night a community night where the applicants or people would go down however and then they come forward and do like a public question and answer presentation. I know Pittsville did it. Uh I believe Chilton High School did it or is doing it right now. Um is that something that we want to talk about or that we think should be important? >> I don't think that's something that we should shut out. If that's what the public wants, I

007don't see any problem in that. >> With respect With respect to that tight timeline, right? So, I mean once that is posted and done and I mean you got >> 4 weeks. >> So, I mean that's fine, but I understand that we can't sit there and open up a letter. We're going to have 3 weeks for you to sign up at the end of this committee and then you got this committee to be You got 3 days, here's a notice, here are the applicants listing just so we're aware that, right? >> Yeah, Sean, I think what we would do is as part of the interview process, the final three or five, whatever that number is, part of your interview includes a community session. So, that would that would speed up the timeline maybe. >> And

008then my other question is um as far as interviewing that those applicants, how do we want to do that? Like do we want to mix um board members, teachers, staff? Because usually it's the district administrator doing all the interviews, right? So, no? No, not for an administrator, but in other positions that are posted, it's usually the administrator and then some other admin staff. I'm just curious as to how we're going to determine who's interviewing that. >> Um when we were looking at administration in Wild Rose, it was the board. And there were a few teachers on it. So, I think the joint board can have a discussion on that. In Greenwood and Nekoosa, it's always been the board for that position. >> I would strongly support the staff also having a pivotal role on it.

009>> Moving on. Varsity golf. >> The uh varsity golf co-op has deadlines for next year of May 1st for approval. So, um that's on the agenda for discussion and possible approval um to We already co-op JV golf um this year, but to co-op add varsity golf as a co-op for next year, it has to be done by May 1st. Any discussion on that? This is Mary's mentioned a little bit about this. >> Sure. >> Mr. [clears throat] St. Mary's our golf court coach. Right now we have you can explain it. How many numbers we got at each school? >> So we currently have 11 student athletes out for golf. That includes 10 from Loyal and one from Greenwood. I know when we talked about this a couple months ago, there was also another school that

010we were looking at as a potential to co-op with. But after kind of being in golf for a little bit, I noticed that that team and us have the highest numbers on the east side of the conference and however you want to look at it, you can only have five that are a part of your varsity golf team. So with our numbers kind of where they currently are and we've been very competitive on the east side of the conference. I just think it's a nice step to you know, be co-op with just Loyal and Greenwood for golf. With our varsity program next year. >> Any questions Mark? >> I'll make a motion that we do co-op next year. >> Second the motion to co-op. >> Motion made and seconded to co-op with golf. All in

011favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? >> I'll make a motion to approve co-op with golf with Greenwood for school year. >> 2027 season. >> Motion made and seconded. >> 2026. >> Two years, yes. >> So it's two years. >> Okay, motion on the second. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Motion passes. All right, we'll move back up to the consolidation plan. >> Hello. All right. Good evening, everybody. For those of you who don't know me, I am Megan Prestegaard. I am the consultant for the consolidation team, and I'll let the rest of our team introduce themselves. >> Hey guys, we're back for more. So, Becca Coleman with Byron Construction, part of the consolidation team. >> Hello. Uh Jim Rubert, Parkhill Smith & Cooper. >> Brad Childress, uh architect, HSR Associates. >> All right. Um for

012those of you who are [clears throat] are sitting in tonight learning more about the process, I will get into what this group of individuals has been doing for the last couple months. But before I do that, overall tonight, there's going to be a few slides that recap where we've been and where we are, so that everyone everyone in here today can be on the same page, and then majority of this meeting today is for this team to discuss next steps. So, with that being said, the process. All right. Um again, for those of you in the room who are part of the joint task force, you've lived this. But for those of you who are here today to hear um conversation, this group of individuals uh was asked in Jan- January of 2026 to join

013a task force. And so, we strategically picked 12 individuals from each community to represent and be the voice of the community with the goal of providing a community perspective in regards to consolidation. And overall, they formally met six times and looked at qualitative and quantitative data. And for the first three meetings, there was a lot of foundational information when it came to enrollment trends, facilities, financial information, and then for the last three meetings or so, there's been a lot of discussion as to what possible consolidation could look like, where students are going, how buildings are configurated. And that is what majority of tonight's going to be about. So, although this group will not provide a formal recommendation to the joint boards, the intent is for everyone here to share their perspective. It's not about debating

014the process, it's about sharing the outcomes of what you hope for the future of these districts. So, that being said, I'll let Becca share the results from the last joint task force meeting. >> Okay, so the last time we met was 2 weeks ago and that was our sixth joint task force meeting. Here are some shared priorities that we heard after six meetings. Number one, student experience is important. Community identity and pride is important. Responsible use of existing facilities and fiscal responsibility. We boiled all of that feedback from everybody, that seemed to be very prevalent themes. Considerations, of course, are transportations and logistics, keeping students together, impact to each community, and then, of course, cost, value, and long-term fiscal impacts. Uh this picture up here, you guys have in your packet, too. That was a

015picture of the voting after meeting number six, showing that for first choices. Uh what does this tell us? We have Like I said, there was two primary pathways, three and eight. Neither received 60% supermajority, which we laid as a groundwork of something to uh recommend to the joint boards this month. Um both communities value the presence of a high school in their town. And pathway two was most commonly the second choice. Other pathways received limited support and we're not exploring those at this meeting today. >> Uh one of the questions that came up through conversations was uh frequently asked about the consolidation study that happened in 2006. Um this is a review for everybody that's part of the joint uh task force. But basically in 2006, um there was a recommendation for a high school

016to be in Loyal, uh junior high to be in Greenwood, and then elementary schools be located in both towns. Um the the discussion really at that point then went forward um with a uh referendum in November 6, 2007, ultimately uh rejecting this solution. Um so we took a different approach and really took this as um wanting to bring the community in um to the conversations up front to really help to guide the conversations. Um previously, um they really leveraged data. Um what we really wanted to have many more conversations about the community dynamics between these two. Uh we'll go over briefly the three pathways um that got the most votes as part of this. It was Loyal and Loyal and Loyal there. Uh this pathway eight um received 12 first uh first choice votes and

017two second choice votes. Um with the the key concepts with this is that pathway eight um had the high school, um, within Royal facility, as well as, uh, elementary school. Um, this facility at Greenwood would have the middle school. Um, there was a lot of conversation about, uh, what the grade configuration for the middle school could be. Um, and there was some consensus that it would be, um, maybe a little bit larger middle school to better accommodate some of the student, uh, numbers within here. Um, basically, um, this pathway with it, as well as pathway three, um, it's a very, uh, straightforward and simple pathway. Um, doesn't have a lot of logistical, um, that maybe some of the other pathways have behind it. Um, a lot of the transportation and a lot of the conversations

018about that are simplified because you are the designated school, um, for the high school in particular. It does, uh, similar to pathway three, it does pick the high school location, um, and has potential to repeat some of the same previous studies. Do you have any questions? Uh, pathway number three, um, similar, um, the main difference is, uh, different allocation for where the high school location is. Um, this one puts the high school, uh, at Greenwood facility, um, and this one received 10 first choice votes and three second choice votes. Um, otherwise, other than swapping the schools, um, had a lot of the similarities and some of the differences between them. Um, really, um, creates a lot of efficiencies, uh, similar to pathway eight, as well. Um, pathway two, um, did receive, uh, received two, um,

019first choice votes, but it did receive the most second choice votes. Um, logistically, like we reviewed as part of the task force meetings, um, it does require, um, further logistics and, uh, especially relating to transportation and staffing. Um, so, kind of highlights some of the logistical side of this Um, just because it's a little a little more to understand that's behind it. The main difference is that basically we're doing east-west high school within this pathway and doing a specialty focus. When we say specialty focus high school model, it's taking all the strengths of the facilities and all the staff and really creating a educational environment that aligns with that, creating different opportunities at each of the facilities. It does require some logistical planning for maybe where the base campus would be for those students, but

020does maintain a base high school at each of the each of the different communities. Some of the base campus assignments again reviewed for many people in the task force, but the goal of this would be the majority of the classes would be at your base base high school within this. And that travel would be limited and really for a course that maybe isn't offered at the other facility. The goal of this would be to minimize this. The other goal would be to phase into this. This wouldn't be something that maybe would happen in year one or in year two, but would take some time to kind of phase into it. We want to minimize that daily travel back and forth and just that flexibility for both students and staff would need to be maintained. Some

021of the questions that we heard regarding this pathway were logistical around the travel and the cost itself. So, preliminary analysis of some of the costs associated with this potential pathway breaking apart. So, if we were to make four trips back and forth between there, $71 basically a trip, it would be right around $50,000 in yearly costs to have this pathway. For context, the overall transportation costs between the two deserts is roughly $31,000. So, it's something to take into account. Um so, the other questions that we heard of how to basically how does this model work? Um and we talked about the base campus and that each student would be assigned basically one one pathway to really minimize the shuttle time time and costs within that and some of the flexibility. Um we'd want to encourage

022maybe up to some virtual learning to reduce those trips as well as moving teachers in certain circumstances, not students. Um really the goal of this would be minimal impact on the local busing with expanding student opportunities. I guess we walked over those three different options and made most of the time to really review as a joint task force and my board here. >> Uh thank you for the presentation and as alluded to this is kind of the part of the the meeting tonight that we really want to focus most of the time on. I want to begin by by thanking both both task forces from both communities. Uh it's a big undertaking and it's a big responsibility. Uh apologize to those who did not get out of this what what they were hoping to. Um

023that being said, I agree with Megan that we we we need to move forward tonight and instead of rehashing all what what didn't work, I I really think we need to focus on what we can move forward with. Um I I know it's my my assumption and I I believe it's the board's assumption that we will have a question on this November ballot and we need to move forward with that tonight. Jamie, do you have anything to add to that? >> No, I think you pretty much hit it on the head other than I'd like to thank my earning HR S for their H S I, sorry. For your input on all this and appreciate it. >> So, I'm really hoping for an open and an honest discussion tonight. I sure hope that we can

024be respectful with opinions and thoughts, but also have a good dialogue to go along with that. With that said, does anybody want to go first? Mary, I'll just pass the mic down to you. I think and this is this is for my own If If you do speak, please state your name cuz I I don't actually know everybody in the room right now. >> You know me. Okay, so I'm Mary Denk. I am a Greenwood task force committee member, also parent of a middle school and elementary child. Um so, I have to write this down otherwise I start to babble. So, bear with me. It's a little lengthy, but important stuff. So, um I joined the joint task force committee because I genuinely wanted to be a part of our two communities working together to

025create the best possible future for our students. My intention [clears throat] from the very beginning was to listen, understand the information presented, and explore how our facilities and resources could be used to support long-term growth and opportunity. Last Monday's meeting, however, raised some concerns for me. I believe strongly that for a project of this scale, we need clear communication, accurate information, and a shared commitment to doing what is best for our students. When misunderstandings or inaccurate statements circulate, it becomes difficult for our communities to make informed decisions. And that affects the future of all of our children. I would like to address a few of the topic topics that came up during the meeting. First, creating our own pathways. Um I would like the joint school boards to know that pathways 8, 9, and 10

026were not developed by Myron and HSR, but were instead suggested by community members. While their input is appreciated, it's unclear whether they have the necessary background in building structure or space utilization. Therefore, it may be appropriate to focus on pathways that have been developed by qualified professionals. Second, the idea of placing all students into one building. Every one of us understands there's no funding currently available to make improvements to any of the existing buildings. This proposal in boy involves placing all students in Loyal, which would result in larger class sizes and limited space on the current layout. This naturally leads to questions about how that building would be reconfigured and how those changes would be funded. Many of us supported a two-building concept, and it's not clear why that direction has shifted. We've heard repeatedly

027that Loyal's facility does not have enough space to house all grades and programs. This suggests the focus is not on what is best for students, but on where programs are located. Space is an important factor, and it deserves careful consideration. The experts did not recommend this as a primary pathway, and I believe that should guide our thinking. Third, this the discussion about special classes. To clarify this, it refers to advanced or college-level courses not special education. These opportunities are important for our students to prepare for their future. Reducing or eliminating them would limit what our district can offer. I believe many in our community expect a school system that provides more than the bare minimum and that gives students every opportunity to succeed. This way of thinking would not attract families or support long-term growth.

028Fourth, concerns about parking. While logistics matter, I hope we can keep our focus on educational quality. Parking is something that can be addressed, but it shouldn't overshadow the core issue, which should be the quality of education we provide. Parking is not a reason to limit academic opportunities. Fifth, statements about where certain classes would be held. There were comments suggested that specific classes would be in Greenwood. To my knowledge, no decisions like that have been made. It's important that we avoid assumptions so we don't unintentionally create confusion or tension. There was also some confusion about the projected $1.5 million in savings. This figure represents anticipated taxpayer savings. It is not additional money available for new spending. I want to emphasize that everyone is entitled to their opinions. Clarifying these points helps ensure we're all working from

029the same understanding. But as we move forward, it is essential that our decisions are based on facts and information provided by the experts we hired. I want to acknowledge the work done by Myron and HSR. Their presentations were thorough and informative and I appreciate the time and effort they put into helping us understand the options. I left this meeting feeling that our discussions are becoming increasingly divided. When that happens, it becomes harder to focus on what matters most, providing the best educational opportunities and environment for our students. There are There appears to be a lot of friction within our communities, which makes it difficult to move forward constructively. As this process continues, the school boards will be the will be leading the effort to determine the most responsible and effective path ahead. You have the

030expertise to understand buildings, the educational needs, and the long-term planning required. My hope is that you can guide this process with openness, collaboration, and shared commitment to our collective goals. The alternative is waiting for the state to step in and make decisions for us, which I don't believe serves anyone well. My concern is simple. I want all our children to have access to strong academic programs, adequate space, and opportunities that prepare them for their future. I appreciate the time and effort everyone has put into this process, and thank you for allowing me to be a part of it. I hope we can refocus on our shared priorities and work together toward a solution that truly benefits all our students. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mary. Any board members have questions specifically to the middle schools?

031Anybody like to follow that up? I guess I'm I'm just curious. Having gone through the middle schools and the entire task force, having gone through your six weeks of of the consultants presented to you, does anybody on the task force think that we don't need to look at consolidation? I know that's that would put you in a weird spot right now, but I just you know, we've tried this before historically [clears throat] and it's failed and I think if you asked that question 20 years ago, I think there would be hands that were raised. So, seeing no hands raised, I I think it now, again, something needs to be done. We're We're getting to the point now where we don't want to go to an operational referendum that passes. So, I think by asking that

032question and nobody raising their hand, that I think that shows the board that we need to come up with a plan. Is that a fair assumption? Okay. Um Does anybody want to expand on that thought? >> Hi. Hi. My name is Jenny Race. Um I have four children. Um two and a half of which have graduated already. The other one is pretty much checked out but not officially graduated and the final is in sixth grade. Um and I think that was a great question to ask because that was rolling through my mind. At at no point were we ever Did we ever have that conversation, do we want to consolidate, yes or no? So, I think um my feeling is we all want to see that on the ballot. It's just a matter of which

033pathway and I think we're at an agreement that we will not come to an agreement and I think from this point we need to give that to our school board. If you look at the top two pathways and and we've all voted [clears throat] for you, I think we should put our trust in you as to what pathway you're for or against because I think they both have pros and they both have cons. >> I know that it's really intimidating to ask you guys to come here and sit in a half circle and talk in a microphone and that's really hard to do. Um, some of us don't have a choice. We were elected to do this and and the rest of you, um, we asked to do this and to be a part of

034this and I know it might seem really intimidating to come forth and have to share your thoughts, but I really think it's important that you do that. So, I know that it's really hard like we're all live streamed and everybody's watching and everybody's waiting for something, but this is what like specifically myself for sure I've asked for. Like I've wanted to talk to the task force, hear your thoughts good, bad, indifferent, hopefully more good than bad so we can move forward, but I know it's intimidating, but I'm I'm asking for you guys to please share with us because the working knowledge, right? Up here. We have really big decisions to make and they are not easy. In fact, they're one of the hardest things I've had to probably do because we know how many people

035are counting on us and it's a lot. And that's why we've asked you guys to help us. So, I'm I know it's hard to talk in a microphone. I know you don't want to maybe share, but we need you to. Please. >> And just jumping off of Crystal saying, I mean, for the board members that we're not part of the committee or not we're you guys have more information on this than we do. So, it is important that you think something is important, please pass that on to us tonight. Um I I felt kind of yearning for more information as we've gone through this and I know there's several board members that you know, if we're not part of it, we've gotten some information, but nowhere as near as much as you guys have, so

036please feel free to talk. >> I'm Nick Stalets from Greenwood. Um Yeah, I graduated, one get ready to walk out the doors, and then I got home for uh next year. So, we all have the same goal here. We want to do what's best for our communities, what's best for our kids. But clearly there's a lot of emotions with that, which is a good thing. That shows that you have school pride, community pride. But you look at the numbers, we're stronger together. Um we need to do something. We can still have that community pride, that school pride together. Um what it just boils down to is we got to try we got you guys have to try [clears throat] to set that emotion aside and do what's best for the students. That's basically what it

037boils down to. Um we clearly our last meeting, there was a lot of emotions flying around, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I do think that just shows the pride that people have in their communities and the fear. Change is hard. I mean, it's a huge decision, but we've seen some other districts in the area that have all kinds of pride and they've got themselves in corners that we don't want to get to. We don't want the state to have to decide what our future is. Um right now it's our opportunity to decide what our future looks like. So, I think this is scary for both communities, but I think in the long run it's not as scary is not as what would happen as we didn't do something and we had a

038referendum not pass. So, we need to work together and we need to do what's right for the kids, so they still have a solid education cuz making cuts is not what we need. We need to give our kids opportunities for the careers to for whatever they choose, whether that's joining the workforce, going to tech school, or going to college, or whatever they may want to do, but that's why they attend school and that's what the school's here for. >> Bear with me. I am not a public speaker, so if I follow, I'm very sorry. Thank you for letting me know. I'm Megan Paul. and I live in the Royal Community. I have two kids, one in elementary and one in middle school right now that will be in high school and junior high at the

039Department of Sanitation. So, I want to begin by thanking Myrna and HSR for the significant amount of work they put in gathering the data and facilitating these discussions. That time and effort is recognized and appreciated. I also want to acknowledge the strength of both Greenbrier and Royal. These are proud communities with deep roots in their schools and a shared dedication to provide the best possible education for their students. That commitment is evident and is something we all value. At the same time, it is clear that this is a difficult decision because both communities feel strongly about what they don't want to lose. That makes finding the right path forward even more important. As we evaluate the options, I do want to express a concern I had about option two that has been presented to us.

040At times, it has felt as though the guidance from Myrna and HSR have been buzzing in this direction. While retaining two schools may seem like a compromise, the additional emphasis on programming has come across as an effort to further position it as the preferred choice. Although this option has been presented as having no initial financial impact, it's important to recognize that future investment will likely be required to support expanding high school specialty programs. That raises the question of whether this is truly a viable option as it currently stands. Programming can certainly be a positive opportunity, but it should not be the primary selling point, especially when there's no guarantee it can be fully implemented on day one. At this stage, the focus should not be on expanding or enhancing programming, but rather on how remaining

041open to possibilities as a plan becomes more clearly defined. If this model were to go public, it should not be presented with promises of specialized programming. We must be careful not to oversell an option simply to gain support and then risk not being able to deliver. Maintaining trust with our communities is critical. This is connected to a broader concern, the need for clear and well-defined plan. If we as the community as a community still questions and uncertainties, it is reasonable to expect the voters will as well. The community needs to see how this will work in practice to believe and support the change. While financial responsibility is important, our first priority must be what is in the best interest of the students. We all want to provide as many opportunities as possible, but if we

042do not have a clear and sustainable path for our programming and how will we deliver it, it becomes difficult to support the model that relies on it. There are also several practical and social considerations that need to be addressed. Operating two campuses introduces logistical changes which my nature has already occurred in this multiple times. If we want to limit student travel, that likely means teachers would need to travel between the buildings, which impacts scheduling, staff workload, and consistency for students. Additionally, if grade levels are split, advanced courses may need to be offered at both locations rather than in a shared setting, which could further stretch staffing and resources. We also need to consider the daily impact on families such as buildings potentially needing to be open at earlier to accommodate drop-off of siblings attending different

043campuses. This type of scheduling shift could have a ripple effect on students, particularly older students, impacting their ability to participate in clubs and extracurriculars due to altered schedules and transportation constraints. Beyond logistics, there are important social and emotional impacts to consider as well. Separating students based on program or campus could affect peer relationships, social networks, and a student's overall sense of belonging, especially if they feel disconnected from the larger student body. Programs such as FFA, FCCLA, FBLA and others could also feel the impact of split campuses as students may have fewer opportunities to come together, collaborate and build the connections that make those organizations successful and what we've grown to be already. Our schools serve as a central hub for the community, bringing together students of all backgrounds, abilities and needs. Splitting campuses risks weakening

044that sense of community and could impact how well we continue to serve all students, including those who rely on shared support and inclusive opportunities. Keeping grade levels together can strengthen both communities over time. It provides students with a broader peer group, helping them build connections and find where they belong. It also creates more meaningful opportunities for programming as those opportunities can be offered under one roof, allowing more students to benefit without having to choose between locations. Locations based on a special to specific program. We need to be honest about the goal of this process. If we continue to separate students across two campuses, we are not truly bringing the communities together. We are simply We would simply be easing tensions in the short term. Ultimately, this decision isn't about easing tensions today. It's about building

045something stronger for tomorrow. If we're not truly bringing our students and communities together, then we need to ask ourselves if we're we're solving the right problem. We want to secure the future of our school, not just the next 5 years, but the next 10, 15 and longer. >> [clears throat] >> Megan, can I just just a a clarification or a follow-up? Uh Obviously, it the two school model does raise tons of logistical questions, and some of which, you know, even if the referendum passes in November, we would have 18 months to plan out. Now, I understand we need to probably have a more definitive plan in place prior to that, but even if a plan were to be put together this summer, we we would all understand that that plan would have to be very

046fluid, right? So, knowing that, if the boards were to task administration with presenting a plan in a month for the public to see, is that something that we could then build off of? Because what I'm hearing and what we've heard is two-school model has tons of questions, and we need to see a plan. So, if we give them the opportunity to to present that plan, would that be a then a viable option for the plan to be presented? >> Thank you. It has to go back to the community as a whole. At that point, I think I don't From what I've heard from most people is because they're they're not aware of the options to begin with yet. They don't know what to believe or where to go. >> So, I'm going to piggyback off

047that. H S administration when we first started this said, "Guys, you said the parameters. What is it that your communities want ready to increase students?" And overwhelmingly, it has been tech, specialty classes, all that. So, they didn't steer us in that direction. We kind of steered them that way. We said those are opportunities for us. No, that's not all that we're going to operate the school, but that is where the future is going, right? It's just part of it. Now, that doesn't mean that's going to be the main focus in 5, 6 years, cuz we don't know what that looks like yet, right? So, that's fair. That's a fair question. Um the term I heard was splitting schools. I I don't look at it like that. I look at it like utilizing assets, right? Cuz

048that's what we're trying to do. Uh we have two viable buildings. We got to use them. So, whether there's one class here or there, whatever that might be, we don't know what that is yet, but Mr. Wyer's point, we can figure that out, right? And the other part of this is these kids are getting older when they go to school, they're going to be split up into the stuff that they want to do. So, the folks that are into the welding are going to be with the welders, and the nursing students are going to be with the nursing students. By doing this, we're allowing them to see this sooner and probably helping them succeed as they get into the college. What an What an asset they would have out of that, right? Nobody else around

049here does that. So, there's a lot of things, right? We We don't know yet exactly what's going to work, but the end theory we asked for this and told HSR planner that's what we wanted because the numbers prove that, right? So, I just want to point that out. >> So, we were steering them in that direction, though. >> They asked the questions for what was important to our communities, and that is one of many things that was brought up, but it's not the only thing that was brought up. >> I don't think it was any one person's specifically. It was at that first community meeting when we had the right like when not just the task force, the whole community was invited. Right? Like that is That was that direction. It wasn't the administration or

050the boards. That was the the community people that showed up at that first meeting that Myrick and HSR put on. They asked, "What do you want to see?" And that was perfect. >> I mean, for me, it's two things that were were driving us at the board and to you guys, one was opportunities, which I I think that's where that kind of falls in. And then, secondly is efficient use of buildings, taxpayer money, you know, those were kind of the two two things that were driving this conversation. So. >> I I think it's important to also point out that when these conver- conversations did begin, the original concept was a three-school model, and I think that's all of that was missed. So, there has been some progress made in and listening to options. Now, Megan,

051to your point, you had said you don't think people know the pathways yet. So, do you think we need to do more outreach and showing them or expand on that a little bit, please? >> Um I think knowledge is power, and if you want a community that is going to back a decision, they need they need to know what the intent of that decision is. >> So, you think the board, like at our next school board meeting, should present 8-9-10 two or >> No. I think as a board, it's ultimately your decision what pathway you choose to take this consolidated school district at. What I'm recommending or suggesting is that you present that very thoroughly to the schools. My concern is we all had questions when we were looking at these different pathways. The logistics,

052the questions I could couldn't be answered, and we understand they can't be answered until a pathway is chosen. But, when that pathway is chosen, I think the community would appreciate those answers coming forward because if we have them as a joint task force, the community is going to have them as well. So, just to take our our questions and our concerns and format that response to the community. >> I just want to add that there was a a comment that was made to me and and the individual had said, "I can support really any pathway if there are clear benefits to our students." And I think that a lot of people would feel that way. But for me and maybe a lot of people, what's missing right now is the are those clear benefits to

053our students. We've talked a lot about opportunities and classes and I agree with with Megan when she said, you know, we we don't want to oversell this to get a yes vote and then have to go back on what we said. So, I think just to maybe piggyback off of you or I guess even support what you're saying is that I think a lot of people, I would say an overwhelming majority of people want this to pass if >> [clears throat] >> we can show them clear benefits to our students. And right now, I think that's where a lot of people feel in limbo is we haven't really given them the clear benefits yet. So, I don't know yet to your point about do we ask the administration to come up with kind of a

054an outline or something to show and maybe that would help because I think it would help for me as well because I don't we can speculate on clear clear benefits and we can come up with and brainstorm, but we but it's hard to it's hard to know what those are when we haven't really had those for sure discussions yet if that makes sense. >> I also would to with that. My name is Calvin Royal. I also would agree with that. If you do not present a laid out well thought out plan to the public, you will not get it to pass. You need to do your homework. Don't be in a hurry. This November deadline, it doesn't have to be November. It could be November of next year or 2 years. There is no hurry

055on this. I get it we want to consolidate, we want to save money. I I think we all want to. We want to invest for our kids, but there is nothing saying it has to happen this November. If you don't put out the plan with proper data and information for everybody to accurately vote on it and feel comfortable with, you will not pass this referendum or this will >> As far as data and stuff, um it's kind of hard to put something out when you don't know what the kids are asking for in school. So, yeah, we got to ask the kids and we can only speculate and we don't want to oversell like Megan said. We can't. Because we don't know what the kids want, we can give them guidance and that needs to

056be a work out from there. >> Okay, I got a couple things. Just uh 20 local um from Royal for a lot of years in the high school there. Um My two of my kids graduated. I got one as a sophomore. I got about 10 great nephews and nieces coming through the schools, right? So, there's a vested interest in this for me, but uh I would agree that change is hard. No matter what pathway, there's going to be initial disruption whether that be staffing, uh kids school choice and all that. Um I'm going to go over the map here, so try to stay stay with me, but uh one thing that surprised me was a consolidated district, the mill rate really does drop significantly. So, that that stuck out to me. Referendums do not go

057away, though. So, I just I think that's the key point. I think some people just think once we get this together, a lot of our problems are solved, and that's not necessarily the case. Which is why they're using the combination of a solid path with some financial responsibility. Um Retrofitting buildings in this scenario is not, you know, the easiest way to look at it. It is what it is. It is what we have. We don't have the pathway of building a new building, at least not right now. One thing that I think is kind of being missed here, no matter what the path is, I think there'll be more kids in each building after this is said and done than there is currently. So, I think that's kind of, you know, maybe to the point

058efficiently using the buildings. Um A key point that I think is important for the benefit of the students is the stability of the teachers and staff. Because right now it's tough to keep teachers on a year-to-year basis. Um I feel like at least in Loyal it's somewhat used as a stepping stone for for uh teachers to get their 2 years in and move on to a better district uh for a more financially sound district. One thing that hasn't been discussed is what is this going to look like in 2 or 3 years? If we look backwards 3 or 5 years, would we have, you know, regretted some of the things that happened then? So, in my opinion, in 2 or 3 years, things are going to look so different that maybe the whatever these paths

059are need to change and be adjusted. So, the The school board is going to have a lot of decisions um that that are going to be on their plate. So, that's important going forward, too. So, I guess to wrap it up, I I just think you know, key key points are that this does not solve our referendum problem unless the state steps in and starts funding the schools um like they did 25 30 years ago. But, there are definite benefits if the if the right paths are are chosen. >> What right path? >> I want to just clarify a couple things. Um to Scott's point about the referendum timeline, it is not absolutely uh essential that you put this to a referendum vote in November. However, um both boards did vote to do that. There

060is a way to undo that, but right now I'm standing that there will be a vote on November ballot. Um also, we have to remember a timeline. The reason that the joint board decided to put this on a November ballot uh was to avoid both districts going to an individual referendum. Remember, individual referendums expire in 2028. There is no 2027 November election, so the this cannot go on a November 2027 ballot. There will not be an election next November. Those only happen in even years. So, it would have to wait 2 years unless the joint boards decided to adopt either the 12-month or 14-month option. If they did that, we would have They would have to look at a shorter timeline to adopt a resolution to consolidate and put a very specific plan that I

061hear people asking for together. The reason that the joint board decided to go with the 18-month plan was to allow adequate time to make the transition from individual school districts to a consolidated district. Okay? If the joint boards move and wait 2 years, both boards, both districts would have to go to an operational referendum on their own because their current operational referendum would have would be expired. So, that planning would have to start now. And I just for full transparency, we have had conversations with Baird both as a joint board and as a joint task force saying that in order to maintain status quo, our districts would both see an increase in the need for operational referendum dollars um on our own. Uh Greenwich operational referendum would be somewhere in the 1.9 million. Uh Hoyleton,

062I believe is somewhere in the 2.2 to 2.3 to 2.5 million dollars. Both would have an increase. So, all of those would have to be weighed out if if we're going to wait if it's possible to wait. But, as of now, both boards have do have a standing motion and an approval to put it on November 2026 ballot. >> Just uh feedback off that, if it does not if it goes November does not pass, then both districts will be looking at getting for April 28th operating referendum because if it doesn't pass there, we would go April 28th for a second chance at that. So, you have money for 28-29 school year. So, so the timeline is is important and it is that's why the joint boards it [clears throat] went out this afternoon. >> Just

063to clarify, if I'm not saying you should, but if the joint boards decided to change our timeline, we could do it to a 12-month or 14-month if you undid our motion or whatever. And then that would mean that we could put a question on April ballot, but then potentially if it said no, then we're putting ourselves in a different predicament with our operational referendum, correct? Okay. >> Yeah, I don't because all we've talked about is the 18-month timeline starting in December of 2026. We would have to go back in and check on the specific timeline for a 12-month or 14-month, but those are the three options by statute. There's a 12-month option, a 14-month option, and an 18-month option. I don't off the top of my head know the exact timeline for for those, but

064those are the the three options. >> But just to be clear, the reason we picked November was because if it's a no, we have to have that like April, we need to go to referendums ourselves. >> That's right. We back we we we worked our way backwards from when both of our referendums expire, and they expire in 2028. So, in order to believe in order to utilize and and maximize what both of our community communities [clears throat] have graciously given us in in referendum ballot so far. We backed [clears throat] that up 18 months to and also to give us the most planning time and that's November of 2026. Also keeping in mind that there are only November elections in even years. >> [sighs] >> So while it's possible, it's not it's not a it's

065not a definite thing. >> That would be my opinion. >> Uh Steve Turner was showing us four feet per man school. Is there anything you guys want to ask us right off the top of your head? A separate pathway that we can explain more deeply to you. What information you're looking for exactly? >> I I got a couple of questions. Yeah. So you guys worked with the team over there that hired to help you out and answer all the questions and stuff like that. I heard from a few of the people that you had already spoken to members that didn't have enough information. Were those questions asked so they had the appropriate information so you guys could come, you know, have all of your questions answered? I just want to make sure you had all

066your questions answered from the specialists that were there. Uh I'm just concerned that if you didn't ask those questions, why didn't you ask those questions when you were >> Uh Uh, to me they had all the topics that I needed to know to move forward but to other people it did not present >> I'm a man of integrity and loyal. I have grandchildren that are going through the school district at this time. Uh, and in the sense of what's some questions I did not have many that were answered at meetings but I did ask questions to all about uh, how they came to their conclusions being presented and things of that order and I did not receive uh, any answers on those. A couple of them about the how much the tracks and one in

067particular about how they came to their dollars on certain items and I did not receive that information from them. And you're referring to the dollars of like the cost of how cost of sundry modeling and things of that nature. >> I just like I the first question I didn't hear from you again to the track. >> Correct. Correct. Pathway. >> The tracks. >> The track. I had some I had a one of the one of the survey questions that was presented to that. Uh, and I had to ask about a certain one and it was not brought up until our last meeting. >> I apologize for that if that was a miss in my capacity but the cost for the renovation was brought up in meeting number three, I'm sorry, four and then we elaborated

068on it in meeting number five. >> I asked about the formulas and how they came to those numbers. >> We presented the We We presented the overall cost based off of what the space program is today. It's not fully designed because that would cost money to fully design. Districts typically don't do that up front. Therefore, we're working off of a square foot dollar amount. >> Was there any other questions that you guys want to clarify that will help out you and the board? >> So, I just want to piggyback. You You were given the numbers and you were questioning how they come up with the numbers. >> Correct. Correct. I was questioning on how they came up with them and what was the how they came up with Okay. Yes, I understand the square footage,

069but there is an assumption that said $200 per square foot is what you normally would come up with for a dollar amount on an estimate. >> I think the principal from Oil has two two girls go through almost like a fifth grader this year. >> Um I was part of the task force. Met a lot of good people. It's very obvious that Oil wants a high school at Oil View and Greenwood. I do believe I think if we had the I think it was Some people I think could get behind if we had a little more how would that look for us? Suzy or Johnny or one of the actual books that I think you know, some people get behind that I don't I think that's the only one that passed in November. I don't

070know. >> Um my name is Corey Thomas. Uh serving at Greenwood Summit. Um give three kids that just recently graduated from Greenwood. Um I think there's been a lot of good points tonight. Um I was on the school board in '06 uh when this the last uh referendum question about consolidation was made. Um I I really think that the amount of information and data that we've been provided but also the joint task force themselves, this wasn't uh part of that process at all. So that that really does make me hopeful um that we can um consolidate. I I think all of us just just based off uh no one raising their hand uh in terms of everyone believes that us together is going to be much stronger for our kids, for our community. Um I

071I I talking about two, I I agree with everything that people have been saying. Um it is definitely the biggest risk reward uh one out there. I mean done well, it could be a shining star. Done poorly and it it it could um really hurt our district. Um so that being said, like do we have enough time to to come up with that that plan that voters can get behind? Do we have the staff and and the expertise to be able to come up with that plan? Um [clears throat] there's questions. So I mean I think you know, the more time to be able to do that is is going to be necessary. Um Yeah, I would agree with your assessment that three and eight probably are not going to pass. Um I agree with

072two probably does. But that's >> [clears throat] >> Is there anybody else from the task force that that would like to say something at this time? >> Well, I'm Eliza Borzenik. I obviously am on the Green Mountain Board and was part of the task force. Um I really think that one thing that we didn't talk about that much today maybe in hindsight just thinking about it sitting here was like, "Oh, maybe I should have asked those questions." was when we talked about which town to have the high school in, it was always just, you know, okay, you want it in your town, right? Like everybody wants it in their town. But we didn't really specifically besides like physical space talk about what would be more accommodating to different offerings like different, you know, obviously we

073talked a lot about tech ed and that's one thing, but there are a lot of other specialty classes, so that's something that we didn't really point out and talk about a lot saying like, "Okay, well, these are the strengths of this building." And we talked about Greenwood shop is a strength in my opinion and I think most of us could agree that we have more physical space. Outside of that one thing, we didn't really talk about, "Well, this is better for a high school because of this." Or this is better for a middle school or an elementary school because of this. And I think if we move forward with either pathway three or eight, we need to determine what those strengths are to be able to do present it to the public. Honestly, I I

074agree with David and with Troy that I think pathway two has a really high risk-reward. And it makes me very nervous because we deal with logistical challenges now with some of our co-op things. And the more we do it, the more logistically complex it gets. And Megan, I really appreciated your comments about separating kids because that is a real thing. Like people want to go to school with their friends. So, I hadn't really thought about that. So, thank you for bringing that up. But I think that's something that we need to consider when we as a joint board are making a decision, like what are the reasons other than it's our town. >> This is Stanley Albright again. I just wanted to reiterate I completely agree with you on that. I think that was the

075one major shortfall in our uh task force. I don't believe, I feel anyway, that we were not allowed to make a [clears throat] final decision. Last meeting was the first meeting where we really had a chance to really openly discuss things. We came up with our conclusions at that point, but we weren't given any time to narrow those down any further or any more discussion. We came to the end of our time of the night and then that was seemed to be kind of the end. My feeling is that it needs more discussion on that order. If the task force is dissolved now, then that's a board's decision to continue on with that. But I think we need sure that you are giving yourselves enough time to fully make a decision. To talk things completely

076through that everybody has a voice to say and nobody has the opportunity to sit down and and be shy about anything. Everybody here is in pretty much agreement that something needs to happen. It's just how. I think we need to get away from spearing in certain directions and things along that order and have open, honest discussion. >> That's why I feel how things ended with our meeting last week. And I don't want to see that continue on [clears throat] any farther. I'd hate to see that continue on any farther like that. But there's a decision that has to be made at this point. >> This is a question but that's more of what maybe Maybe um I'm Arina HSR. Can you elaborate a little bit on halfway to um the the split high school campus?

077But can you elaborate um what that means for elementary and middle school? Um I was looking through my It's so tiny. So elementary in Loyal, grade middle school in Greenwood, and the split high school. Okay. I didn't know if there was an option for middle school to be kind of doing the base campus thing as well or that was not talked about. >> Uh we did have internal conversations about that. A lot of that was on the pathway that was presented to the greater group. Uh due to the complexity that that would require, uh just increasing the split campus model on the board really had a greater potential for complexity to have there. However, that is an option to consider. >> I was just thinking more along the lines of like our exploratory classes. So

078I'm not sure how Greenwood does theirs, but like our junior high does do exploratory classes. So they have like music, art, I think tech ed. Do they have a tech ed exploratory? Spanish. So all of those courses where our middle schoolers are doing exploratory, they get a smaller stint of time. Um but what what does that look like? And that's just something that we as the joint board needs to figure out or talk about is if you have a west campus and an east campus and you're operating those specialty courses, are you still going to have to offer them in some capacity in your own in you know what I'm saying or with those Well, I guess in this situation if the middle school is at Greenwood, you would still have to offer all of

079those exploratory classes in Greenwood, right? I just wanted to have us talk about it though. >> I did bring that up last week at our board meeting and the option we were presented or the guidance that was there at that time was teachers would potentially have to travel to a campus. At least that's the one recommendation that was made when we were when we asked. >> I guess so that's my biggest whole problem with this pathway two. There's so many logistics. Who's going to figure it out? I mean, there's many questions that go along with this and you're going to cram it all in this short little window and try to have all of it out and make it all perfect. Cuz it is exactly what everybody said. It's It could could either be a

080nightmare or you could be the shining star for figuring it out. Do we want to be the guinea pig? >> My thought is if we decide to go with pathway two, either put it back to administration, the kids will be taking classes this year. Put a scenario together what it would look like if we had to combine school history with the way the kids are now to show to the public that yes, we can accomplish this. But that's up to the administration. >> After the vote? >> Yeah, after the vote, yes. Or before. I mean, we need to put a plan before the We need to put a referendum in front of the people, but we don't know what the kids will be taking at that point. >> I think that's way too more too

081much complexity to have our boards figure out or have our teachers and administration figure out. We struggle with getting sporting events at Iron Knob. We struggle with classes and this and buses and that. It's just a lot to cram in one little window. >> [clears throat] >> That's what we are going for. >> I guess Scott, my the alternative to that is, okay, we don't pursue it, and we we put a question on a ballot that we as we can probably assume based off of history is going to fail. So, instead of being the guinea pig of a risk reward situation, we're now the guinea pig of an operational referendum that if fails, we could end up having to dissolve as a school district. I think that's that's the struggle I have as a board

082member because the question can be raised, well, do you want this just because you think it'll pass or do you want it for opportunity? I see it as both. In order for it to pass, we could create more opportunity. I just don't want to be the board that essentially fails, doesn't pass a referendum, and 3 years from now we're neighbors to the south four hundred votes short, and probably closing a school. That's that's the That's what I struggle with. So, again, the risk is huge. The reward is probably there, too. Can it be solved? Maybe. Maybe not. We do have consultants. We do have administration. We can have public outreach. There's It's just I don't want to dismiss it before we've actually truthfully looked at it. >> Can we do an option three or eight

083to get in the timeline and then that then works towards an option two so that you got more time to figure out the logistics and then if it it's not going to go then like you said try some stuff but I mean you don't want to promise it to the communities and you got a timeline. I mean >> The answer to the answer to your original question, can we do that? Absolutely. Once we are together, we're one. We're not cream with oil anymore. We are oil with cream. So, yes, we can do that. We can send it all in one school or the other. We're divided two. We can pick any one of these pathways. We can change it down the road. But what we're trying to present is an option to the community that

084they see that it's going to move towards which really is the point towards this. And that, in my opinion, I mean, to piggyback off of what he said earlier I don't want to present a pathway just so we can get it to pass. I want to come back to our original priorities and my two biggest priorities is it giving an opportunity to the children and is it benefiting the taxpayers better than it has in the past? And all three of these pathways that were presented tonight are good but option two talks about transportation costs. So, I mean, there's a lot to talk about. Don't get me wrong. But to answer your question, yes, we could pick one of it tonight and yeah, we are one after that and we could change it. >> Yeah, if

085you're asking about the consolidation plan, the plan can spell um any number of things with a timeline. Down the road you can the plan can define what buildings they open, what buildings they close, how long they stay open, how long they have you know how how long before you could close a building, how you start the consolidation in in what what your end goal is 3 to 5 to 10 years. The consolidation plan is what people would vote for and then it can pretty much be whatever the board approves as a consolidation plan. So there's definitely flexibility in how you design the plan and then that is the plan that would get get communicated to the public for you voting in November. Is that what you're asking if it's possible? >> We just set up

086a plan because if everybody likes option two, but they're afraid you don't have enough time and you like you have this timeline, you could have it so you start here and you're working towards this end goal. >> The joint board can it will will in fact define [clears throat] the plan, the consolidation plan. >> I think one thing that would be helpful in presenting that information is also presenting what could happen if the consolidation doesn't pass and and then what happens if the referendum doesn't pass because I think there is a misconception out there that if consolidation doesn't pass, we can keep what we have. And I'm not sure everyone understands what the situation really is. >> I would also direct people to either district website with a lot of that information out there. All

087of the slides from Baird have been posted on website on both districts website. The short answer to that is both districts rely heavily on operational referendum dollars and those are not going to go down. As I stated earlier, if if if we do not consolidate, both districts individually will rely have to rely on passing an operational referendum or make extreme cuts. When the school district Greenwood, you know, currently will end their current referendum with a cycle with a 1.725 million dollar um tax base. That is without that we would look significantly different. There's a lot of people. It's not I mean you're not cutting the toilet paper bill that much. Right? It's people and it's programs. So, without that money uh the district would look different. Loyal has a 1.5 million dollar referendum. Without that

088money they're going to look extremely different. Um both of those are will in order to costs are going up. Needs are going up. There's repairs that that are being done. Like those those costs are going to add on to the the need um in each district. You know, so right now it's project we're projecting on our own just to maintain the current level of program that we have, Greenwood would be asking going from like a 1.725 in 2028 asking for somewhere in the 1.8 to 1.9 million to sustain. That's without doing any That's That's to sustain to maintain what we have. Loyal to to maintain their level of support for kids would be somewhere in the 2.3 somewhere in the 2.2 to 2.3 million dollar pass. That's going from 1.5 to 2.2, 2.3. You know,

089[clears throat] and and they go up from there. Why? Because costs go up. Like we all feel that. That's what we're trying to curb. That's what we're trying to to manage. There will still be I mean, be clear. We said this from the start. This should not be a surprise to anybody who's tuned in that pretty much any meeting that we've had. There will be a need for operational referendum dollars, whether we're together or on our own. But the goal is to maximize our opportunities and trim the need for operational referendum dollars as a consolidated district. And we're talking some of the figures we're talking, you know, when you take 1.9 million and 2.2 million >> [clears throat] >> 4.1? Okay. 4.1. You know, we've looked at things that bring us back as a consolidated

090district into the two and a half million. I don't know about you, but I can trim a million and a half dollars and increase opportunities, seems silly not to. It's a win for everybody. But that that is the reality. If if we stay together if we get together, we will need an operational referendum. If we don't consolidate, we will each need a an operational continued need an operational referendum. Um if you look around the state, I think it was 50 just over 50% of um of uh operational referendums passed in April. 57%. That's down That's down from a year ago. It's getting harder and harder to pass those. So, it's I mean it's something to keep an eye on also, especially when we would be asking for more. Is that I mean is that what

091answering the question? >> Um I think it was just more of a recommendation because I think um the average community member I shouldn't even say that. I I think there's some misconceptions that you know you talk these big numbers, right? What does that mean? How many staff are you going to have to cut? You say significant cuts and you know, being part of this we've learned what those are, but the >> Greenwood Greenwood spends about 78% of our our revenue on staffing. So, um and about 25% of our overall revenue is operational referendum dollars. So, if if it it depends on who and what, but I would say anywhere from 10 to 15 staff members um would probably make up 1 and 1/2 to 1.75 million dollars. >> Yeah, I'm just saying that we we

092need to quantify that. >> Yeah, and when we have when Greenwood has 65 staff members that's significant. >> Yeah. >> And then I do want to remind everyone there are certain things that might not be the staff members you want gone uh because there are requirements also. One of our favorite things, unfunded mandates. There are requirements, certain things have to be offered, certain um programs and and accommodations have to be [clears throat] offered first and foremost. So, when you think about it, oh we we could do without this this or that, huh? Maybe. But it's significant. >> There's a few comments on Tom O'Brien and the school board, a long time school board member. And also was on the the task force back in 2006. I do recall it. Yes, it it wasn't as much

093participation as far as the staff task force, I should say. Um just a little bit of kind of my thoughts and um you may or may not know that or you should I guess should have known that we had a separate committee that was just looking at more I guess you call it business relations. Just to see if there is ways to get more business involvement and particularly can we be doing more through our technical colleges as well. And so, you know, it's been a long process trying to find out what their interest is, but we do it we did have an initial discussion a virtual meeting with some people from the North Central Technical College and it involved myself, um this um Dean Lindner from Greenwood board as well as our two administrators. And

094so, they that was I believe the end of April and then they wanted to talk it over with their deans and their colleges to talk about their ways to help us just knowing what we're kind of looking at. So, they came back and they would like to visit our schools and have set a date of May 13th to come to see our schools and give them some thoughts. And we also invited Chippewa Valley Technical College as well to to participate at the same time. And why I thought why I have an interest in this is we we've gone to a number of schools that have worked together to provide additional programs for their students. One in the northeast part of the state, Luxemburg Casco, is participating with a couple of others or three other schools,

095and then the one at Whitehall. So, those are schools that are working with other schools to provide some additional courses, um programs, tying them to the technical colleges, and see if there's some opportunities there. You know, we we do have needs certainly in our communities as far as um you know, what are what are some possible career choices that that people have in our area, and you know, can there be some programs that could help them to be able to go into those careers in a faster method by taking some classes through the high school to get dual credits as well as or even certifications that would qualify them for those types of jobs. Um we I've seen a huge shift, and I'm sure all of you have as far as in the last 5

096to 10 years, the number of students that are no longer going to four-year colleges that are instead are choosing going right into the workforce or going to a one- or two-year technical college program. So, are there some things that we can do? And in this [clears throat] process, learned that there's a number of mobile labs that um I don't know all of them. I just know one of them that North Central Technical College has for CNA training. They bring a mobile lab to your school, allows you students, both those that are in high school as well as those that are in community wanting to get certified to be a CNA, to take classes right there at your local high school, um get certified. Look at the need for those types of people. Um So, is

097that pathway? So, I guess in this whole process, we're learning a lot more what possibly be some programs that we could that would assist students in our area. Um definitely don't have any answers for you. It It's something that we've looked at, but there's been a lot of emphasis on those types of programs throughout the state. And I think that's what we need to be looking at and utilize our facilities as best we can to help them. They made the comment that they want to reach students further out into the dis- their districts, their tech ed districts without requiring them to come to their campus. That gives me some hope that maybe that they're looking for some additional classes, courses in our area, whether they would teach them or whether they would allow our teachers

098to teach those types of classes for dual credits, but that's that's what I'm I'm interested in finding out. >> So, you just said So, just to add on to that, so May 13th, we do have NTC and CVTC coming to check both facilities. To see what we can work with [clears throat] them on maybe some programming. I didn't say anything just tech ed. I think they're coming wide open with open minds. They NTC has a number of their engine education people coming to work with us. And we're going to kind of take it from there. Also looking at possibly looking at a a local four-year school or two that would make me interested to visit also, [clears throat] and really work on where can we have some direction with some students that they can get

099a channel on their career earlier in life than possibly going two years, and spending money, and then creating debt. So, that is what we talked about, or we learned from Luxemburg-Casco and Whitehall. They're just preparing their students for something grander right out of school. So, whether it's a one-year tech, or or a job where to get ready for a four-year school. So, so that should be interesting, and we will have a feedback after that. >> I have a question. So, what when does the plan of consolidate have to be submitted? August >> It's due on or by August 25th, I believe. >> And the part of that plan will be a financial analysis. >> It'll be part of that consolidation plan. >> But, what wouldn't be part of it would be any what if it

100doesn't pass? We can't have that in there, right? That could be part of like informational meetings and stuff like that, so um So, I guess this thing and all, no matter what plan is going forward, you have to put together this plan to consolidate. So, all three of you will need that, right? There's logistics involved with all of them. If you're looking at option two, I would suggest getting teachers involved because they're probably your greatest resource in what would work best, and where, and whatever. But, I would get more than a business plan, then I would like the exact plan because you're not going to go into all the details up front of any of these options. Once if it passes, then you have what? 2 years to figure the rest of it out, correct?

101So, I mean that's one of the devil is in the details. Here's how we're going to do it. So, I I I I I get everybody's point. You got to have a plan. You have to have have a clear somewhat concise plan up front, but it doesn't have to have this class is going to be in this room, these teachers, whatever. So, and I was asked so I just want to point out every one of these options needs that to some level, right? >> You know, August question is what is being asked of all, not necessarily the plan. The question. The plan would be then informed or communicated to the community [clears throat] the communities from there. So, you have a couple months to work on that at least. And what I mean by work

102on that is informing the community >> [clears throat] >> or communities. >> Would you repeat that again? First part, it'll be August I didn't get the >> The The question the referendum question to consolidate has That question has to be in the courthouse by August 25th in order to go on the November ballot. Does it necessarily [clears throat] have to have the plan, but you should have at least some details because that's the plan that you're going to go out and communicate to the communities [clears throat] This is what we're talking about. >> So, a clearer picture. >> Yes. >> Are my one and HR able to and our HSR able to help us with that question? Like, are you guys able to help us kind of put together a question if we give you

103the main points of cuz obviously we're not going to spell out the entire plan in this question because people aren't going to be reading it at a polling ballot place, but um are you able to help us and guide us in what we want in that question? >> Absolutely. So, I think it'd be a team team to put together the consultation plan. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I would just like to add clarity though that we cannot legally draft the resolution language. That has to be through a >> Sure. >> our legal counsel. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We can help with the details, not the actual resolution. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> So, over here. Uh one thing uh as we're talking here tonight, um I'm wondering when we get to that

104plan, if this isn't a good place to bring that back to this committee kind of as our first allow you guys to ask the questions, give us the feedback, see what we missed. Um to me that would be a potential way for us to move forward with it if you guys would be willing to to do that if that's what we decide to do. Um cuz we both need that feedback of questions that we missed or um you know, questions that were against selling to the public. >> I think originally when we had talked at this as a joint board, the reason we wanted to kind of have an idea by May was to be able to have time to kind of narrow it down and figure out what the plan was before it went

105on like to the question. So, I mean yes, August 25th is the final deadline, but it was more like June, July that we really wanted to have things narrowed down by May, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. >> Uh Tim Pearl B Memorial. We um I got on the task force. I thought we got a little more input on this and we didn't have anything to input until I believe it was meeting number five. Some pathways were written on a board we were voting on. Um eight, nine, and 10. And then in the end, eight was the most popular by I don't know, a couple votes, but if you look at it as total votes, pathway eight or um first and second choice pathway, eight got the most. And I personally feel that that's

106a good choice due to the fact we have minimal bussing. And the kids are in the buildings all day. I think that's huge for the students. Um The end, there will be no no I don't believe any major input expenses with this pathway eight. Minimal startup expense. Um The end of the day for sports, the elementary or the middle school kids will be in their their building for their sports. High school kids will be in their building for their sports. Minimal bussing. Um Elementary kids will be grouped together. Both schools in one building. Elementary kids get along no matter what. I think I'm starting to like that a lot. Now they're going through the school, they know each other. I think that's huge. They get done with the fourth, fifth grade or whatever it is,

107they come to Greenwood middle school, they know each other. It's there'll be more kids in sports possibly. Just just a scenario. Um I feel that this this is a good choice. And our main goal is students, which is good here. Second thing is finances. And I would The the end goal I believe is to go to a one school scenario. And I think this is a a very good path to that. Um That's just my thoughts on it. And then I put one more thing, the elementary school I I think it should be commissioned, it should be sold. I don't think 50-60,000 dollars a year is cost effective to just have an empty building there heated. I I just can't see that as a business. Um it's not good sense. I know there's talk that

108maybe it could be used as a community center, which this school here is you could put a media center right here with the middle school in here also. Plenty of room for that. And that's that's my thought. I I just don't I just can't see as a business owner, I can't see having a building sitting empty. A yearly expense. It doesn't make any sense to me. >> Tim, how is bussing any different from pathway versus pathway three? >> Pathway three, you've got middle school and both schools. Now you're bussing kids after school. >> Middle school in one. >> Our >> middle schools in one location. >> Not pathway three. My pathway three shows a middle school in both towns, both schools. >> I think it it's it's on both. It can be in either. Either

109school would have the capacity, if I'm right, Tim. Is that correct? Either school, I don't think it was defined as one or the other, but it was defined as together in one or the other. Is that correct? >> Pathway is preferred. >> That's what I thought. >> Okay. >> So we don't have a clear path on that one, which which middle school in which school. They can be either one. We're not You're not sure yet. Why not? >> In pathway three, it was presented that it would fit either one. >> Okay. So, we don't have an answer to that yet. Which would need to be on ballot, of course. >> Sure. [clears throat] I have a lot of comments here. So, I guess early on in the process getting on the joint task force, >>

110[clears throat] >> I came up with a few points to try to guide my thoughts. Um they were to maintain at a very minimal maintain or enhance the current programming and where possible, easily possible, expand those. Um another one was maximize the strengths and uses of the current facilities. And then the other one was fiscal responsibility. Chris, when you brought up something called clear benefits, um and I think using existing facilities to their strengths and minimize the weaknesses of another would be a clear benefit. Um I think Dan will touch on you were looking for more of a discussion in our meetings. I will tell you my frustration, um maybe there was topics and comments that were not fitting my three points [clears throat] that I had and I thought everyone should have. There were

111things we discussed that did not have the best the students best interest in mind. So I think some of the communication we could have had in some of these meetings I know what some of the other Greenwood people thought but that was my frustration where we wasted our time we talked about one building stuff a lot. So that's just something something I thought of when you were talking about having more broader discussion at our that meetings. >> I think I concur with what you were saying there. I understand that there and that's what I was pertaining to at the broader discussion because that's where we were cut short in my opinion at the last meeting. We were really just discussing really discussing the whole broader picture of everything there and we got tied up on

112one item in a lot of people's minds versus expanding this out and discussing it all but we seem to have run out of time. That's why I was saying that we should have either another meeting following that up or the board needs to make sure they look into that zero into that very closely. Because after that vote basically the meeting was done. There was no more discussion. How did we narrow this down on the matter? How did we come to that choice? So that's what I'm referring to what happened at that meeting. We did get hung up on that one topic as you said. I'm sure that's what a lot of people felt. But we weren't allowed to discuss it or any detail of anything else or do anything else prior. Came up with another

113one person earlier. So that's what I was doing. That's what I'm talking about. There needed to be more discussion over the topics that did get voted on that didn't get to get acted on. >> Just to give you a reference to my what I thought about clear benefits, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there are benefits out there. I wrote down what you had said about enhanced current programming, maximize use of facilities and fiscal responsibilities. I'm not doubting those things. I just for myself and I think a lot of people just want to see what that looks like. That's all. I just think that those are things I was not on the task force. I was given the information in the meetings and we were given, you know, some slides to look over. I

114will agree it's a lot of information that and to look over. It's a lot. I can't imagine having to look over that information in the short amount of time you guys had and then have to discuss it. Um I'm just saying for me and I think for a lot of people just really exploring what those um clear benefits look like. >> That's what I had like. >> Or what we need to come up with is all. >> Well, I guess I will say, so I think you know, if we're not talking about pathway two right now, if we're comparing pathway three to pathway eight, to me, three hits on some of those better enhancements than pathway eight does. I guess starting in elementary school in Loyal, and whether whether the middle school is in Loyal

115or it's in Greenwood, whenever they come to Greenwood for high school or whether it's the middle school, so elementary, middle, and high school, there's no starting in Loyal, coming to Greenwood, and then going back to Loyal again. Um I think it'd be a shame not to maximize the use of, you know, as Tom said, all our tech ed and CTE, some of our CTE stuff, which CTE isn't is more than just tech ed. That's fine. And there's space in Loyal that should be utilized. If the high school's in Greenwood, I think we have we did talk a little bit about the What's the food? Family consumer. Yeah. Um I think there's maybe some room there that there is a stronger facility or a room for that over there. Um You know, the building over here

116is a newer building with updated utilities, better efficiencies. So, if I choosing pathway eight, you're minimizing the use of this building over here, in my opinion. So, those are some of my benefits as to why I voted for three last Monday night when we voted. >> All right, we're going to open it up to the public. Does anybody from the public want to talk? >> [clears throat] >> I said I wouldn't, but I am. I guess I just have a couple of comments and I didn't prepare this, so it's going to be all over the place. But I first want to um when Mary brought up her comments, I almost threw up in my mouth after because you know, she made the comment that we have experts that have been in this industry for over

117a century, who have worked with hundreds of schools, who have taken the information our communities gave them to put together seven potential pathways. And I am just really concerned primarily as a mom to have pathways that not that they bad, not that they couldn't be done, but to have individuals that are not really in our school system create a pathway for our future is concerning to me. Again, I think this could be worked out um with some thorough I guess communication, some thorough planning, but again, as a mom to have 12 individuals not really within our school systems create a pathway is concerning to me. I am also very concerned that I see this and we heard this that this is a stepping stone to close this facility completely. I'm going to say it. >>

118[clears throat] >> It was even in documentation that came out from the joint task force, too. That was also a concern for me with pathway eight. Is that this is going to be used as just that stepping stone to get to a one building model. And unless a brand new multi hundred million dollar building is being built, I don't believe that a one building model is in the best interest of our children. I told a Loyal board member today that I would 100% vote yes and get on board with that, even if it's a K-12 building in Loyal, if I truly felt that it gave our students the best opportunities. I will drive an extra seven miles if I felt that that gave our students the best opportunities for a quality education. But I'm not

119there. Because with our the current reality is is you're going to cram a bunch of students into that school, you're going to increase class sizes, and you're going to have to be cutting programs. How is that what's best for our students? I am okay with the plan changing when we learn better. I am not okay with a plan in place with the intention to have it change. Once enrollment drops, or once the vote passes, and then, oh, now we can save more money. When we learn more, we can do better then. But I am not okay with a plan that may potentially just be a stepping stone for that. I am also struggling a little bit with everybody sitting at these tables today was in 100% agreement that we need to move forward with this,

120that this is the best plan. Nobody raised their hand when Derek asked that question of who doesn't think consolidation is what's best for our students. But there seems to be this elephant in the room of there's a but only if. And I don't think I'm the only one feeling it. My husband actually reminded me of this today. A couple years ago I spoke to this board meeting and I talked about marriage. When my husband asked the question, I didn't say, "Yes, but only if you make $200,000, we live in Edgar, and we have three kids, and we have a waterfront property." I didn't say that. I didn't know what the future would look like. I said, "Yes." because I thought we would be stronger together without all the answers. I talked about when we got

121pregnant with our first child. When we tried to have that baby, we didn't say we're going to have a baby but only if they're perfectly healthy. We said yes to a child not knowing what the future was going to bring. So my point is is I guess we're not going to have all the answers. There's going to be hiccups. There's going to be changes along the way. But if we truly believe that consolidation is best for our communities, there can't be a but. We've heard it tonight alone, too, that well, there's no way Loyal's going to pass a referendum if we go with pathway three, but there's no way Greenwood's going to pass a referendum if we go with pathway eight. That is totally contradictory to what everybody in this room just said. That consolidation

122is best. We're stronger together. We see the future financial outlook if we don't do this. I spoke last time at the board meeting about our words and the importance of our words and how we frame things. If this group goes out into the community and starts talking in that way of we can only pass this if the high schools in Loyal or we're only going to pass this if it's in Greenwood, we're not putting the students first. But yet everybody said at this table and said it has to be the students first. I'm asking our language to change in this model, in this process. I appreciate that it is going back to the board. But if we all agree that we are stronger together and financially we probably both really need to do this, then

123our language has to reflect that regardless of the but. Thank you. >> I think >> What's that? Okay, so the oldest school district is North Logan, and Chris Smith uh then the Loyal School District. And also been up here 40 years since I moved back here. And I'm a taxpayer and landowner in two school districts in this county, so I have a little bit of interest in this. In the last meeting uh Factory chemist kind of floored me that we're going right back to our own advice. 40 years ago when we had this meeting here with two board members, one of them each school said there's no way in Hades that my kids are going to go to that school. Everybody agrees we need to do this. And it it is very essential that we

124would pay attention to what happened in Grant. We're not going to go 40 years in either school district again come back here for uh mutual agreement that we need to decide. The one thing that everybody misses out on is that we combine these two school districts, you know, I already talked logistics. It would be phenomenal. Okay, I'll go down here. Well, if you combine the two districts, it'd be 1 mile west of County Line. The eastern border of Loyal, 1 mile north of each all the way to Willard, to meet Lake, and back again north through the Poplar River and over to Wolf Point. That is the center of this county. We'd have one of the largest school districts, the most opportunities, and tax base that we could do for the schools. We don't need

125to look at this any more than that. We need to look at combining the schools. Whether the schools in Froid, Loyal, the majority of the people I talked to, they don't really care. It's a financial responsibility. Our county has changed very much. We have three communities in our county. You can see Nick showing up in the morning in Grant 5 to 1. And I talked to referendum. So, we're going to go on and continue this fight at school. We're going to have to have the community members that own the majority of the farmland that don't attend our schools. That's 2/3 of the county. And so, our students that could come back from our college teams, we need to work together in this. Whether it's schools or the animal, everybody in the middle realizes this. So,

126that's all I'm going to say about it. Thank you. I'd like to thank all of you and especially Valerie from the PRG uh put all this in the paper and keep everybody informed. Daryl, thank you. You read the whole article while we were sitting here. So, thank you. >> Chris, to follow up on that, that is very true. Um for the Amish and Mennonites, we got to factor that into it. They are going to start voting more and more. I know they will. I don't know how to get them on board, and I don't think there is a way. >> If you expect them to help support us, you ain't showing up to grant >> I I agree. 100%. >> And they did that to We are agriculturally based county. And anybody looks around, like

127I go up here tonight, and in the middle of this county since I was 9 years old, all over the You can count the number of farms that are gone or that somebody else owns that don't attend our biggest school. This is something that This is something that's way down the road that needs to be addressed. >> Anybody else? >> All right. So, the next meeting date, time, and place I think that May 13th >> That's our senior awards banquet. What's >> Not May 13th? May 6th. >> Virtual or >> Well, there's no task force meetings, my Mondays are open again. I I think we better pick sooner than later. In my opinion, it's the next word. I mean, work [clears throat] You guys are going to have to This is going to be a

128task. There's going to be a need for meeting and conversation. 6:30 in a while on the 6th. Open session first. We won't have an update from any of you until your CBTCS after that. So, I would if there if there may be nothing more than consolidation plan. Yes. And those conversation we will have closed session also in case we run into conversations that can't be on. I think you all should think about that before May 6th then come to May 6th with ideas. Do you want to Are you ready to commit to two a month for now? Easier to cancel on the app. 6th and 20th. The regular meeting this month should be the May 27th. Let's plan on that for now the second. When first Wednesday first and third the first Wednesday of the

129month will be in May the second Wednesday of the third Wednesday of the month will be in June. Yes. >> As we're wrapping up here again I want to thank all of you for coming and thank you for the conversations tonight. Please keep showing up. Please keep coming and we're going to get this stuff figured out here and we're going to have a plan in place. That's what you all want us to do. Thanks again.