001This will tell, this will tell, this will tell. Just talking about coughing. Would you please call the roll? Sure. Mrs. Babs? Present. Mr. Berthold? Present. Mrs. Gilligan? Here. Mrs. Horanek? Absent. Mr. Luchuga? Here. Mrs. Ragland? Here. Mrs. Weiss? Here. Thank you. And are you aware of any changes to the agenda this evening? No, I'm not. Okay. This meeting is being streamed on our website where a recording will also be available. If our audience would please be sure to silence notifications, we would appreciate it. This meeting is also being translated into Spanish and headsets are available for anyone that would like one. I'll begin our tonight's meeting with our district's mission statement to educate each student in a safe learning environment so they may develop to their highest potential and become contributing citizens. This mission provides
002clarity of our purpose and our focus leaders make all decisions within it within its context. We do not have any visitors tonight. No kids in the audience, unfortunately, and we do not have any audience participants that have signed up. Is there anybody in our audience that would like to address the board this evening? Seeing none, we'll move on to the superintendent's report and neither our current superintendent nor our future superintendent are here tonight, so I will move on to reports. And our first report, 6.1, is district financial statements. Tony Whiteley, our CFO, will present. Good evening, members of the board. I'm pleased to present to the board and our community the district's monthly financial statements for the month of May 2025. These financial statements can be found in the board packet tonight and alongside with
003all of our periodic financial statements will be available online at SVVSD.org. We had the opportunity to go through these financial statements a little more in depth earlier tonight at the board study session tonight at 515. In addition, these financial statements were presented with our finance and audit committee on Monday. The district maintains an executive summary dashboard in a green, yellow, red color scheme to highlight any major concerns and we do continue to have one yellow triangle for our nutrition services fund as we discussed. First, we discussed our heightened cash and investment balances in the general fund compared to this time last year and the accelerated equalization payment schedule from the state for which we have received all payments and how that's affected our financials. We touched on our expected reduced property tax revenue as a
004result of stable mill levies applied to a lower assessed valuation and the lower property tax collection rate that we're keeping an eye on for our final property as our final property tax payments come in. And then finally, regarding that yellow triangle, we spent a little longer talking about how the nutrition services fund might be impacted by the state's funding challenges of the Healthy School Meals for All program and any potential actions that we may need to take in response to that ballot measure that may be coming in November. This is the final monthly financial statement report for the year as the June financials are represented as our year-end audited annual comprehensive financial report or ACFIR that we'll bring to the board in October after all final year-end adjusting entries and accruals are made by our
005accounting team and the audit is completed by our engaged accounting firm Clifton Larson Allen. Happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you for the recap Tony and we did have a discussion and a great question from Miosha at our study session prior to this meeting which was recorded and available on the website. Again we just listened to this at our study session and we also a few two members of our board sat at the Finance and Audit Committee meeting on Monday when this was discussed so I don't think there are any other questions or comments so we will move on. Thank you. And then you're you're on for 6.2 and 6.3 so we'll go with 6.2 now vendors providing services over a hundred thousand dollars. Thank you. So for this report as well
006as the next one and again if you would permit me I can address them both as they are segregated by services and goods but really is address the same thing concept. Board policy DJA, DJA authorizes the procurement department to make budgeted purchases without additional board approval but the district has maintained the practice of reporting projected vendor expenditures exceeding $100,000 annually to support transparency and board awareness which this report does. So this report summarizes anticipated FY26 payments based on historical data and planned procurement activity through competitive bids, cooperative contracts, payroll activity, RFPs and other approved methods. It is intended as an informational update and does not constitute contract approvals or anything like that. The board isn't authorizing us to do business with anyone. It also reflects activity from FY25 so you can see kind of a
007comparison year-over-year by vendor. It's an extensive report so I won't go through it completely here but I did want to point out the first report is for services the second is for goods and then they are categorized under various types of groups. Some refer to things like payroll contributions that we may make you know those organizations that wouldn't be selected under a bid or an RFP for instance because we're paying you know the IRS for tax withholdings that would that would be reported on here because again it still represents a disbursement from us. We have a professional category here for professional services for curriculum as well as some sole sources as well as other other and so again we wanted to just provide the board some information on some of the businesses that we're doing
008business with and in what quantities and then give you the opportunity to peruse that ask any questions. I just wanted also to point out this represents a lot of work by our procurement team Tim Wellman our director of procurement couldn't be here tonight but I didn't want to acknowledge him and his team's work on the great the great work that they do district-wide in managing all of these contracts managing all the bids the quotes the RFPs it's an extensive amount of work and what it does is it really represents an incredible commitment to ensure responsible use of the taxpayer dollars making sure we are maximizing efficiency of those dollars best prices and getting taking advantage of our economies of scale so there's a lot of work done there and I know that they do their
009their savings report every year but I just also wanted to point that out as well thank you. Thank you for recognizing Tim and the procurement team for that work that they do which just provides another layer ensuring that we can be stewards of taxpayer dollars. Do board members have any questions? Well then I would move on to consent items. Would any board members like to pull a thank you so much Tony Wiley for that report and you know what congratulations for completing your year of being our CFO. Thank you so much yeah it's been a great experience and I'm happy to happy to report that went really well and we're on a great path for stability and good accountability transparency to our community and I'm really excited to continue that in that path so thank
010you. And you are an outstanding leader so thank you so much again and have a great summer. Thank you. Okay moving along we will move on to consent items. Would any board members like to pull any of our consent items? I just have I guess I need to pull it because I have a question about one two seven one two and three they're all pretty much the same. Should we just have a question before we pull? We could certainly address a question if it involves three of them. Yeah it's just so it's a question and I think it's more clarification. I did notice that these are waiving the insurance right and and I understand the the policy there but I just wanted to make sure like the in in the memorandum it states that this
011the organizations only meet only meet at the school they don't actually utilize this the the facilities right other than maybe a meeting and I'll assume it's probably less than a 20 people that it stated. Does that still put us at some type of risk for insurance if something were to happen at one of those meetings that they may have? So that I guess I'm trying to make sure I understand the waiver is for not having insurance but if they're there and something happens during one of those meetings then are we as the district held liable? So that's where our insurance would come into play so this requirement is actually to require that those external organizations that are doing business on our property they have insurance for any liability or issues that they may cause on
012our property that they can cover that and that the district isn't going to have to you know pay for any damage or something that they do but because the activities that they do are so limited in scope that doesn't involve students and it's just simple meetings that they have requested and we've granted in the past we've discussed this with our Finance and Audit Committee as well about being able to waive this requirement to decrease the fiscal burden on these foundations because ultimately they are founded for the benefit of our students and that we've been able to waive this requirement for them. Great okay any board members like to pull any of our consent items? Okay great then I would ask for a motion to approve all consent items as listed in our agenda. So moved.
013Second. Mrs. Babs? Yes. Mr. Berthold? Yes. Mrs. Gilligan? Yes. Mrs. Horanek? Absent. Mr. LeChuga? Yes. Mrs. Ragland? Aye. Mrs. Weiss? Yes. Thank you Christy. Next up our action items we have 8.1 recommendation adoption of superintendent's budget all funds for fiscal year 2026 and I will invite Tony our CFO. Thank you there's a lot of financial related items on the board agenda tonight but I'm gonna give you a break from listening to me and be able to hand my time over to Justin Patrone our executive director of budget and finance where I know you've heard from before regarding the budget and have him give you a presentation and answer any questions for you thank you. Welcome Justin. Thank you. I'm not sure this is an improvement but thanks for that Tony. Good evening President Ragland and
014members of the board. The recommendation tonight is to adopt the superintendent's proposed budget for the 25-26 school year. A copy is included in your board packet. This proposed budget was presented to you originally on May 28th for the first time and then brought again for public hearing two weeks ago on June 11th. We have presented this budget to the Finance and Audit Committee two times and the budget document remains published electronically and printed for public inspection. I'm happy to report there we're not happy but there have been no changes to the budget document since it was last presented to you but as a brief recap the fiscal year 26 general fund budget includes a plan spend down of fund balance of approximately 28.9 million dollars and this relates to increases in revenue of 5.2 million
015dollars and increases in expenditures of 16 million dollars. So just at a high level those increased revenues are really predominantly related to an increase in our total program funding which is dictated by the state of the state under the school finance act and we have a 2.3 percent COLA adjustment and also the implementation of the new school finance act which was House Bill 1448 and that's complemented by basically stable enrollment just a very slight decrease projections. Moving to expenditures those relate almost exclusively to teacher compensation and the package for all district staff which as you know includes a $2,000 increase to base salaries for all teachers and as well as steps increases and insurance costs that we anticipate and then some longevity steps which are basically increases for teachers who have reached the 5, 10,
01615, and 20 year mark to give a little bump there. With all that the budgeted ending fund balance is expected to be 14.5 million dollars at the end of fiscal year 26 which is before any outperformance that we discussed often and that still represents in excess of 28 percent of our annual expenditures so a pretty healthy balance and reserves. So finally the appropriation resolution which would which can be found on page 9 of the budget document and this includes ten other funds just for full disclosure we focus on the general fund but we have ten other funds which include approximately 366 million dollars of total expenditures but we we pay a lot of attention to those funds as well. The appropriation resolution represents in totality the district's resources so the 1.3 billion dollars that you'll
017see in the resolution is not necessarily what we expect to expend this year but it's a culmination of our beginning balances or our total resources as well as projected revenues so it's all of the resources we have available and also of note since the last public hearing two weeks ago the finance department has not received any comments or questions from the public and as always it would be my pleasure to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thank you and as Tony pointed out to me the other evening this is the fifth time that Jocelyn and I have seen the proposed budget for sitting on the Finance and Audit Committee and I can use all the reiteration I can get. And the board has heard this now twice, three times. So I wonder
018if there are any questions remaining and as you said there are no questions from the public? Correct. Well Justin I would also congratulate you on finishing your first year as our Executive Director of Budget and Finance. Thank you very much. It remains a pleasure to be here. Well school finance is a very complicated matter and there's an extraordinary amount of work that goes into the budget each year so I just thank you and your team and Dr. Haddad for for this incredible work and I would entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Mrs. Babs? Mr. Berthold? Yes. Mrs. Gilligan? Yes. Mrs. Horanek? Absent. Mr. LeChuga? Yes. Mrs. Ragland? Aye. Mrs. Weiss? Yes. Thank you Christy. Okay next up 8.2 adoption of resolution to appropriate funds for superintendent's contract. So this action item is related
019to a couple of things that the board has done previously. So the action that the board just took a moment ago on approving the budget and appropriating funds for next year is a one-year item. It's only for appropriations for one year for the very next fiscal year. The superintendent's contract, Dr. Kapusian's contract, contains a clause that actually requires an obligation of more than one year and any future obligations have to have explicit approval by the board and that's really what this action does. So what it does is it separates, segregates a small amount to meet that obligation that's in that superintendent's contract if a contingency were to happen in that and sets it aside in a in our fund balance classifications and says hey this has been a committed amount of funds for that purpose
020and so that requires this board action and that's what we're bringing forward today. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Do board members have any questions about this? Okay thank you Tony. I would ask for a motion to approve 8.2. So moved. Second. Mrs. Babs? Yes. Mr. Berthold? Yes. Mrs. Gilligan? Yes. Mrs. Horanek? Absent. Mr. Luchuga? Yes. Mrs. Ragland? Aye. Mrs. Weiss? Yes. Thanks Christy. Next up we have 8.3 the recommendation approval of official notice to intend to participate in the coordinated election on November 4th 2025. Thank you madam president members of the board. These two action items the next two action items are related they have to do with the biennial board member director elections scheduled for November 4th 2025. This first action item is the approval of the notice of intent. We're asking
021the board to approve the official notice. We have five counties which we deal with during election season and this official notice will let them know that we intend to go forward with the election on November 4th 2025. It also speaks to the designation of the DEO which the next designated election official which is the next action item on your agenda but these two things together will let us start the election process and consistent with state law. Straightforward to me. Any questions from board members? Okay then I would ask for a motion to approve 8.3. So moved. Second. Okay and 8.4 is the adoption of resolution and oath for the appointment of designated election official which Tim just touched on. Do board members have any questions? Karen I'm just going to get the vote for the
022last item. Yes you will. I'm sorry about that. It's all right. Mrs. Babs? Yes. Mr. Berthold? Yes. Mrs. Gilligan? Yes. Mrs. Horanek? Absent. Mr. Luchuga? Yes. Mrs. Braggland? Aye. Mrs. Weiss? Yes. Okay taking a deep breath. Now we're ready for 8.4. Do board members have any questions? Okay well as in everything you do for this district Christy I know you will handle this role with the utmost integrity and professionalism and thank you so much for your volunteering to be to to serve in this capacity. I really appreciate it. Thank you for your trust in me and I'm happy to do it. Okay well I would entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Mrs. Babs? Yes. Mr. Berthold? Yes. Mrs. Gilligan? Yes. Mrs. Horanek? Absent. Mr. Luchuga? Yes. Mrs. Braggland? Aye. Mrs. Weiss? Yes. Thank
023you. Thank you so much Tim. Okay next up we have 8.5 recommendation adoption of attendance boundaries for new PK-8 in Mead. Brendan nice to see you. It is a pleasure to be here and you get a break from talking with finance about numbers to talk with planning about numbers. Perfect. So good evening board and district leadership. My name is Brendan Willits. I'm the planning director here at St. Graham Valley Schools. I'm here tonight to chat about the boundaries for the new PK-8 in Mead. So I'm going to use the community meeting presentation that some of you I know attended as the starting point for this and then I've added some additional details and data to support the recommendation that ended up coming out of this process. So we'll talk about current conditions, the boundary scenarios,
024and future growth and then move into the overview and the discussion. So as the board I'm sure is aware we have some capacity issues in Mead Elementary and Mead Middle the numbers are there. They've actually increased from the beginning of the year which is what I typically count is the beginning of the year the October count numbers. We did see an increase further or more advanced than what my projections were. So it is continuing to grow in the area and we still definitely need that relief. The new Mead PK-8 or the PK-8 in Mead will do a great job of relieving not just the current elementary and middle problems but it does a great job of alleviating what we anticipate as the future growth in the region which I'll briefly discuss. The process of how
025we build the boundary recommendations we've listed a couple of the boundary considerations there but it has to do with a far more than just these boundary adjustment considerations. You know there's a lot of staff discussions, a lot of cross departmental discussions and we worked with the planners and community development folks in the two impacted municipalities. So a lot of different considerations go into what we recommend as boundary scenarios and then we take that feedback from the community and the different departments and the municipalities. To create the here's scenario A you know we started by taking the current Mead Elementary and Mead Middle boundaries. We used Highway 6 as the dividing line for both boundary scenario A and B. As a side note people were really supportive of Highway 66. You know there's always conversations about
026how we try to split a boundary. Highway 66 seemed to be our unifying point for these scenarios that people from Mead really appreciated it and it does make a lot of logical sense and we got a lot of feedback on Highway 66 being a very logical split. Overall the community preferred scenario A as well as staff and that is why it's the recommendation. Scenario B is here it really starts with the same elementary and middle school boundary. Again trying to meet board and district directives to try to be the least disruptive as possible. The difference is the southwest which I'll switch to right here. So this area was one of our options for the scenario. It really didn't gain a lot of traction. The community's feedback was not overwhelmingly positive. There was a lot of
027questions fearing that we were trying to reach too far. It was not connected to the Mead community that it was changed for changes sake. So just not a lot of positive feedback and not real advantageous from a planning staff perspective. It could lead to a more complicated future boundaries. We will have future schools coming on board likely in the 2030s and this area would become problematic and what we don't want to do is bounce students and families from boundary to boundary to boundary. We want to limit that to the greatest extent possible. So scenario B did not gain a lot of traction for various reasons which I'm more than happy to discuss in detail but it really just didn't get a lot of traction. You know when we talk about future growth and current student
028distribution there are two really important points. So north of 66 because we want to solve not just the current problem but our future problems. So north of 66 in the Mead-L Mead middle boundary we've got about 53 percent of our current student population and I've got a heat map for that here shortly. There's a lot of future growth and I've got a map for that as well. South of 66 is less 47 percent of our current student distribution or population is distributed to south but there is more future growth in the south which you'll see here in a moment. So it does a good job of relieving the current situation as well as addressing any possible future boundary adjustments which would likely come on board in the 2030s if growth continues at the current pace.
029Again the proposed split for highway 66 does a good job of splitting it and we got a lot of positive feedback on that. This is a heat map of the current student distribution. You can see quite a bit with my mouse not showing up. The red is the current densities. You can see it's concentrated in a lot of what you would know as the current or you know the really busy developments and the blank spaces would be filled by future growth. So here's some of the future growth. You know we've got about a thousand permits that are already approved so that means the builder can take action at any point they want. So those are already approved. They don't need to go through the process. Those are a thousand plus housing lots that have already
030been approved through the development process through the two municipalities. There are 10,000 lots that are currently tracked by our department and that are in the pipeline so that means they're in the annexation phase, the planned unit development phase, or various pre-final plat phase. So those can change. We track them so we can ensure we're aware of those new subdivisions and the housing counts. But this is a decades-long process, right? 10,000 lots is not going to develop overnight. So really Firestone averages two to three hundred per year. Building permits need is somewhere between a hundred and three hundred units. So while I throw out a number like 10,000 units, there are a lot of time for those units to fill. One important note that we talk about the future growth and the future development, we also
031have the future school sites which we're accounting for and those weigh pretty heavily into our boundary scenarios. So Highway 66, we've got one more elementary school site north of Mead. We've got one just south of Highway 66 on the west side of I-25. We call it Liberty. It's in the Liberty Ranch and east of I-25 for future growth we have the Meadow Ridge Elementary which the board approved earlier this year as well as in Barefoot Lakes we've got a K-8 which I anticipate bringing back to the board later this year or in 2026. So the current boundary recommendation is also, it plays well into our future boundary. Again trying to disrupt the least amount of families and students as possible with our boundary adjustments but it is important to note that we do track all
032of these current and future subdivisions and growth areas. As far as, you know, just kind of wrapping this up before we take or before I take any questions, scenario A is the strong recommendation. It was highly recommended or approval rate was much higher with talking with folks with a local municipality planning and community staff that are involved with our conversations. You know, it meets a lot of the district goals. It helps with walkability, transportation safety. It limits the impact on the surrounding boundaries which scenario B really had more of an impact on the surrounding boundaries. And lastly, district leadership is recommending all Meade, current Meade L and Meade Middle students that are impacted by this boundary have the option for one year, the opening year, to attend the school of their choice. District policy says
033that fourth grade students going into the next year can attend their school. District leadership has recommended that all students in the impacted boundary have the ability to attend the school of their choice for one year, and that does include transportation to the school of their choice. And I know Lance works hard with the transportation folks to get that figured out, but that is to be noted that they are recommending that one year of open enrollment be offered to all current impacted students, including transportation to the school of their choice, Meade L, Meade Middle, or the PK-8. And the rest, any of those questions I would defer to the education side of the house. With that, I've got a lot more data and I love talking numbers, but I'd take any questions or any concerns, any
034follow-ups that you'd care to have. So beyond that one year, would families still have the open enrollment option? Yeah, it would just be our typical open enrollment process where they would apply. You know, of course, you know, we're very, you know, conducive, you know, we are very welcoming to open enrollment. About 40% of our students currently open enroll, but that first year would be a guarantee. I'm not sure how that would look for as far as process, but I imagine we would process them the same and just simply auto approve them as part of that process. And that's pretty much in line with how we've done it with previous school openings, new school openings, right? If I remember correctly, from at least my students in Erie when we had my children in Erie when we
035opened a couple of new schools. So it's pretty much in line with that. Yes. That process, if you will. Yeah, the grandfathering has traditionally been more generous than the policy would require here in St. Vrain, so it is in alignment with that historic practices. And that community meeting that you held in Meade was very well attended for, I think it was a Monday or Tuesday night. And I know you fielded a bunch of great questions from the community and there was so much excitement there and I'm sure you've heard since then. Thank you so much for helping address the district's fast growing community of Meade and your careful collection and analysis of the data that impacts our students and also for your careful consideration and perspectives from the community of Meade. It's also important in
036helping us make the most informed decision we can when opening a new school. We're so fortunate for your expertise and your great work and this is so exciting, so thank you. New schools are always a wonderful time and it's exciting for parents, so it's always great to open new schools. All right, well with that I would entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Mrs. Babs? Yes. Mr. Berthold? Yes. Mrs. Gilligan? Yes. Mrs. Horanek? Absent. Mr. Lechuga? Yes. Mrs. Ragland? Aye. Mrs. Weiss? Yes. Thank you. And our last action item this evening, I will, Tony Whiteley, our CFO, will be back to discuss the approval of the Business Services Center building purchase motion, building purchase. Good evening, members of the board. This recommendation is that the Board of Education approve that the district enter into
037a purchase and sale agreement to facilitate the acquisition of the Business Services Center, which is the rose building right across the caddy corner here from the ESC. As you may know, about a year, a little more than a year ago, the district entered into a leasing arrangement with some of the space over there and moved the financial services, my department over there, as well as the procurement department. And since then, we've been in talks with the owners and have come across an excellent opportunity to be able to acquire the entire building for the district purposes. With the proximity of the building to the LSC and the ESC, as well as be able to save a little bit on the leasing costs that we're paying right now to provide for some autonomy, some flexibility for some
038space needs and alleviate some critical issues that we have with some other spaces that we have, as well as to address some security concerns, we would have full autonomy and control over security in and out of the building. We were able to negotiate an advantageous arrangement with the owners there to potentially purchase that building. To be clear, I wanted to make extremely clear that the funds to acquire that building come entirely from bond fund interest, so not original bond project funds and not even bond premium that we've talked about before. This is coming from just a little bit that we are getting on top of those monies that are invested in investment accounts and that interest that comes back also are bond project dollars and are restricted and are not available for operations, so this
039does not come at the expense of teacher salaries or programming or student supplies or anything like that. It is all entirely bond project dollars that have been generated as a result of interest earnings. This does not also come at the expense of any of the existing bond projects that are in the original bond program. All of those programs remain intact and fully funded, so it's nothing like that. I also wanted to be clear that the acquisition of the building would be contingent on a 120-day due diligence period, so similar to how you buy a house, there's an inspection period, we get it inspected. We would do the same, a very rigorous and extensive approach that Brian's team would help workers through and also make sure that the building, of course, appraises for at least the
040amount of the offer price, which is 6.3 that we've got in the board memo. And then at the end of that 120-day due diligence period, about four months, then we would look to close pending all of the outstanding inspection items or anything were satisfied. And so this is just the initial step to enter into that purchase and sale agreement and then at the end of which we would look to close again, like I said, once everything would be addressed. And so again, the recommendation is for approval of this and I'll be happy to answer any questions you've got. I do have a couple of questions. So one of the questions I have is we're talking about purchasing the entire building and we're at like $24,000 a month, roughly, to lease and that's not inclusive of
041inflation over the years. So just raw numbers, I'm looking at if we were to just pay the same amount, which I know we would not, over the next couple of years, that would be 22 years out to equate to the 6.3 million, right? Just roughly, just raw numbers. I can see where you're at. The $24,000 is only for the two floors, while the acquisition would be for the entire building, which is the three floors. Okay. So, and that was part of my question. So how many floors do we have now? We have the two. How are we planning to, and how many total floors are there? There's five. Five? How are we planning to use all five of those floors? And what's the total floor space? Sure. The floor space is approximately 32,000 square feet,
042usable square feet, I believe. Right now, Ms. Babs, the other areas in the building are occupied by tenants. So those are tenants that are currently leasing those office spaces from the existing building owners. And so instead of them paying those owners, they would then be paying us for the duration of the remainder of their leases. And so we wouldn't just be saving the $24,000, but we'd also be collecting some revenue from the existing tenants until those leases came due. At that point, we would evaluate whether or not it was more urgent that we needed that space, which we do, which was the whole point of the thing. But there are also some future potential plans that we think we could use that space for. And again, I don't want to presume too much, so I'll
043let Brian weigh in on that. Yeah, if I can just jump in. The finance side, we've got operations over here, we'll let him weigh in. Thank you. So part of our due diligence is really figuring out how the whole building will lay out and how it will support St. Frank. And that is part of our due diligence. Does that answer your question? Do we have any, when I say upgrades, help me with what I'm thinking. Improvements, thank you. Improvements that we know we'll need, either we will have to do just because of the building and the way it's designed right now. The layout, that's right. The layout and the improvements for the space that we might need for future, maybe districts, but future tenants. You got, so remodeling and any building components that need replaced
044and all of that, that's all part of that due diligence piece. So I'll be able to come back and say, hopefully I'll come back and say, you know what, the building is really a pristine building. And there are no major components that need replaced. We may have to do some remodeling. We already know that there's some ADA compliance issues on the second and third floors that we'll have to fix, but I'll be able to come back and say, we need whatever, another $150,000 or whatever to make this building usable for St. Frank. And without going too deeply into the hypothetical, this motion simply allows you to enter into the due diligence process. And that begins that complicated process that you and your team and also third-party individuals will begin. So it's just the kickoff, but
045nothing is certain. And this decision to purchase would come back to the board after all of that. Yeah, that's exactly right. And I kind of picture maybe a study session where I can sit down and I can say, hey, here's everything we looked at on this building. What do you guys think? Well, let me make sure I read this right. Because my concern here is that not that I don't believe, because Brian, you do a phenomenal job in your due diligence, not that I don't believe we'll do that, but it's a very large purchase for the amount of money. And I understand we're pulling it from money we earned, if you will, from the bond sales, right? This was not really going there. But your community would also say we could still use that same
046money for other things within the district as well. So I want to make sure that I'm clear on that. But then also in here, it also says we're voting to purchase this building. I know we're going to do the due diligence, but we're voting to purchase it with the 120-day inspection piece. So we are going to, if this were to pass, we would say, yes, move forward. We're going to purchase this at 6.3. We're going to use those funds to do that. My concern is that then you'll come back to the board and you'll say, I do need that 1. something million to improve this building. Where are we going to get that money from? Are we going to pull it again from those dollars? And again, your community is going to come back and
047say, why can't we use that money for something within the district? So that's my concern with this particular purchase, not that I don't think we need it. And we possibly do again. I totally agree with that. I'm just concerned it's a large amount of money and we don't know what those due diligence dollars look like at this point for me to say yes. Certainly. And I think that's 100% valid and a very wise observation and something that we also are working to make sure we take very careful consideration into. One of the things that we have the option to make an offer for, that's what this does, it allows us to make that offer for the 6.3. But at the end of that due diligence period, if there are some items that are not something
048that we want to tackle or address or fund, we can simply not complete the sale. Other options that we could do is we could decide to fund those from additional interest dollars or we could ask for concessions from the seller and say, look, even though we are interested at 6.3, we think this is going to need half a million in improvements. And so we would like to instead offer you a 5.8. And so there's lots of different options that we have. And again, we are happy to make sure that the board is apprised along the way and we give you updates. And again, like Brian suggested, we're happy to do maybe a study session and talk a little bit more in depth about what we find as a part of the due diligence period before
049finalizing the sale. And Miocic, I appreciate what you're saying in regards to spending the dollars. Is this a good expenditure for the district? Could we spend those dollars in another way? I'll come back in the due diligence period, talk with the board, and I'll explain why this is a good purchase, why it will help the district move forward, or other options that we could potentially do and not purchase this building. Has there been an appraisal for this already? Not yet. That's part of that. That's part of that. Thank you for your questions. That's excellent and I appreciate the engagement. Yeah, I was just going to comment too for public knowledge. I don't know that a lot of the public spend time in our central offices and I do think it's important for the public to
050understand that a lot of our district leadership is working out of portables. Definitely not state of the art and probably not the most secure and probably needing improvements as well. So I do think that's important for our public to understand and I think that if anyone wanted to come and see those facilities, they would most likely agree that a change is overdue, if anything, and is another example of our leadership putting students first. So this, I think you wouldn't bring it unless you felt that this needs to happen. The only disagreement I would have with that statement, I would say, and I agree with the majority of that, but the only disagreement I would say is that the same, and I'm saying this because this is what your community has come and said right on
051many occasions, particularly when we talk about overcrowding of schools, and a lot of our students are in portables just as well, and many of our schools still have those portables, and so your community is going to come back and say, well, you're spending $6.4 million to put administration in a building, but we still have our students in portables at a number of our schools, whatever those numbers are, and so that's my concern here with this particular thing. Again, not that I don't believe that they, because I'm here, right? We are here and we visit these offices and the rest of the offices across the district. I would like to see more before I make the decision to say yes tonight. I think that's where I'm going, and I don't know if that's a study session
052before this or something else, but I think that there's a little bit more that I need to know before I make a decision tonight. I just want to reiterate, too, that there will be the thorough investigation. Dr. Haddad recommended essentially that we begin the process to purchase this building, and we've discussed it with him a few times in individual conversations before even, I think, entering the lease, and also Dr. Capuchin, prior to recommending the board go forth with purchasing the building, I know she plans to do her own full, thorough investigation. It's a huge purchase, and it's something we will absolutely not take lightly. I would recommend at this time to go forth with a study session if we can get that in the calendar in August or September. Well, I'd like to clarify. We
053are not authorizing the purchase of the building. We are authorizing $6.3 million to be put in a negotiating team's hands after due diligence is done if they determine that it's feasible financially, physically, and there's going to be a lot of issues around that feasibility as to use and who uses it and where we save money elsewhere or not, that we would have a whole package, then we would vote whether or not to proceed with the purchase. This is not an authorization to purchase. This is an authorization to proceed with the process to look at purchasing it, and you can make an offer if you don't have authority to have that money there, but we are not authorizing, because we haven't done due diligence, to actually then write the contract and go forward with whatever else
054we need to do or determine if we need to lower our price or if we want to raise the price or something. So, I mean, that's how I understand it, and if I'm wrong, please let me know that. So, if I may, that's not what I understand here. I think if that's the case, we need to change the recommendation, because the recommendation says the Board of Education approves the district enter into a purchase and sale agreement to facilitate the acquisition, meaning a purchase, the buying of the BSC office building and related improvements located at the address and further authorizes Brian to sign those closing documents. So, with that language, we are entering into a purchase. So, we want to be clear that we are not at any point going to be trying to pull one
055over on our board tonight. So, I totally understand. It is absolutely 100% clear that this board is not authorizing us to close on the sale of that building and that if an approval tonight would represent an approval to enter into a purchase and sale agreement, which we can back out of for any reason, and those reasons would include insufficiency or lack of priority of using that space over or using those funds for other reasons, for any reason, basically whatsoever. And so, that agreement that we have worked on and talked about with our general counsel, Tim, as well as their lawyers would facilitate our ability to not follow through with that after the 120-day due diligence period. That due diligence period would indeed include coming back to the board and getting your support, Tim. Excuse me.
056Yeah, I just wanted to be clear that in order to do the inspection of the building, we have to be under the contract to get access to the building. And so, this is just authorization to enter that purchase and sale agreement. But as Tony mentioned, that that would require us to do that due diligence and then we can bring back to the board for a determination of whether or not they want to go forward with closing or they want to cancel the contract. Thank you for the clarification. I think my point is that the recommendation itself does not explicitly say those things. You are saying that to us tonight, and that's not what I understand the recommendation to be saying. And I believe the public would not understand and feel the same way. And the
057reason I am pushing this is because, again, it's a large deal. And I completely agree that you all will do your due diligence. I have no concern about that. However, I think the recommendation does not clearly state what we are trying to say here. And I think that is the misalignment, if you will, in what we're trying to say. So, if there is a way we can say that differently and record that in the minutes, then I would be okay with that. Otherwise, I would have to say I don't believe what we're asking in the recommendation is what we're saying here in person tonight. Thank you, Miosha. At this time, I'd like to ask for a motion to approve 8.6. So moved. Second. Mrs. Babs? No. Mr. Berthold? Yes. Mrs. Gilligan? Yes. Mrs. Horanek? Absent.
058Mr. Lujuga? Yes. Mrs. Ragland? Aye. Mrs. Weiss? Yes. Thank you, Christy. So, our next meeting, there's no discussion items for tonight. Our next meeting will be held on August 13th. It's the beginning of our 2025-2026 school year. And our current and our new superintendent are both out of town tonight, but I did want to take a moment to recognize both Dr. Don Haddad for his outstanding leadership of this district, and also Dr. Jackie Capuchin for her commitment to our district. And we're really looking forward to the beginning of the school year under her leadership. And I also would like to wish the almost 40,000 individuals that work and learn in our district, St. Frane, a fun and safe summer. With that, I would like to entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in
059favor? Aye.