Board of Education May 19, 2026 – Business Meeting

001Hello everyone. Thank you all for being here today. Uh a few things first. If we have audience comments, if you would like to do that, there's a sign up here at this table. If you could do that, I would I would appreciate it. In the back, there's a QR code. If you want to take a look at what we're seeing online and policies and stuff, you could click there and you go, it'll take you to the board book. Just put uh today's date and you'll see everything that we're seeing. So once Amy sits down, we can You ready, Miss A? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chavis >> here. >> Mrs. Cole here. Mrs. Evansson >> here. >> Mrs. Heights here. Mrs. Woods >> here. >> Mrs. lead us in the pledge of >> allegiance please to

002the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Could I have a motion and a second to approve today's agenda? >> Motion to approve agenda. >> Second. >> Mr. Chavis, >> approved. >> Mrs. Cole, >> yes. >> Mrs. Evansson, >> yes. >> Mrs. Heights? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Woods? >> Yes. Could I have a motion and a second for approval of the meetings and summary approval for April 7th, April 15th, and April 25th, 2026? >> Motion to approve the minutes from April 7th, 15th, and 21st. >> Second. >> Mr. Chavez, >> approved. >> Mrs. Cole, >> yes. Mrs. Evansson, >> yes. >> Mrs. Heights, >> yes. >> Mrs. Woods. >> Yes. >> Thank you all. We'll do the recognitions. The

003first one is Metro Scholarship Award. Thank you, sir. Would Grand Junction High School seniors Jack Wellington and Benjamin Garminy Palisade High School senior Ian Shy please join me at the front of the room? >> [applause] >> Thank you. >> District 51 is excited to announce that three students have been named recipients of the 2026 Betcher Scholarship. The [clears throat] Beter Scholarship is one of Colorado's most prestigious and competitive scholarships, recognizing students who demonstrate exceptional academic achievement, leadership, service, and character while committed to continue their education within the state of Colorado. Each year, more than 1,500 students apply for the scholarship, but fewer than 50 students statewide are selected as Beter Scholars. recipients are recognized not only for their academic excellence but also for their impacts within their schools and communities and their potential to make

004a difference in their future or in the future. Known for their commitment both inside and outside the classroom, each of these young men have demonstrated a strong work ethic, involvement in extracurricular activities, service to others, and a passion for continued learning. Their accomplishments reflect years of hard work and commitment to making a positive impact in their schools and communities. The board of education and superintendent Dr. Hill would like to congratulate Jack, Benjamin, and Ian on this outstanding achievement. We are incredibly excited of the way that they have represented District 51 and look forward to watching them continue to succeed as they pursue higher education in Colorado. [applause] Ian Sha Jack Wellington [applause] and Benjamin Garmin. [applause] >> I just want to make sure we don't lose sight of that. Only 50 students in the entire

005state were selected and D51 had three. So, I'd say we're the best district in the state. >> Yes. Congratulations. All right. Would Terren Lou join me? [applause] All right. Stay right there. Okay. All right. So, Grand Junction High School senior Terren Louu has been named the recipient of the prestigious Gates Scholarship, one of the most competitive and nationally recognized scholarship programs in the country. The Gates Scholarship recognizes exceptional high school seniors from across the United States who demonstrate outstanding academic achievement, leadership, and perseverance. To qualify, students must rank in the top 10% of their graduating class and distinguish themselves through their character, leadership, and personal success. Thousands of students apply each year, but only a small percentage are ultimately selected, excuse me, who as skates as gate scholars. Terrence selection as the Gates Scholar reflects

006not only his academic excellence but also his dedication, resilience, and leadership throughout his time at Grand Junction High School. His accomplishments have already earned him admission to several highly respected institutions, including the University of Michigan, the University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Los Angeles, and Colorado College. You have lots of good choices. [laughter] Because of this scholarship award, Terrence will now have the opportunity to attend UC Berkeley and continue pursuing his academic and career goals. Congratulations. [applause] Oh, hold on, Terren. Hold on, Terrence. Sorry. So, while she gets your picture, we just want to express that the board of education and superintendent Dr. Hill would like to congratulate Terrence on his incredible accomplishment, his hard work, determination, and commitment to excellence that have opened doors to the remarkable opportunities. And we're incredibly proud to

007see D51 student earn one of the nation's most prestigious scholarship awards, and we look forward to watching all the accomplishments in your future. So, congratulations. [applause] And again, just to give some context, so over 34,000 students applied for this and less than 1% are actually selected for it. So again, congratulations to Terrence for that. [applause] >> Okay, with the students from the district 51 speech and debate teams, please join me at the front of the room. [applause] Okay. District 51 is proud to recognize our National Speech and Debate qualifiers who have earned the opportunity to compete at the Speech and Debate Association National Tournament this June in Richmond. The National Speech and Debate Tournament is considered one of the largest and most prestigious academic competitions in the world, bringing together thousands of students from across

008the nation and internationally to compete in speech interpretation and debate events. Students must qualify through regional and district level competition in order to earn a spot at the national tournament. Speech and debate challenges students to think critically, communicate effectively, research complex topics, and confidently present and defend ideas. These skills extend far beyond competition and help prepare students for future success in college, careers, leadership, and civic engagement. These students have dedicated countless hours to preparation, practice, competition, and performance throughout the year. Their qualification for the national tournament reflects not only their talent and academic excellence, but also their perseverance, discipline, and commitment to representing this their schools and district 51 at the highest level. In addition, district 51 would like to also recognize coach Tracy Camac of Palisade High School [applause] for being named the Western

009Slope Speech and Debate Coach of the Year. [applause] This recognition reflects Tracy's dedication to students commitment to the activity and the countless hours spent helping students grow as communicators, competitors, and leaders. The board of education and superintendent Dr. Hill would like to congratulate these students and their coaches on these outstanding accomplishments. We are incredibly proud of the way they represent district 51 and wish them the best of luck as they compete on the national stage this summer. And now I'll hand out your certificates. Max, help me with your name. Borovski. All right. [applause] Ayana Cleorn, [applause] Evelyn Forte, >> [applause] >> Olivia Nicodemus [applause] and Gabrielle Spriggs [applause] and Tracy Ceramac. [applause] >> [applause] >> Good evening. Would the students and educators recognized through the Scholastic Art Show please join me at the front of

010the room? >> [applause] [applause] >> District 51 is proud to recognize our students who earned gold key and silver key awards through the Scholastic Art and Writing Awards, the nation's longestr running and most prestigious recognition program for creative students in grades 7 through 12. Established in 1923, the program celebrates originality, technical skill, and emerging student voice. Each year, thousands of students from across the country submit original works in categories ranging from painting and photography to digital art, sculpture, mixed media, and illustration. Student work is evaluated by a panel of judges with gold key awards representing the highest level of recogni regional recognition. Gold Key recipients then advance to the national competition. This year, District 51 students earned an impressive number of gold and silver key awards, reflecting not only extraordinary artistic talent, but also creativity,

011dedication, and countless hours spent developing their craft. Their work stood out among submissions from students across the region and demonstrated the strength of our art programs across D51. We would also like to recognize two students for additional national honors. Quinn Blanchard of Grand Junction High School and Connor Jones of Fra Monument High School both earned silver national medals in addition to their gold key state titles. An incredible accomplishment that places their work among some of the top student artwork in the nation. Thank you to the outstanding educators who support, educate, and inspire these young artists each day. Their mentorship plays a vital role in helping students find their creative voice and pursue opportunities like the Scholastic Art and Writing Awards. So, the board of education and superintendent Dr. Hill would like to congratulate all of

012these students and educators on their outstanding accomplishments and hope they continue to represent their schools and our district through their creativity, talent, and hard work. [applause] Now, I believe there's only a few people that were able to make it today, but I am going to go ahead and read everyone's names because I believe they deserve to be recognized. So Tabitha can Can you [applause] McConnell [applause] congratulations Lucy Mclofflin? [applause] Congratulations. Quinn Allen, [applause] Freya Corbin, Clara Kemp. [applause] Congratulations, Connor Jones, [applause] Alex Smith, Robert Bell. [applause] [cheering] Congratulations, >> Tyler Norseworthy, Sarah Babnik, [applause] Jacob Smith, [applause] and of course, Quinn Blanchard. [applause] Would the Would the educators like to take these with you? Would [applause] the students and adviserss who qualified for the family career and Community Leaders of America National Leadership Conference. Please

013join me at the front of the room. [applause] [clears throat and cough] There are a lot. >> District 51 is honored to recognize our outstanding FCCLA students from Grand Junction High School, Palisade High School, and Fruta Monument High School who competed at the Colorado FCCLA State Leadership Conference this spring. More than 50 District 51 students participated in this year's conference alongside over 1,500 students from across Colorado competing in leadership and career focused events connected to the hospitality, education, design, nutrition, entrepreneurship, public policy, and community service. Though pre through presentations, projects, and performance-based competition, students demonstrated creativity, professionalism, technical skills, and leadership. District 51 students earned an impressive number of gold, silver, and bronze medals throughout the competition with multiple students qualifying to advanced to the FCCLA National Leadership Conference in Washington DC this summer. In

014addition to student success, both Grand Junction High School and Palisade High School earned gold chapter of merit recognition for their outstanding chapter leadership involvement and impact throughout the year. Students and chapters also received additional honors for leadership, scholarship, and participation in the FCCLA national programs, highlighting the strong commitment that these students have to service, career readiness, and leadership development both in and out of the classroom. The board of education and superintendent Dr. Hill would like to congratulate all participating students and adviserss on their outstanding accomplishments. We are incredibly pleased of the way they represent district 51 and wish them the best of luck as they compete on the national stage this summer. I'm going to go by schools. So, I'm going to start with Grand Junction High School. Yes, that would be perfect. We have

015four from Junction. So, our adviserss for Grand Junction High School are Jen Campbell Wilson and Sarah Keane. [applause] Our students are Leah Robinson, [applause] Campbell Hotard. [applause] Say that again. Campbell. Campbell. Thank you. Good looking out. I appreciate that. Payton Mckenley [applause] and Aiden Enis. Those are you. Let me get next will be Palisade High School with our adviser of Amanda Thally. [applause] Our first student is Haley Shackleford, [applause] Gabrielle Spriggs, [applause] Delaney Stevens, [applause] Chloe Trousell, Brillin Bonnie, [applause] Marily Bogard, [applause] Trinity Palmer, [applause] Caitlyn Spalding, Piper Weslowski. Yes. Thank you. [applause] Give me the hard ones. >> Olivia Thally [applause] and Alex Inis. [applause] Next is Frutoa Monument High School with the advisor of Kim Kimberly Weber. [applause] Our students are Gabriel D Roach, [applause] Madison Rabberg, Faren Gardner, [applause] Juliana Weber, [applause]

016and Katarina Weber. Congratulations to everyone. If you guys I'm not sure how she wants to do it. She might want you to go outside. [applause] >> Congratulations everyone. So, we'll be going on with the rest of our board meeting. If you would like to leave, this is the time you can go. It is. So, uh, next on our agenda is good things. The boards have anything to say about good things? If not, I will start. Uh, like to recognize Dan Bernell's daughter, Hayden, who took first in the discus and state and third in the shop in state. Congratulations. [snorts] We did all the graduations last week, so that was always a good thing and super fun. It was a little hot and you never know what graduation weather is going to be like. So, rainy

017and cold or hot and windy or so, but it was fun. It's always a great time to see all the kids um graduate and hear all the speeches and everything. So, graduation week is is always super fun. >> It was uh really fun. I think especially for Barb and I because we had quite a few of our students. Um, we realized we had quite a few to student overlap in our in our careers. And so that was really fun that we got to take turns seeing all of our former kiddos and seeing them graduate. So that was really fun. I enjoyed that quite a lot. >> I think you guys encompassed it all. Like it was a great week. So >> it was community activities or updates. Is there any? >> Nope. Then we have

018D51 happenings and celebrations. >> Hi board. I'm Sierra Hawkins, marketing and communications specialist for school district 51. Here to show share with you the district 51 happenings and celebrations. District 51 was proud to celebrate Glenn Fitzgibbons from Palisade High School as May's Golden Apple Award winner. Known by students as a true math wiz, Mr. Fitzgibbons has helped countless learners build confidence and experience those exciting breakthrough moments in math. Whether he's supporting students in the classroom or going the extra mile to help them succeed outside of it, his impact is felt across the entire school community. Students and colleagues alike appreciate his kindness, dedication, and the genuine care he brings to Palisade High School every day. District 51 is proud to have educators like Mr. Fitzgiven making a difference in our schools every day. May gave

019us so many reasons to celebrate across District 51. Throughout the month, we recognize the incredible people who help make our schools such special places for students and families every day. From our inspiring teachers and caring school nurses to our hardworking school lunch heroes, bus drivers, crossing guards, and school communicators, each group plays an important role in supporting student success in building strong school communities. Their passion, dedication, and commitment are felt in classrooms, cafeterias, offices, and hallways across the district. And District 51 is grateful for the positive impact they have on our schools every day. District 51 loves celebrating the many different paths students are taking after graduation this month. At Central High School, students were recognized during the school's second performing arts signing day as they committed to continuing their passions in music, theater, and

020design at the college level. Central High School and Fermon High School also celebrated students during military signing day, honoring seniors who have chosen to serve in the US military after graduation. These events were a great reminder that success looks different for every student and district 51 is proud to support and celebrate each unique journey. The Project Search class of 2026 celebrated an exciting milestone this month as former D-51 students successfully completed the transition to work program and secured employment as they begin their career journeys. Through hands-on training and real world ex workplace experiences, students gain the confidence and skills needed for long-term success. District 51 is grateful for the partnership with Community Hospital and the many community partners who continue to support these students in their futures. We are incredibly proud of these students and

021excited to continue watching them grow and thrive beyond the classroom. This year's adaptive track and field events brought so much joy, encouragement, and celebration to our D51 students. From cheering each other on to celebrating personal victories big and small, the day was filled with smiles, teamwork, and connection by splitting the event between elementary and secondary students. This year, we created even more opportunities for students to participate and feel successful in a fun, supportive environment. Thank you to our special education department, transportation department, nursing services, project search, insteps, and our incredible AP team for making these meaningful experiences possible for students year after year and leaving a lasting impact that extends far beyond the four walls of our classrooms. Last week, District 51 proudly celebrated the class of 2026 and they and all they accomplished during

022their time in our schools. Over 1,400 students crossed the stage this graduation season, each with their own story, challenges, and successes worth celebrating. Almost 900 graduates earned nearly 10,000 college credits through partnerships with Colorado Mesa University and CMU Tech, while many others pushed through push themselves through AP courses, the IB program, STEM pathways, career training programs, athletics, the arts, and countless countless extracurricular opportunities. At every graduation ceremony, it was clear this class left a lasting mark on their schools and the people around them. The speeches, performances, and moments shared throughout graduation season reflected a class full of personality, resilience, and ambition. District 51 is incredibly proud of the class of 2026, and we cannot wait to see where their journeys take them next. And that is all I have for May. I hope you all

023have a wonderful and restful summer. Don't forget to stay posted with all things D51 by following us on social media at D51 schools. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have a superintendent report. >> All right. So, we have three items this evening. Uh first up, we'll have a legislative update from Amy Atwood. So, hopefully she's online. Amy, can you hear us? >> I can. Can you hear me? >> We can. Thank you. >> Okay. Fantastic. Amy Atwood, contract lobbyist with the district. So, the 120day legislative session came to an end on Wednesday. It was it was a very hard session this year. I think if you asked a number of lobbyists from different interest groups and issues, the second year with such a tough budget has made it it's just made it more

024difficult. There was no extra money this year to expand programs or to start new programs. However, the school finance act did pass. It finally passed on the very last day of session, which is unusual for it to be that late, but it was. It was the afternoon of the last day. But education was not cut. And as Dr. Hill rightly says education is not fully or adequately funded, but the legislature did uphold its commitment to continue the implementation of the new school finance formula at 30% with three-year averaging. Now, district 51 is in is in a different position because of declining enrollment. We did take care of the hold harmless language. If you remember, we had to take care of it for the current year 2526 in a supplemental process in January where it was

025found by CDE staff that what was intended with the home hold harmless language was what was not what was actually written in the language. So we had that fixed for the current year 2526 and then we also had it fixed going forward. So not just 26 27 but going forward. And through that process it was found that there were I think nearly 40 districts that were impacted because that holdless language wasn't correct. So um we were able to take care of that and that's that is very important for district 51 and homeschool enrichment funding. We had discussed this that there was potential that the funding would be cut from 0.5 to 0.25 or different rules would be in place for the number of hours to receive the 0.5 funding. The funding did not change. So

026each homeschool enrichment student through a district, a charter or boseis is still funded at 0.5 within the school finance act. There was an amendment that dealt with Bosey's homeschool enrichment programs. So um but as far as the district and your charters are concerned, nothing changed there. However, rules are being developed or promulgated by the state board of education. They will begin in June starting that process and they expect to have those rules finished by December 31st so that if there is legislation that is also needed to implement those rules that that legislation can uh be put in can run in the 2027 session. So I will continue to be engaged in that rule making process and continue to work with Dr. Hill and Mel to make sure that uh the funding the funding is where

027it needs to be for the district. So, and also through the school finance act, uh there was an amendment laid on that helped fund the charter schools or fund charter schools and CSI schools. There was a situation where charters were being cut, but through those negotiations in the last two weeks, really the last 10 days of session, charters as well, um the funding was found to fully fund the charters. So, are there any questions uh as it relates to the budget? No. Okay, great. Then let's talk about I'm going to do a little bit more reading on this one. On Senate Bill 135, this is the bill that proposed uh the November ballot question that will ask voters to approve diverting surplus revenues that would otherwise be returned as Taber refunds to public education. So

028those Taber refunds would be would be diverted to public education. Not all of it, though. So, 55 of the hundred legislators co-sponsored the bill, and the education interest groups that were behind the bill see it as a way to address Colorado's persistent teacher pay and turnover issues. The measure is complicated and it was amended a dozen times, but it basically will work like this. Currently, state revenue that exceeds the referendum CC cap must be refunded to taxpayers. Those are our TABER refunds. Note that that doesn't happen every year and surplus amounts can vary yearbyear. So, not only do we not get them every year, but they fluctuate up and down. Sometimes we've received checks, sometimes it is as a tax credit on our state income tax. So there are different ways that those refunds have

029come back to us. Now if voters approve the measure, those surplus those surpluses will first be used to reimburse counties for the cost of the senior homestead property tax exemption. So that is the first big trunch of money that will be taken from those surpluses and then after that revenues up to a certain level will be placed in a positive factor fund. So you know that we have the negative factor or the budget stabilization factor. They the bill creates a positive factor fund where those revenues will be placed and they will be distributed to school districts by formula to be used to it's fairly wide open to be used to fund increased teacher pay, teacher retention, smaller class sizes, and access to career and technical education courses. The funding would be separate from total program

030funding or from school finance funding that districts receive through the formula. So this is a separate a separate trunch of money because it won't happen every single year that that's why um it is being run totally outside of the school finance formula and it has its own formula as well. And that was part of the amendment process was the way the bill was originally drafted. It the disparities between who what districts were getting was just too great. It the formula just wasn't working. And so through those amendments and to gain more support from school districts and other education stakeholders um the formula was reworked. So, if there is extra money in a given year above the homestead property tax exemption for counties as well as the positive factor, that extra money or the remaining revenue

031must be spent on programs that support children, prioritizing child care, full day preschool, and other programs that help children be successful in school. So, that too is is fairly broad. I just wanted to note that from 2000 to this interesting stat from 2008 to 2023 seven proposals of various kinds were on the ballot to fund public education and voters have re rejected all seven of them. So, the measure likely has an uphill has an uphill battle, but I know that it is it it's important to the district and to be informed and that it it will be on the ballot this fall. It's a referred measure from the legislature. So, it doesn't require signatures like a cit citizen initiated measure. So, we will definitely see this on on the ballot this fall. Okay. So with

032that, are there any questions about that measure, that bill, or any of the other bills this year? Well, I don't know that I have um necessarily particular questions. We heard an update this um this morning from our local representatives and representative Tagert sits on the JBC as you know. So he had mentioned that the only way that we funded education this next year was because we took it from what the state education fund. And so he said that that fund is literally about ready to run off a cliff um if if there's no more money that the state starts to produce. And so I guess I'm just I don't you know just with your 120 days um update with the they said it was hard because the budget was not great. I can't imagine that

033next year is going to be any better for the legislature. So, um, and his concern was that next year because they didn't touch K12 education or higher education because they used the state education fund that um there's no guarantee next year that um K12 or higher education will not be affected. And so I guess that concerns me because if the state education fund is now staring down the edge of a cliff. I mean I just I don't know where the state's going to continue to get funding for education and if they have an uphill battle, you know, on a ballot measure. So I guess it's more of a comment. Not that you have all the answers, Amy, but just an observation >> and I can help fill in a little bit there. So, um I

034have to say Representative Tagert again for another year has been really really good for the district. He listens. Um Senator Rich as well. Uh and but because Representative Tagert is on the joint budget committee, he and I talk a lot about education funding and holding the commitment to the continued implementation at 30% and threeear student averaging. I I do agree that we likely will see a pause in the formula implementation. So there just will not be the hundreds of millions of dollars that are needed to to fund the formula at a 40. The next set is supposed to go or the next implementation target is 45%. And that again is another $300 million on top of the $300 million this year. And where it pulls from, if there isn't more revenue coming into the state,

035it pulls from the state education fund. And so we pulled 300 million from it last year. We pulled 300 million from it this year. It really is down at about I think it's around 5600 million. But the state education fund is also used for other things within the formula. So it's being depleted quickly. So we need to keep in mind for next year's budget. So when we look ahead, I think we talked a lot this year about just holding flat. Don't don't plan on any increases, including even a cost of living increase. So I think that that still holds true for next year. We will have a good runway or runup to session starting in January with the revenue forecasts. So we get a revenue forecast every quarter. We get one in June, October, no

036I'm sorry, June, September, and December. And all three of those are very big milestones because the June revenue forecast really is what closes out the 2526 budget. And if we did not if the state did not get enough in through tax revenues to cover the 2526 budget, that money has to come out of the 2627 budget. So the budget we just passed. So keep that in mind. It looks like right now that we will be okay and not have to backfill for 25 26, but we'll have a very good idea that in June with with the tax returns that have been that have been put in as well as any extensions. So they have a very good idea and even if you put in an extension, you still have to pay your taxes. Um so

037that will help us close out 2526. Then in September, we will start to get a sense and feel on the economy and how the economy is moving as well as business starts, housing starts, housing permits, just not only the national, they really do global, national, and then local, state. So September is is the first not just revenue forecast for 20 728, but it really is the economic forecast as well. And then and it will foreshadow as well if we will see a revision in January. So there is talk that if the tax receipts don't come in and the state moves into a recession or the nation moves into a recession that the money that that we got this year a portion of it could be pulled back and that would happen in January. We would

038have a good idea in December. I we'll start hearing about it in September, but in the December um economic and revenue forecast, that is where we will hear if there are any revisions or the state needs to claw money back from us. So, continuing to be um very conservative in your budgeting and spending is important because we have been warned that money could be pulled back in January. But, you know, going forward, we know that we're in a structural deficit for the budget and it was going to be 3 to 5 years to get out of that structural deficit. And we just finished year two. So, we have at least at least another year, likely two, three if we are in a recession. Um and the structural deficit means the state is just flat out

039overspending revenues. So revenues the pace at which revenues are coming in has decreased. Population growth has decreased. We haven't gone to negative yet. But 2026 could be the first year since the early 90s that Colorado has more out migration than in migration. That hurts revenues. Uh so there are a lot of things that are coming together and then everything is more expensive not just in in education but in Medicaid and so Medicaid took the biggest cut. It was a straightup cut to Medicaid. Medicaid programs Medicaid providers were not held flat. They had a cut a 2% cut to their provider rate. So what Representative Tagger to go back to what he said, I don't see a scenario where next year education gains like it did if the economy is in great shape um holding flat

040or gaining some but that roll out to 45% I just I don't I just don't see that the economy is going to be that strong in the next 12 months. Did that help fill in some of the some of those gaps? >> Yeah. No, that was helpful. Thank you. >> Amy, this is Barb. How are you? >> Good. So, I I guess I'm struggling with this. Well, it's a formula. It's a formula. It's a formula because I hear we already have a finance formula. We're in a hold harmless situation. But [snorts] this Senate bill 135 is going to be based off of a formula and I've looked through the bill and I can't find the formula. So, how do voters know that if they vote yes on this that it is going to benefit their

041community? because that's one thing that I think we struggle with is, you know, depending on the area we're in and especially since we're one of the lowest funded districts in the state of Colorado, our voters are going to question how should we vote on Senate Bill 135? And I just think that it's so ambiguous right now that it's really hard for our voters to make a um an educated decision. Do you have any feedback on that? >> I do. Let me just look something up real quick because it may be noted in the fiscal note h how it will be distributed, but the blue book should um detail what every school district is getting. That is that has been part of the intent or they've talked about that to be included in the blue book.

042Let me look at the most recent fiscal note though. Um, it went through 12 revisions and six fiscal notes. So, let's see if it gives us the runs for every district. It does. So, let me look. So the positive factor for Mesa Valley would be $2304 million. And I will send this um to you all. So you have this fiscal note and this the fiscal note is a great way. It it really distills down what the bill does, but it also, like I said, it shows all of the districts uh and what each district would get in in a specific year with, you know, if this is the amount of money that comes in, this is how much the district would get. Just keep in mind that that fluctuates. >> Yeah, I was going to

043say I want to make sure we're clear that's not guaranteed. Like there's >> No, it's not. >> If the money's not there, we're not getting anything, >> right? or if it's a very small refund. Just remember that off the top, it goes to backfill count's um homestead property tax. So, they get the first cut at it. I know we're going to talk about it two items later, but this is why millip overrides are really important because those are local dollars that we are guaranteed that we're going to get and we don't have to continue to rely on. I mean, I've been in our I lived in our community for seven years. I don't think we've had a year where we've talked about how great K12 funding is at the state level. We had the years

044with ESSER dollars, which are grant dollars, which felt like we were actually funded at a level that was great. But this continues to be an issue every year and um it's just more of a reason why passing something like a mill is important for our community and for our students. >> Are there any other questions? >> Thank you, Amy. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh next up we have um our budget presentation. So I'll have Mel come up and do that. Just in case this isn't the right presentation. All right. Good evening, board. Um, so tonight is the formal presentation of our proposed budget for the 2026 2027 fiscal year. Um, it's required by state statute that we present a budget and have it available for the public to expect by May 31st

045of each year. Um, planning for next year's budget truly has been a year-long process. As some of what Amy Atwood was speaking to very early on, we were concerned that this would be another really tough budget year that we were looking at and needing to plan for. Um, so this timeline just kind of outlines the normal financials, budget milestones that we would have in any given year. But we've really made a concerted effort to bring our staff and community along um as well as making the budget decisions that had to be made as early as possible um going into next year. And so I want to begin by thanking everyone who contributed to this budget process. Um it wasn't an easy one. Um there were those who worked through difficult task of identifying savings and

046budget reductions with an already lean budget. um made thoughtful reductions and remain focused on the long-term strength and stability of our district to best support students and staff. And so, uh going over school finance, like Amy mentioned, it passed on the very last day of session. There were several runs leading up to that. They were going back and forth. Thankfully for us, they were very small dollar amount fluctuations in the grand scheme of things, but it was just passed last week. Senate bill 2623 is what sets our funding levels for K12 education and it is based on the school finance formula. Uh it sets inflation at 2.4% 30% new phase in of the new school finance formula. Um importantly it reduces student count averaging from four years down to three years. That continues to impact

047us. And then there were three different methodologies that the formula could be calculated on this year. we are on the last one which is the 1994 formula calculated with that inflationary rate um for next year and so essentially we are on hold harmless and still on the 94 formula. So just to walk through some of the math if we're comparing our current readopted budget to our proposed budget for school finance specifically um our PPR is increasing. It's going from 11,179 to 11,575. That's the amount that we receive per student. So that's about a three and a half percent increase. But the number of students that will be funded for our funded pupil count, which takes into consideration the years of averaging is decreasing by 3.7% or almost 700 students. So, that's not our enrollment decrease,

048but it's kind of a double whammy that we are declining enrollment, but then they're changing that calculation as well from four years down to three years. Um, so overall, when you multiply that out, our school finance formula uh funding is going down about a half a million dollars, 511,000 from this current budget, which is a 2% decrease. And just to delve into our student count a little bit more. Um so on the left here are our five most recent years including next year's projection. And so with the three years that are now included in our uh funding level calculation, all three of those years are now in the 18,000. Um the 19,000 years are dropping off. Um certainly we're past the 20,000 years of the past as well. And so if we're looking at just

049a student decline that our demographer has projected, um, uh, we're expecting 280 fewer students. But again, that difference in funded pupil count is because of the change in averaging. And so because we are hold held harmless to the 1994 formula, that's providing an about 5.8 million in funding above what the new formula at 30% implementation and three-year averaging would have provided. And so we are benefiting from that even though it is decreasing um with the averaging. And then one of the last um amendments that was also introduced in the session is that there's a smoothing factor that could begin no earlier than 2728 but it would begin at 45% implementation of the new funding formula. And it puts us it replaces the averaging and it puts us somewhere in between a two-year and a threeyear.

050Basically, the three years would be weighted at 50%, 30% and 20% for our student count. And so that's again just something that we'll need to consider if the new funding formula continues to be implemented for the following year. [snorts] Um so overall in the general fund, we are expecting a decrease in revenue not just from school finance. Um those are in the blue box at the top. um the total program decline and the pass through to charter schools. Um but some of our state categoricals are also being uh impacted by declines in enrollments as well, such as special education revenue. Um our vocational revenue are anticipating that that'll go down a little bit as well. Um we're only reimbursed a percentage and that that percentage is kind of backed into by the available funds at

051the state. Um with the increases in the current budget to our transportation costs, we are expecting that we'll get a little bit more reimbursement in next year. Um and then just some other true up pieces to some of the categoricals. Um local revenues too. We looked at those to see um recalculating our interest revenue projection based on our interest rates that we're currently um experiencing. looking at some of our miscellaneous revenue categories um and then our pass through to the charter schools of our 96 and 2004 MLOS's. So when you put these pieces together in all of these areas there are decreases um of about $1.3 million overall to the general fund. So, with the decreases in revenues, um, we had to look within our current budget and costs in order to cover annual cost

052increases for next year. Um, that's where the budget reductions came in. And so, I've broken these down by category, but in total, they are over $8.4 million in permanent budget reductions that were identified. Um, our for our school staffing, we stuck to our systemic staffing model ratios with fewer students. Um, there are fewer SSE systemic staffing equivalents that are going to be applied. Um that's at a savings of about three and a half million 35 positions at central office. 26.3 FTE were reduced um totaling nearly $3 million. Um there were some funding shifts, um some reduction of contract days for some positions that also experienced some savings. And then we went through all of our department budgets, um made recommendations there to the tune of $369,000 in savings. Um a reduction to our summer school

053budget of $300,000. Um, this one was a good one that came in towards the end of the budget planning was our change to our internet service provider is going to yield some savings and actually have a stronger system at over $400,000 of savings. Um, and then some of the other miscellaneous pieces. Uh, we'll be capping our school budget carryover. So, the amount that we allocate to buildings um for some of their uh supply type items will be capping the amount that they can carry over from year to year. Again, just trying to make the most of the making sure that budgets are being utilized. Um that has a savings of 345,000. U in this current budget, we had some one-time costs, startup costs related to Taylor's PYP program. And so pulling those back and then

054I'll talk a little bit more about this on the preschool fund, but we've been um supporting our preschool fund since the inception of the universal preschool program with a transfer from the general fund. and due to some changes there, we're finally able to pull that back and put that those funds back into the general fund. Um so just to go through some of those central office FTE that were eliminated, these were all um presented in our February um budget update to the board and sent out um in information to staff as well. Um these positions were reduced through attrition where possible. Um but all of these reductions are of course impactful in their needed positions. Um [snorts] looking to the required adjustments in any given year, there are certain costs that increase either contractually or

055by inflationary type increases. Um this year one of the things that we look to do is even in those annual increases to identify savings to help offset them. Um and so we were able to do that in several of these categories. Uh we did enter into an energy performance contract during this current fiscal year and we'll begin making payments on that next year. So we needed to put those lease payments in there. Um but that energy performance contract guarantees annual energy savings of at least $313,000. And so that will almost entirely offset the expected increase to utilities. Uh student transportation is another contract that increases annually by a percentage. um that cost was mostly offset by some identified route savings. And so those were two areas that typically we would see much larger um increases

056to expenses, but um those teams worked really hard to get those costs down. Uh we also have a placeholder in here for our CMU Tech and Bose's contract just estimating an inflationary increase there. Um, every year there's some true up pieces where we look to true up our salary and benefit budgets to the folks actually in their positions. That added uh 337 back into available funds. And then our district share again just looking at um employees current elections and budgeting for a full year of the 2026 plan year rates. Um, and lastly, our largest increase in this category actually ended up being the transfer to our risk management fund 64, um, to support ongoing cost. I've spoken to you guys about this one before, but that's where we have our property liability insurance, uh, workers

057comp, safety, and security, and it's funded almost entirely by the general fund through a transfer. And that transfer just hasn't kept pace with those costs. And so we needed to increase that transfer. Um to help support that transfer, we were actually able to um access some unassigned general fund reserves to support about half of it. um with the idea of if we do go for an MLO and receive it and there's safety and security um pieces in there, maybe this is a temporary increase cost um with the MLO dollars going to help support these costs. Um or if nothing else, we do have some unassigned general fund reserves to get us through this next year. Um the other temporary shift that we identified was in our Medicaid grant funds. So temporarily we're moving almost $1.2

058$2 million the special service provider salary and benefits into that grant which can support that for about two years, but eventually we will need to fold those back into the general fund. And so those are 1.7 million. Just knowing where our budget is and our priorities going into next year um that we'll be able to access some available funds to get us through. [snorts] Um, as you would expect, there wasn't a formal budget request process this year. There also wasn't one last year, um, as we're in our second tight budget year. Um, but there were some additional costs, um, that our budget adds. One of those is a CLLD position due to anticipated increase of students um, receiving services. And then our compensation oversight committee continues to meet and review positions on a a set

059schedule. And the pair of professionals were a group that was up for review in this year and they were identified for a market re adjustment. We also looked at our comps and our library services and those changes total just over 400,000 but by far um pair of professionals are the a bulk of that cost. So kind of to summarize how we were able to get available funds in a year that we were having our revenues reduced. So, our revenue is going down over 1.2 million. Our transfers increasing. That's the amount that we're either sending to our district charter schools or transferring to other district funds. Those are increasing by over 700,000. And then it was truly was those expenditure adjustments um reducing expenses from the current budget to next year by over 10.5 million along

060with the one-time use of unassigned reserves for 500,000. um that we were able to accumulate available funds of $6 million in order to be applied to annual staff salary increases. So, I just want to walk through what those are. You know, you have the item for MVA later on the agenda, but just walking through these side by side of how that $6 million will be utilized. Um MVA negotiated changes for covered employees total almost 3.7 million will continue to honor the educational lane advancement which is designed to be paid from attrition savings. Uh one new step increase for eligible employees and then a 1 and a.5% cost of living adjustment or cola built into the salary schedule that impacts the starting and the max of the ranges. The step impacts how an employees move through

061the salary schedule. And so that would put our new teacher salary schedule range at 50,765 with a cap of 105998. Um also updating the restorative language for the current 2526 step that was frozen um to say that ongoing revenues to fund this step could also include a new mill levby override. So just clarifying that piece. And then I have a note down here that school psychologist critical needs stipens were also negotiated but those will be paid for Medicaid grant funds and they aren't a general fund obligation but those will uh carry a cost of between 107,000 and 163,000 spend depending on staffing levels and so taking that and mirroring it for other employees throughout our system board covered employees or employees on other salary schedules um that would be a cost of about 2.3 million

062dollars. So, being able to also provide a step for employees across our system um for eligible employees, also being able to apply the 1 and a.5% cost of living adjustment to all of their salary schedules. And then the intent also still to restore that 2526 step for everyone uh all eligible employee groups uh when when or if recurring general fund dollars become available including a new mel overright. Um the other piece I just want to highlight is that our employee benefits um no increase to parah rates and either the contribution from members or from the employer those rates are staying the same next year. So that was not a budgetary factor and also won't be for our employees. And then health insurance uh no increase to health insurance rates for 2627 on either the district

063or the employee side. So just wanted to remind folks about that as well. So when you look at general funds after the salary increases and everything is folded together um this is what it looks like. 249 million in expected revenues. That's a decrease from the current budget. that increase to transfers 15.5 million in transfers an increase of 700,000 from our current budget and our expenditures are actually going down from our current budget um even with the pay increase because remember in this year we had the cola in loo payment as well that was budgeted as as an expenditure and so expenditures in the proposed budget are 234 million and then again that one time use of unassigned reserves for 503. Um so if we're looking at our general fund balance, um our ending fund balance

064in the proposed budget is just over 63 million. That is again that decrease of 503 from our anticipated balances for the current year. Um broken down into several categories. Non-spendable inventories that remains the same, no change. Restricted um is our table reserve. That's a calculation that happens much later. And so we've just left this flat in our proposed budget. And then with the decrease to um overall expenditures that also decreases what 20% of our expenditures and transfers is in a dollar amount um which is what the board has designated as a minimum reserve. And so for that reason that uh board designated reserve would actually decrease by about 493,000. meaning that even though we're using 500,000 um we're basically anticipating our unassigned to stay at our current year levels if that makes sense. So in

065this at June 30 of 2026 we're anticipating having about 4 and a.5 million as unassigned reserves similar in next year's budget as well. Um that puts us 1.39% above the minimum amount. Um, and we remain to have that flexibility if there's federal changes, if there's a state mid-year recision, um, any of those things that are kind of on the table. Um, or our possibilities at least, um, we still have some flexibility there. Um, do I'll pause for the general fund. Do you have any questions on the general fund pieces? Okay. Um, so just to highlight some of the work being done in other funds outside of the general fund, there were also some um, programmatic changes or budgetary changes just helping to ensure the health of all of our funds across the district. And so

066the first one is our preschool fund, which is fund 19. Um, we'll be entering the fourth year of universal preschool program, UPK. Um, and that program is expanding some of their offerings um, through increased hours per week. And so next year they'll be offering part-time 10-hour week classes for three and four year olds, expanding the number of 15-hour week classes available for four year olds. And then two locations will be offering full day 30-hour week classes, and those are at LOMA and at the early childhood center at Nisley. Um, these increased hours have provided not only more options for families, which is great, but they've really helped to stabilize the revenues because with UPK, we're funded based on some hour tiers. And so, um, once we get up to that 15 hour a week, we

067receive more funding. And so, it's really helped to stabilize that fund and allowed us to pull back on the transfer from general fund. [clears throat] Nutrition services is another fund. Um that's similar to how we've been reviewing positions that become vacated during the year. They also have been doing that and reviewing their labor um to make sure that it's aligning with meal production at each site um before reposting any position vacancies. So that's one area that they've been able to realize some efficiencies. Um they've also been monitoring the food and supply costs, making sure that they're doing everything as efficiently as possible. And two of the major cost-saving areas was one they brought pizza inhouse. So we no longer contract that out. Um and by using USDA commodities, they're saving over $70,000 by doing that.

068Um also they've been looking at lowerc cost vendors for things like the trays or the napkins, um disposable silverware, some of those types things out at schools, and that also carries a savings of over $70,000. Um, now that healthy school meals for all is fully funded at the state level, there are two new grant opportunities that this fund will also benefit next year. Um, the first is the local food program grant where would be able to get reimbursement for some of the locally purchased food costs, things that we're already doing. Um, but also it'll allow for the creation of a local food advisory committee. um looking to expand those offerings for our local food vendors um food providers. And then the other one is a wages and stipens grant. Um so really looking at employee

069recruitment and retention for nutrition services. They'll be able to offer some hourly wage incentives, new hire bonuses, and an annual retention bonus through this grant which is designed in order to address that. Um so we have uh several funds of capital projects that are ongoing. Fund 43 is our regular capital reserve. Um the most significant budgeted item in this fund next year is the completion of the D51 educational service center at East which will allow our staff to move out of Emerson and BTK. Um, fund 44 is where we have the financing proceeds for our energy performance projects, which those will also be completed in the next fiscal year, which were HVAC projects and districtwide lighting projects. And [snorts] then fund 45 is where we house our bond proceeds from 2024. And so the continuation

070of those 2024 bond projects will be accounted for in that fund. So lastly, just to go over the budget next steps, there aren't any resolutions that you'll be asked to vote on tonight. It's just the presentation. Um like I mentioned at the start, we're required to present formally our budget by May 31st. Um the budget document actually is already out on our transparency web page and available for the public to look at. It's also available at our district office should somebody want a hard copy of it. Um, in the daily sentinel, there will be two notices published for public uh budget hearings. Those budget hearings will be before the June meetings begin, June 2nd and June 16th. And then the budget resolutions to formally adopt the budget as well as any changes that have happened

071in the next month um will be brought forward on June 16th at the business meeting. Any questions? Um, I just I think probably everybody's thinking it, but thanks for all your work on the budget because it's a lot of work. Um, and I just, you know, we just came off of the conversation around the budget for next year and just want to make sure that folks understand like it was exciting to be able to go into negotiations this year to be able to talk about a step and a cola, but that is not because of new money from the state. that is because of, you know, over $3 million worth of central office cuts and cuts at staffing at school levels and having to pull back on departmental budgets. And so, I just want to

072make sure that the public understands like this is not because we had new money that came in from the state. This was because of some really tough decisions around reduction of positions. And those were not positions that um were just extra or fluff. Um those were, you know, um necessary positions that we had to cut to be able to get to this point. And so, um, again, just another reason why, um, we continue to rely on the state budget that is not coming through for us. Um, something like a MEL override is really important so we can continue to do things like pay our teachers what they're worth and and, uh, and not have to make so many cuts down the road. But, um, it was a lot of work this year from Mel and

073the whole team and everybody to talk about where we can actually cut. So, the three million this year is on top of the 1.8 million in central office cuts we've already made. So, we made almost $5 million worth of central office staffing cuts in addition to all the other things. So, just want to reiterate, a lot of work went into that and it's not because of new money that came from the state. It's because we had to make some really tough decisions and I'm proud of um Mel and the team for having to navigate all that. So, thank you for all you do. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you, Mel. Um, our last item is, um, we want to discuss, uh, the potential Milwaukee override. Speaking of millie override, let's talk about that. So,

074um, we have Courtney. She should be online. Courtney, can you hear us? Yes, we can't see you yet, but we can hear you. Um, so Courtney is uh from Mellin. Um we have used Mellin um over the past few um election cycles that we've done uh for bonds and millennial rides and they provide valuable data for us on uh polling around potential ballot questions. And so um we initiated a um conversation with Courtney and Melan again this year to talk about um what would it look like to go for a millet override this November. And so we've asked um Courtney to come and present the findings of that poll and then also open up some discussion for kind of next steps for the board. So I'll turn it over. I think you're going to present

075your screen, right, Courtney? >> Yes. >> Okay, I'll turn it over to you. >> Can you all see that? >> We can. >> Okay. Yeah. So as Dr. Hill mentioned my name is Courtney Severs. Um I work for Mellan Strategies. We are a public opinion research firm based out of Broomfield, Colorado. I actually am a District 51 alumni. So I'm happy to present these results tonight. Um again for district maybe there we go. Um since really 2020, we have started doing MMS text message surveys to online platforms. Um inviting respondents to participate in a survey. And what I mean by that is if you look there on the left slide of the slide is a text message example of what was sent to a random sample of voters within district 51 inviting them to participate

076in the survey. Each text message had a unique link um so that we could make sure that no survey link was spread online or spread throughout social media or anything like that. We were able to monitor that on the backside and make sure it was just a onetoone um per voter for um each completed interview. So that's how our methodology really works. But we did interview 1,444 registered voters within Mesa County Valley School District 51. These interviews were conducted from April 1st through the 9th of this year. Um and that gave us a margin of error of 2.56% at the 95% confidence interval. This survey data is weighted to res represent what we expect voter turnout demographics to be for this year's um midterm election. Um, and what I mean by that is really, I

077know these numbers are probably a little small on the screen, um, but what I mean by that is we look at past vote history. So, those that voted in 2022, the last midterm election, um, but not only that, from from President Trump's first term, we know that voter turnout for the midterm election and his first term, was a little bit higher. And so we're anticipating turnout to be right in between those 2022 midterm numbers and similar to a presidential election. So those 2024 numbers. And what that really does is it impacts though mainly age group. Um you can see an odd year versus the midterm in 2022 versus the presidential in 2024. You can see those differences between 18 to 34 year old voters going from 10% in an odd-year election to 15% in the

078last midterm um to 21% in 2024. And so we're kind of splitting the difference here of what we expect turnout to be a little bit higher than a midterm election, but not quite as high as a presidential. And so really what that means is you're going to have a younger turnout um as well as a higher number of unaffiliated voters. And those voters typically tend to be more tax increase, not as fiscally conservative, not as much living on a fixed income. Um, so they're a little bit more usually likely to vote for any sort of tax increase. So, let's jump into some of this. These are some key takeaways and opportunities um that really the survey showed. And I will go through these quickly because I'll go in more in depth as we go through

079these results. Um but there is a divided electorate um with slight opposition risk and what I mean by that is the potential MLO starts at out at 47% saying that they would vote yes and 45% saying they would vote no statistically tied. Um it's a very competitive environment and really not a clear path to of passage without any sort of persuasion. There's going to be some work to do there um to get any sort of MLO over that ballot hump in November. Um, also there is very strong support for teachers. Um, however, there's a little bit more weaker trust in the district and administration and I'll dive into that here shortly as well. Um, there is some cred credibility and spending concerns. That's definitely the biggest barrier. Um, many believe that the district has the

080funding to create these teacher salaries to create the funding that you need. Um, many believe that there's that perception there that you have enough funding to do this. Um, LA second here is not all funding uses are equal to voter support. And what I mean by that is we knew we were looking at concurrent enrollment, CTE, teacher salary, as well as some security options. And so we wanted to see among those four things if there was any differences um when it comes to asking voters to approve a tax for any of those four. And again, I'll jump into these differences here shortly. Um but there is some differences when you're looking at those four options of what that funding would go towards. And then last but not least, um some targeted messaging can move those

081persuadable persuadable voters. Um you'll see as we go from what I call the uninformed ballot measure to the informed ballot measure that there is some movement there and there is some impact on some information that we did give to voters to educate them more on what this funding would go towards. But let's jump into it. Um, as I mentioned, we looked at CTE programming as well as concurrent um, enrollment in the programs involved with that. But we really wanted to get a measure of familiarity. How much does the district or how familiar is the district with those two programs? Um, especially with roughly 70% of the district being non-parents. Um, and so right now from the survey itself, 45% were either very or somewhat familiar with CTE programming. And again, this is before we educated

082them on what CTE programming is, what that actually is, and what it means for educational programs in schools. Um, 45% were either very or somewhat familiar under a quarter, 24% were not familiar at all. Um, and no big differences really here by any sort of voter subgroup here on the right. Um, where you do have some differences is parents versus non-parents where parents are just a little bit more informed of what CTE programming is. Um, and then you can see some differences there among municipality. And as I go through these results, I do want to point out um that this is based off of municipality. This is not based off of the four high school districts of Central, Fruda, Junction, or Palis. This is based off of where the respondent lives um in relation to

083the county itself. When we're talking about familiarity with the concurrent enrollment program, these numbers are very similar to CTE. 46% saying that they're very or somewhat just over a quarter, 26% saying not familiar at all. Um, a little bit more women are more familiar with concurrent versus men. Um, and then really the next characteristic is that parents versus non-parents. You can see that that spread between parents and non-parents just a little bit more informed of parents that are informed on the concurrent program versus those non-parents. And then as I mentioned, we did ask just a question in general. Would you support or oppose a property tax increase to help fund? And we broke down those four key aspects. Safety and security in schools, CTE programs, teacher and staff salary, concurrent enrollment programs. And you can

084see as we go down this list, safety and security in schools um has that highest number of support being at 69%. CTE Oh, and my computer just froze. Just one second. CTE being at 63%, teacher and staff salaries being at 57%. Um however, it does have the highest opposition at 41% and concurrent enrollment programs at 50%. But you'll see that green box there on the right being the largest among concurrent um where more voters are have an unsure or no opinion when it comes to increasing property taxes to fund those concurrent enrollment programs. But let's dive into the potential MLO. And so I call this the uninformed ballot measure. And what I mean by that is we like to give voters and respondents the opportunity to read that Taber um ballot measure language. It's long.

085It's lengthy. But it does gives those details of what it's looking like and what it'll be like on the ballot in November. We want them to have a cold read of that before they're informed of what the district's going to do with the funding, why the district needs the funding. It's just really a cold read. Would you vote yes or no on this ballot measure? And again, this is for that potential MLO for 32 million. Um, looking at that increase of 10.62 mills. um that'll roughly cost $24.96 per month on the average home valued at 400,000. And then again going towards those bullet points there talking about um teacher salaries, talking about expanding that workforce readiness from CTE to concurrent to STEM and then last but not least there talking about safe and secure learning

086environments for student and students and staff. So after respondents read that ballot language, we asked them again, would you vote if this MLO were on the ballot in November, would you vote yes and approve it or would you vote no and reject it? And as I mentioned there at the top, this is statistically tied. 47% saying that they would vote yes and approve it. 45% saying no and reject. Um, but you can see some differences here on the right by subgroup. Women are more supportive of the potential MLO compared to men. And that's not too surprising surprising. We do tend to see a gender gap when it comes to an increase for education purposes. Um men are typically a little bit more fiscally responsive or fiscally conservative, excuse me. And so we do tend to

087see that gender gap there. Um but one thing to point out is women are over that 50% mark compared to men being 55% saying that they would vote no and reject. So there is some work there to be done on that gender gap. Um, and then you can see here among that younger demographic, which I did mention is going to have a higher turnout this November based off of vote history. Um, with 55% of 18 to 44 respondents saying that they would vote yes compared to 37% saying they'd vote no. Seniors, which will also make up a larger portion of turnout, they are statistically tied. They're in the middle, 46% saying yes, 44% saying no. And then that middle age group, 45 to 64 year olds, um 39% saying yes, 53% saying no. Um and

088then we have it also here by party affiliation and tenure. And the one that I want to point out the most is that unaffiliated group. And why I want to point that out is because they will make up roughly 45 to 48% of what we expect turnout to be in November. Um and right now they're they're right split down the middle. 49% saying that they would vote yes and approve that potential MLO. 42% saying no and reject. Um so there will take some persuasion there among those unaffiliated voters knowing that they'll make up such a large portion. Um and then last but not least, you can see here by tenure, those that have lived really in the district less than 10 years are more supportive than those that have lived in the district more than

08910 years. We also broke this down between parent and non-parent. Um, parents made up about 29% of what this survey. Um, compared to non-parents making up about 71%. Um, and non-parents being more supportive, hitting that 55% mark on the yes side. Um, compared to parents saying more evenly split, 41% saying yes, approve compared to 49% saying no, reject. You can also see a little bit of breakdown here. And this is really kind of falls in line with the demographics of this mun of these municipalities. um with Fruda being a little bit more conservative than Junction and Palisade at those two being at the 50% mark or higher and Clifton and Fra being below that 50% mark. We did have a follow-up question just asking is there anything specific about the language specifically that would make

090you or that makes you less likely to vote yes and approve that ballot potential MLO ballot language. Um, and you're always going to have a group or handful of voters that are going to have any sort of strong opposition towards any sort of tax increase, no matter what that wording looks like. And that came through here. Um, there is some talking about a lack of trust in the district and how they use the existing funds. But when it came specifically to the ballot language itself, many many kind of talked about an open-end open-ended language talking about how it felt like a blank check. Um that there was no sunset and then discussing the inflation adjustments, talking about that Denver Boulder um inflation index and how that impacts the ballot measure. Um and just some confusion

091there tied to that language. Um and then last but not least, the second or the excuse me, the last theme here. Um, again, just talking about that example of $25 a month for that $400,000 valued home and how that's just too a little bit too high. Um, too much of a financial burden specifically when it comes to how much that actually will cost them personally. Once voters read that uninformed ballot language, we then had them read 12 information statements. And really what this is is it's telling the story of why the district is looking for this funding, what that funding would go towards, um what those programs really are. And we asked them to read those information statements. There were 12 of them in the survey. After they read those information statements, we asked them

092if that statement and information made them more likely to vote yes and approve the ballot measure or if it was more likely to vote no and reject the ballot measure. Um, all 12 of these statements were over 50% with the lowest being 51% and the highest being 57%. So, all of these were really kind of right in the middle, a six-point spread from the first top message to the 12th message. Um, but you can see as we go through these that all of these are pretty similar when it comes to um how much they're more likely to approve it and how much on the intensity level um that much more likely to approve that lighter blue shade box. Um, but the top three messages really right here are just talking about teacher quality and how

093it's an important factor in student achievement. We told and were read respondents, excuse me, read how among dis the 13 comparable school districts, district 51 ranks last and starting teacher pay. Um, we also informed them on what concurrent enrollment is. As we knew 26% of respondents had no no familiarity with what concurrent programs were. Um and so we informed them of what concurrent enrollment is. That that was 55% of respondents saying that they were more likely to vote yes and approve the ballot measure. Um, third on this top kind of list here is talking about how 85% of students graduating with CTE or that were involved in CTE education immediately enter college, the military or the workforce and how that has a positive impact on the economy and quality of life impacts the community. Um

094the biggest thing here and these two are basically statistically tied was again really kind of informing them on what CTE is, what that actually does and what those programs are. Um and then talking about secondly here um how it CTE is for students in both high school and middle school and how 65% of high school students are taking advantage of those CTE programs. slightly lower here. We're talking about how 80% of jobs over the next decade will require some sort of STEM skill. Um and how that's critically important that all grade levels have that access to those STEM learning those STEM skills. Um then last or on this slide as well, um we did inform respondents and voters of how much the district pays um per student or excuse me to make sure every students

095can participate in CTE and concurrent programs. how the district pays $7 million per year to do that. Um, then we talked more about the safety and security aspect of it, talking about how this funding would strengthen the district-wide communication systems. Um, really working with first respondents responders, excuse me, to ensure rapid response during emergencies or after school events. um talking about how the district has made those improvements to secure building access and visitor management and that this funding would go more towards trained safety personnel and expanding staff staff training um for emergency preparedness. Um and then last on this slide here just talking about how among 11 comparable districts that district 51 ranks second to last in MLO funding. Um and that can put students at a competitive disadvantage. And then the final two messages

096here that we test that were the lowest but at that 50% mark both at 51% we're talking about excuse me CTE programs and what's offered at the different high schools and then what CTE programs are offered through CMU Tech. And so after voters and respondents read through those 12 information pieces, we then ask them to read the ballot language again. And this is what we call the informed. Once they've read that information, once they know what that funding would go towards, once they know honestly what CTE and concurrent programming is, um, we asked them again to read that same ballot language just as it was before and that uninformed, um, we asked them to read it again and unfortunately it did not move the needle as much as we would like. After reading it and

097being informed, 49% of respondents said that they would vote yes and approve the ballot measure. 41% said that they would vote no and reject it. and 10% were now undecided. Um you can see a little bit of boost there among men and women as well. Um but it did close the gap and men are now at 44% instead of 40%. Um and then you can see both that 18 to 44 age group and 65 plus are now over that 50% mark with a slight movement there among that middle age group 45 to 64. Um important as I mentioned before among those unaffiliated voters they are now at 50% right in that border. um on that yes approved side. Um and then unfortunately we've seen a little bit of movement there among those that have lived

098in the district more than 10 years. Those bottom two lines there. Um but unfortunately they're still just below 50%. Um and then you can see those non-parents again making 70% roughly of what we expect turnout to be. Um 58% a bump there um in those non-parents. However, there's just not unfortunately not a ton of movement there among parents. um now at 42%. Um and then you can see that slight bump there among those in Clifton and a slight bump six points there among those that live in Fruda with Palisad in Junction now being over 50% as well. This slide just shows that difference from the uninformed to the informed once they read that information. You see that twopoint increase in those that said that they'd vote yes um and that four-point decrease in those that

099said that they would vote no. among those that said that they would vote yes and approve it, the 49% among those, we asked them why why they would vote yes and approve the MLO override, um, a lot came down to teacher pay and staff retention, understanding that that is a need. Um, and increasing teachers pay not only helps get good teachers here, but keeps good teachers in the district and retaining those quality teachers. Um second theme there listed was that there's an understanding that schools are underfunded and schools need more resources. Um they feel like this is also investing in students and not only investing in the students now but that also invests in the future. Um and supporting schools helps those students now and invests in the future of the community. Um improving educational

100quality and opportunities. Many respondents talked about CTE programming and how that helps those not only going to college but may not going may not be going to college and how that opens up opportunities and skilled pathways um and just workforce readiness for the community. And then last but not least and again I kind of all of these themes touch on this is just the broad community ve benefits of education funding. Many just talking about how wellunded schools benefit everyone not just the families and children's that attend them. um but just the workforce quality, economic development, and overall quality of life within the community. Among the 41% that said that they would vote no and reject the MLO, um again, many talked about just the higher taxes and opposition to taxes in general, um many talked

101about cost of living, financial or just being on a fixed income, financial impact, um inflation, and just being financially stressed. Um, and we're always going to have that impact. Um, whether it be any sort of tax increase, that's always going to be there. Um, and then as mentioned before, just a distrust in district leadership and spending. There is a concern that the district's not being trusted in the dis to um for the additional funding. Um, just talking about claims of waste, mismanagement, some perception there that funds are not reaching the classrooms or teachers. Um they believe again that again you're going to have this in a more conservative fiscally conservative especially area that there's existing funds that should be managed better um and used the district should be using that funding better and more efficiently.

102Um there is just a perception that the school system is ineffective or declining just dissatisfaction with the quality of education in the district um and just some declining performance lack of improvement despite p past funding. Um, and then last but not least, and this is this shows up in a lot of school districts that we've done around the around the state as well, um, just ideological and values difference. Um, those base concerns about schools, talking about curriculum, political influence, um, and really what the role of public ed education is. Now, we did test an alternative among those that um would vote no or were undecided on the 32 million, that 10.62 mil levy increase. Um again, at that 24 almost $25 per month, we asked them if they voted no or were undecided, how they

103would vote for a potential MLO that was a little bit lower amount, 20 at 27 million total increase um at 9.09. 093 Mills. Um, and roughly instead of $25 per month, 21 point or $21.37 per month at that home valued at 400,000. And basically had similar bullet points here, but took kind of out the expansion language is more to keep that status quo. And we asked them if they were to vote on this lower amount, again, this among those that were no or undecided, if this would change their vote. And unfortunately, only 1% of those said that they would now vote yes for that slightly smaller amount. 77% said that they would vote no and 22% were undecided. And again, this is pretty consistent throughout each and every subgroup here on the right. And then

104last but not least, we do have this the survey demographics broken out here as well. Um, and I'll just let you go. I'll look through those, but I'll open it up to any questions that you might have for me. >> Thanks, Courtney. And just to provide clarification on when we did the um the second amount question on the poll, that 27.4 4 million. We tested it because um if y'all remember that graph that has all of our comparable districts and it has the um blue bars showing the per per people funding for each district and we're the lowest um and then the green bars above that showing the mill override dollars that the communities um contribute. We're the lowest there. I know that PBLO is lower. That's because they've never passed a mill override. So

105um but the 27.4 million would have just got us to the average of our comparable districts. And I think that's important too because even with the $32 million ask in the poll polling question that got us a little bit above average. Um so you know I I think that um regardless of what we go with if we go with a smaller amount um we go with the amount we asked in the poll if we if we don't go for a millennial ride but but if we do go for something just how important the education piece is going to be around this because it's ironic that Mel just gave that really long budget presentation about how responsible we are with dollars and then you have people that think you're not responsible with dollars or you know

106seeing the bullet on there saying that performance is going backwards we're actually achieving the highest levels we have as a district. So, you know, it's just a lot of it's just education for the community. And so, um, how do we make sure that we have something that's, um, clear and, uh, tight enough presentation that we can get out and really educate folks on the the facts behind it so we can hopefully, um, shift some of the mindsets around that. But, um, but anyways, that's a long way of saying that's where the 27.4 million came from was just to get us the average of our comp districts. And that's assuming that none of them go for a millie override this fall. If they go for something and they get theirs passed, that number just goes up

107even higher. So, >> [snorts] >> and that that gap is widened because unfortunately we have not over the years kept pace with what other communities have done with millennial brides. But um I have some prop some proposals I want to show the board in a second just for some discussion. But if there's questions for Courtney around the poll in particular or any of the data that she just presented, I just want to give you all a chance to do that before we um so that way you don't have to stay for the whole thing. >> [laughter] >> Just a clarifying I don't know if you know Courtney but do you know what the percent of people it's one of the categories of um percent of people who have lived in the community for more than

108was it 10 years. [clears throat] Do you know what the total population of this district is of those persons just overall? >> Yeah. So, oh, I thought it was weird. Um, of those, so more than 10 years was about 73%. Um, more than 20 years was about 57%. And that's of the people who filled it out, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> We don't know total in our community. >> Um you can look at some census data and find somewhat correct numbers. Um it's it's tough to actually determine because as people move um it's hard to kind of determine from vote history or anything like that. Um but you can look at census data. I would have to look. I know that that's pretty close to the count and that would be on the county

109level, not the district. Um, which is is not too far off, but I can I can see if I can find that number. No problem. I just that seemed high. I guess yeah, maybe it's not surprising, but that's a high percent. And I just wondered if that mirrored the actual I'm assuming it does. >> Yeah, it's it's pretty close. >> And then I don't know if this is a question. clarification for Dr. Hill or Courtney or both. But if Well, now we know Senate Bill 135 is will be on the ballot. How just thoughts about the MLOT? >> Yeah, I So, I've got thoughts about them being on the ballot. I know Courtney, you have data on uh because y'all pulled um the state on that ballot initiative. Um, you know, I think for I

110think for us, yes, it's going to be on the ballot. Um, and that is my assumption would be that makes it tougher to pass something because we're going to be down ballot and people are going to have to get through and it's not just going to be that one. It's probably going to be the um graduated income tax um ballot initiative as well. So, they're going to get through reading two of those plus anything that maybe the countyy's going for or city of Grand Junction is going for before they get to us. And so I think there could be a perception that well if I vote yes for these things up here then that means the district's going to get a bunch more funding so I'm going to vote no for the millib override. But

111as Amy mentioned earlier I would even if that Taber cap bill passes we won't actually see any benefit from that for years if if at all. Um and so that's not going to help us. So that'll be part of the education piece when we get out and actually campaign on this is to talk to folks about that too. Like there will be other things on the ballot. this is going to be a direct impact with the mil right to our community. The other ones may impact us down the road. The graduated income tax actually would I think it would help us even more, but that's the one that pulled worse. Um, which is ironic because 97% of voters would actually see a tax cut, but it got really weak um, support. So, I don't know,

112Courtney, if you want to talk about the polling y'all saw around that. >> Yeah, I can give a little bit of detail. Um, and so, yeah, it is tough. Um, because it definitely is going to impact. One thing I will say when it comes to local ballot measures versus the state ma measure and knowing Mesa County as well as I do um a lot of people will trust local government in a more conservative area versus state um and we've seen that not only in school districts but and just the district the county as well um and so I do think there is something to be said there um that they would be more willing and trustworthy of pass the local um bill versus a statewide bill. Um that being said, I can say that the

113um 2% the um the one Senate Bill 135 um that one I do see passing um in November just based off of polling numbers that we've seen. We have that in the low 60s. Um and so I do see that passing no in November. Um the one as Dr. Hill mentioned talking about the brackets and the income brackets. Um really that one is is a kind of a tricky one. Um we have that not passing right now. It's not to say that it won't get there. It just it's going to need a lot of education and funding behind it to get it um to the ballot in November. And mainly the reason why I say that is because when you first read that ballot language, it starts off with shall state taxes be be increased

114$2.7 billion annually. And so if you don't even get to the understanding of what it does for your specific tax income bracket, um you're just reading that aspect of it, you're going to lean towards voting no anyways. And so um just based off of that initial language. So, there's going to take a lot of education between now and November um for that other statewide ballot measure to get there. Um but I do think that Senate Bill 135 has a much better chance of passing. It's not talking about a tax increase. Um and like I said, we've got it in the low 60s um from what we've tested this last couple of weeks. And so, um, the impact that those two will have on a potential local impact or ballot measure, it's really hard to say

115when you're not doing um the head-to-head ballot measure. And unfortunately, when we did the district 51 poll, these weren't officially on the ballot yet. Um, we kind of had an anticipation that they would be. Um, but it's it's really tough to say where things will stand. Um, but I will say most most conservative areas lean towards funding locally versus at the state level. So it does help a little bit, but but where the one's not actually increasing taxes. Um, and it's just looking at retaining that, it's a little bit different ball game, too. >> Any other questions for Courtney? >> Okay. Well, thank you, Courtney. We appreciate it. >> Yes. Please let me know if there's anything else that comes up and we'll talk to you soon. >> Thank you. Um, so I'd say the

116second half of this is um just wanting to have a conversation with the board around um kind of what do we do next or or what's some direction um that the board wants to give us as a district. Next, obviously, we pulled a $32 million um mill levy override. You saw the results. Um we pulled a um $27.4 million um well we pulled it with the people who said no. I should say that if you answered no the first time around they went back and asked would you support this and it didn't get much traction. Um but we've have been having some discussions around um are there other amounts that we should be looking at? Um well I guess the first question is you know are we going for a mill this November? But then

117also if we are um what's the right amount that we should be asking for and and um what would be we be able to fund from those dollars. And so um if we can put that slide up that um was up earlier. So I just just to kind of some of we've played around with a lot of different options and these were two that I felt like we were kind of gravitating more towards. So I just wanted to throw them up and um have a discussion around these as potential options as well. So, um, I'm calling him alternative option one and alternative option two. So, um, alternative option one, again, we asked we pulled a $32 million question. This would be a just below a $21 million question. And what that would fund, um, and

118we'd have to be very clear in the ballot language, but it would cover our existing safety and security costs, which are a little under 1.4 million. It would cover our existing CTE costs, which are about 5.6 million. Um, we pulled out and it's down there with a asterisk. We pulled out the concurrent enrollment costs. Not that we're getting rid of concurrent enrollment, but it pulled so low and in conversations with Courtney, she mentioned that twofold. One, not everybody understands what concurrent enrollment is, so it's kind of confusing to them. And you all know because y'all have to campaign. If you have to explain things, you're losing voters. So, um, and then the other thing is she said that in more fiscally conservative communities, um, you usually have less support for paying for college classes for

119students while they're in high school than in, um, non-conservative communities. So, we pulled that out completely. It was a little over 1 million that we spend on um on the concurrent classes and we would just continue to fund that out of general fund dollars. Um, and then the cost of the two steps for all staff. So, just to be clear with that, one of those steps would be a recovery step because we were not able to offer a step last year. Um, so we would do the recovery step for staff. We already have our step step built in for this next year assuming that we um pass the negotiate agreement and the budget soon. Um, and then it would have funding in there for an additional step uh in an outy year. Um, and that's

120important. Mel can explain it better than I can, but it's important to get us through that time of the um averaging changing at the state and the implementation of the um funding formula. And then um this also would allow us so as was mentioned in the the polling and and Courtney's presentation compared to our comp districts, even though we've made so much progress with teacher salaries, we still rank the lowest amongst our um comp districts around starting teacher salary. And so this would allow us to do a um a market adjustment, a 5% market adjustment for teachers to try to get their salaries um within that range that we look for when we do um market analysis for positions. So it so you'd see a bump there too for um for teachers. And then the

121$2 million in there would be an allowance for an expansion of safety and security and CTE programs. So those costs up above are existing costs or um being able to offer better pay for our teachers. Um the expansion would be opportunities to be able to expand more safety and security options in our district and then also more CTE offerings uh in our district. Um and I sent an email to the board. I know it was late um but I sent it before the board meeting kind of gave you an idea of some of the things we're looking at that we could use um that expansion funding for. So, for a $400,000 home, it's about a $16 um a month cost or tax increase. The $32 million one, if you remember, it was about $24 a

122month for a $400,000 home. So, you can see the reduction there uh in the amount per month. And then option two, I won't go through all these because everything is the same as option one except for it allows for more expansion for um both safety and security and CTE offerings uh in the school district. Um, and that CTE offering, again, it's in the email that I sent you all, but that's not just at the high school level. It's also talking about doing things at the middle school level and then expanding some of our um, STEM options at the elementary level as well. So, that expansion of CTE would co would actually impact the entire district. Um, and then obviously safety and security would impact the entire district as well. So, really the the difference between

123those two. And so, this one is a 23 $23 million ask with an $18 a month cost for a $400,000 homeowner. Um the difference is just how much we're able to expand those two programs, two million versus 4.2 million. Um the other option is we stick with what we pulled, which again was $32 million and has it basically increases um these it had more money in there for additional steps. It had more money in there for um expansion uh things like that. So but we wanted to look at other options because obviously the polling was, you know, it was 49% support which wasn't above 50, which would have been nice. Um, but these are two options that we feel like um could also be good alternatives and just wanted to have a conversation about that

124and and really just get some direction from the board. Again, you're not voting on anything tonight. Um, just want some direction so we can talk about next steps um if we're going to go for something. So, I'll quit talking and see if you have any questions or comments. >> Question I have is in the email you sent as you said you could add additional 10 uh uh security officers. Is that for uh for the option one or is that for option two? >> So those are so that's a good question. So I if I gave Andy 8 million, he he has a lot of things he could do with safety and security. So um so what we gave you was just kind of a high priority um of what he would be looking to do,

125but there are other things he would like to do as well with safety and security in the district. It's just um obviously we have limitations. So um so what was sent in the email I think it was 1 something million 1.3 million maybe um that would provide additional I think it was 10 um safety and security officers but also the infrastructure with cars um equipment things that they would need. So that just gives you kind of a ballpark of what it would cost to to add officers uh in the district. If we had a $2 million expansion and we used 1.3 or whatever it was for that, then that just means we have less to use for CTE expansion. Um, or we don't do 10 officers, we only do six or seven and then so

126those are things that we'd have to discuss internally. Um, but obviously more of an allowance um allows us to do more in the end. >> I really do like that we listen to what the public said about the 32 or the 27 being too much. 32 would be the average for us. Bring us to average. So, we're looking at something lower. I really like that we did the polling for the community and that's and and we're going giving them a positive response looking at something different. I do like uh number two myself. Uh I think that the allowance for the expansion where we can get uh more uh security and also for the CTE and we can use it more for the will be able to provide more resources for us. I think that would

127for for myself I I think that's a better myself. >> Yes. Option two. >> I should also clarify too in the ballot language um it was mentioned we had language in there that talked about having it adjust for inflation uh and also not having a sunset on there. And just to clarify why why that's in there. So having it adjust for inflation obviously is important because especially when a large chunk of it is around um salaries um if we don't have it adjust for inflation it's a set dollar amount which obviously some of our mil levy overrides have been set dollar amounts well then you get a couple years down the road and you're already not being able to fund the things that you said you were going to fund back when you passed it.

128So the example we keep giving is the 2017 Milwaukee override. It was $6.5 million set dollar amount to fund five days of school curriculum expansion. Um there was money in there for a million dollars for capital improvements technology. Well those things now cost close to $8 million. So because it didn't adjust for inflation, we can't even we can't even fund the things that we said we were going to fund back then with the dollars that there. So having it adjust for inflation is important because it keeps up with the inflated costs of the things that we're funding. Um the sunset. Um I am not a fan of sunsets. I understand why people might want them. Um but the issue is that you're saying that we only want to fund these things for a set amount

129of time. And then what do you do once that sunset hits? So if we're going to do steps for staff and increase staff salary, so five 10 years down the road, we're going to say we're not going to do that anymore. We're have to pull back salaries or we're not going to fund CTE programs anymore. I I just I I'm not in agreement with that. And all it does is it places a burden on the next superintendent and board down the road to say now we which we had to do in 24, right? We had to go back and say please let us keep what we already have, which is also confusing to voters because we probably have voters who think in 24 we passed a new tax increase and we didn't. We just said

130please remove the sunset. So we didn't put a sunset on here because these are things that we need to continue to fund in now and into the future. um and it just puts a burden on administration and board down the road to have to basically ask for people to reup on something they already have committed to. Um but those are in the language. The other thing we would add to the ballot language that wasn't in the poll was um language that we used in the past that says we would um do an independent audit and um post that on our website showing folks that those dollars were spent where we said that we would spend them. So that would also be added to the ball language. >> Yeah. Thank you. That was going to be

131my um one clarification was um if we could add the audit to the ballot language because I know that seemed to help um the last go around. And then I would agree with um President Chavez. Um I I just think the four million for the expansion for safety and security especially um for me that's just of utmost importance. So I like option two. don't have to say anything. [laughter] [snorts] So, you guys know that I I generally hate the idea of raising taxes. I hate it. I hate paying taxes. I feel like I'm getting distorted. If my back was against the wall and I had to pick something, as long as I felt certain that the majority of the allowance for expansion was going to safety and security, especially after working in that division and

132seeing what the requirements are of safety and security officers and seeing the um just the workload, I guess, you know, and now knowing that a lot of our safety and security officers are assisting with um uh my goodness, my brain stopped. Um threat assessments and things of that nature and trying to pick up some of the the bulk of that and just knowing how many we could have in a day, you know, at the middle school level. Um and knowing how much that would alleviate off of admin staff, I suppose if I knew the bulk was going towards safety and security, I would go with option two. if I was forced to make a decision. >> All I would say is we're not increasing taxes. We're putting it before the voters to decide whether they

133want to do this or not. So, I think from a board level, yeah, I'm I obviously don't want to pay any more tax than I have to. Um, one, if I think if we, you know, I think these these types of things to fund education at a local level, like Dr. Hill has said, obviously we spend our own money way better than what the state is doing. I mean, if you heard what Amy said versus what Mel said, um, we're doing a much better job. Um, and so, you know, I understand what you're saying, but what I I think what our obligation is is we just put it before the voters and then they decide. But I but I think is if we look at the options, I agree with you. We we're saying that

134these are the priorities from the district, the district level. Well, and I think that number two takes into consideration the priorities of the community. You know, they said this is our number one and I think that that would provide the funding for think the funding could be allocated appropriately through that option to what the voters said or what through our survey, not necessarily voters, but through the survey. >> I think it mirrors our strategic plan pretty well, too. You know, like you did a huge brought a lot of community members in. I feel like this is just a natural progression of that. There's a lot of work in the strategic plan that was done and if we're going to say this is what we're going to do as a community, this is what we want

135our education system to look like as a community. Um I don't I don't mean to say it like this, but it's like we kind of have to put our money where our mouth is. like if we're going to say we want to do these things, expand options for our students, treat our teachers well, pay them well, this is kind of where we need to go. Um, I will say I I feel like maybe I'm not talking badly about Courtney or anything like that, don't get me wrong, but I was kind of encouraged by the 2% change after the um informed because it took the people who were not going to vote into decided which to me reads as an opportunity for education and wonder because that means someone goes oh well maybe maybe that is

136something worth looking looking into I may still vote no but it's at least worth looking into so I was really encouraged by that and I kind of echo what President Chavez says too like we took what the community said in that survey and are dwindling it down because it did seem like perhaps the first ask was a little too much and now we're bringing back down to something that might I I hope that's what you were trying to say, doc. Director Travis, that's what I heard. Um just try to bring it down to something that might be a little bit more palatable to our community um for years to come because I agree with Dr. Hill that sunsets are hard. I get it, but they're hard for us because we can't there's really not something

137in education that we can say we only need to do it for a couple of years. Um because we see children for 12 to 13 years. So why does one child get it when another child doesn't? So um if I'm thinking about everything that we say we're going to do as a school board is that keep our students at the center. A lot of these help keep our students at the center. It may not look like these are going directly into a classroom for a student, but they do. Paying teachers adequately, giving them extra CTE costs, keeping them safe and secure. Um it allows us to also at our general fund in a different way to give more money into not give more money but maybe have some more flexibility to stay more student centered.

138So I think that's all I really have to say about it. Um yeah, I'm I'm I'm in favor of option two as well. So, you know, I was a proponent on the poll of bringing ourselves to average, which was even hard to say. Um, and asking for that on the poll. Maybe not that I feel terribly surprised um at the results. I feel a bit encouraged also that it wasn't a hard no. Um, but I also recognize and I hear what you're saying. No more taxes. I can't afford 10 more dollars a month. I can't afford, you know, to us maybe it seems little, but I feel for our community and people just say no more. Um, But of course, with that said, we're all on this board because we value public education. Um, I'm

139not going to say that I value one of the items up there over the other. I think they're all important. Um, but what I would say is, so I've kind of gone back and forth between does $16 a month sound a little better than 18 that feel like could do that. But at the end of the day, um I like the expansion dollars that are on there and I also recognize just what was presented in the email the cost of everything and to do a lower amount doesn't really feel like it's worth it to our community or to those of us all of us who are um really advocating for this. All I would say is however those I mean there's many things on there the 5% for teachers for the to to bring them

140up where they hope it's not where they want them to be but bringing them up feels like a step in the right direction. Um, but I think we need to be really specific, as specific as possible, either in the ballot language or in our campaign about exactly what are we spending this money on, what will that look like, how many officers, what curriculum, what will not curriculum, but what will CTE I still think there's people out there that are not really clear what CTE is. So, um, that's important to Courtney mentioned that about uh you know we need to make sure that we're specific in our what we're asking not it isn't a blank check these are hard meetings to hear of all the work you know I'm really proud of the district for what

141they did this last spring since I've been here and making cuts and um yeah this isn't new money so but we have to have to sell it and that feels hard having and knowing as hard as we all work in education, but that's the reality and uh we're all trying to make a living and so I feel for that. But I I feel like option two would be best direction. >> The other um it's funny because I've picked apart those that polling data so much. Um, I think the other thing is encouraging at first. It was discouraging to see we actually had a higher percentage of support from non-parents. Um, but I also think it's an opportunity um because we have um that audience that we can reach and educate better on exactly where these

142dollars will go to. And so, you know, there there's a lot of reasons why maybe the results came out that way, but um but it does provide us an opportunity to educate um our parents on exactly where these dollars will go, how they'll support um their students. You know, maybe seeing CTE, you feel like that only impacts high school, but we need to educate folks on like this is a pre-K through 12 um thing. And so, I do think that provides an opportunity um for us as well. So, yeah, I'm optimistic. I think um I am proud of the board for taking the polling results seriously and looking at them and picking them apart as well and talking about different options and so you know hopefully our community hears that as well um that if

143we do go for an option two um we made adjustments based on the results from those um that polling. So I think that's that's a good thing. So um yeah, any other thoughts on this? know that we have a lot of work to do >> and we need help of our partners, our teachers unit and so forth to come and help us to uh go out in the community and help us campaign and also to speak to people on what TTE is and what is allowance for expansion. We have to do it as a unit together to be able to get it. >> Yeah, we're gonna put Andy out on the corner with a sign. >> I think the results were that way because he filled it out like 500 times. Um no I uh

144so this is good guidance um and direction you know just obviously next steps for us is um we'll need to um start getting that campaign committee together campaign manager all the work that goes into getting that set up um and then start hitting it hard and obviously um getting our partners involved uh in that as well. So we'll we'll keep the board updated on uh next steps around that but this gives us some direction. So I do appreciate that. So all right well with that that concludes my superintendent report. Thank you. Before we go to audience comments, want to know everybody's okay or you need a break. You take a break. Good. >> Wait a minute. Break and then and then we'll be back. >> Yeah. Hello Dan Bernell. Thank you so much sir. [laughter]

145We are we are back and we won't be doing community comments. Okay, we are ready for public comment this evening. We have seven on the list. And when you come up to do your public comment, you will sit right here at this desk in front of the microwave. Microwave, [laughter] you'll turn the microwave on. No, [clears throat] in front of the microphone. Sorry about that. And when you start speaking, you'll get the green light and when you have 30 seconds left, the yellow light will come on and then you get a buzz when it turns red. And first up, we have Benheimmes and thereafter we have Henry Camstra. So bend here first howdy. Following a night of a lot of recognitions, I would like to take some time to recognize students in the district 51

146education system that are part of marginalized groups in our community. I'd first like to state that I had an incredible experience going through district 51 and it has greatly contributed to the success that I now am a part of in higher education. I had teachers full of compassion who believed in me and inspired me to find a role for myself in education, one that I hope ultimately leads to me becoming a math professor and sharing my love for math with the world. I I cannot thank District 51 enough for the support that led me to become the man I am today. and I now in fact have the blessing to be able to work with students that themselves are going through district 51. And while I wish that all of their stories could fall in

147line with mine, this this is not always the case. When I was in elementary school, I vividly remember conversations centered around one simple rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. It's now known as the golden rule. And I've carried that philosophy with me in everything I do. When I fall short, I try to reflect, take responsibility, and remind myself of the values I was taught. I know I am I know I am imperfect and I know I have acted out of anger at times. But even so, there's one line I believe that we must never cross, and that is discrimination. As a student of math, I know it would be naive to claim that every good invention can be credited only to mathematics. And it would be even more naive to disrespect

148the teachings and contributions of other sciences. And in that same way, as a human being, how can I feel content when cultures other than my own are discredited by harmful and prejudiced ideas? I bring this to the school board's attention because while the golden rule may have been taught, the depth of it the depth of its understanding is greatly limited. Working around students, I can re I can preach respect all I want, but I cannot reach everyone. There are still stories I hear about students being made fun of because of clothing or sexuality or even race. An education is for everyone. and I hope that the following memoir from a teacher can remind you of the core values that many educators follow. I'm not going to try to imitate her voice. I remember how hard

149school or any educational setting can be when you're not allowed to focus on getting a good grade because you have bigger, more serious things to worry about. I know that high school can be an escape for some students, the only time where they get to act their age. And with that, I want to foster an environment within my classroom where everybody feels safe, seen, and heard. There's always a question on school surveys that students get asked. Do you have a trusted adult or teacher at the school? I distinctly remember drawing blanks when I had to answer this question myself. Due to that experience, since becoming a teacher, I want to be sure I could be a trusted adult, mentor, or teacher or tutor for students to come to with concerns. Another part of of this

150for me is representation. I want students who look like me, talk like me, and are eccentric like me to know that they do have a place in the world as I am living proof. And so while I continue my journey forward in education, I hope to remind you that it is important. I'd like to close with a quote. Thank you. >> Next up is Henry Camstra and following is Grace Wild. Hello, Dr. Hill and board members. My name is Henry Camstra. I'm a junior at Fr Monument and the secretary for the class of 2027. Uh today I'm here to talk to you all about the proposed full day phone ban at D51 high schools. Also, just know that I recently sent uh the board an email regarding the conversation surrounding the phone policy. So, forgive

151me if you've heard some of these points before. I want to start by saying that I am one of the biggest proponents for the current phone ban. And I'm not here as like a screen addicted teenager that just wants his phone back because I've been able to see firsthand how we went from the beginning of nth grade where everybody was on their phones during class and like we didn't talk to each other and it was just detrimental to our learning to now the end of 11th grade where everyone is social and engaged with each other. Uh and we're all better for it and everyone at Fruit is grateful for it. However, I believe that the proposed full day phone ban is an unwarranted step into an extreme. Our admin have seen very few phone violations,

152especially this year, and that's because of the exception of passing periods and lunch in the phone band. It allows students to quickly text their parents, bosses, or student groups to coordinate and communicate. And that's a necessity in this day and age. If we ban them for the full day, they could just be worried about missing important info or forgetting something important. Like for example, a kid who just forgot his soccer cleat or something and needs them for practice. That's not to say that we're all waiting for the bell to ring and just itching to get our phones during passing period because that's not at all the case. And if you walk through the halls of Fruda, you won't see a sea of foreheads, but rather you'll see kids talking to each other and being social

153and engaged. And I think that that's because of the precedent that we set in the classroom. So that leads me to believe that the board's goal of eliminating the distraction of phones in classrooms has been met. And that leaves us students to feel unfairly punished and just wonder what eliminating phones for the whole school day will actually do for us. Uh not only that, but a full day phone ban seems impractical in many other ways. That's not to say that it can't be done, but it would stress out secretaries who would have to take all of those calls that used to be texts and communicate those with students. And also, teachers would have to police this during passing periods and lunch instead of using those times to relax and connect with students. that adds friction

154to those teacher student relationships which are super vital to get in getting kids excited to be in school. And overall, I believe that it'll just build resentment instead of actually educating students. The current gradual release of responsibility that we have for phone use in high school is a huge strength, not a weakness. And I urge you all to see it as that. Thank you for your time. [applause] Next up is Grace Wilding and following Grace is Ellie Schultz. All right. Hello. My name is Grace Wilding. I'm also a junior at Fra Monument and I am the senior class president for the class of 2027. And I just wanted to add on to what Henry was saying about the proposed phone policy. And similar to Henry, I am the number one fan of the current policy.

155I have seen firsthand how it's been used throughout the last two years. And I have absolutely loved it. I think it has seriously changed the culture in our classrooms for the better. At the high school level, a lot of us are heavily engaged in school, but we also have a ton of responsibilities outside of school as well. And these oftentimes are school related, whether it's a sport or a job or something like that. And they require a lot of communication throughout the day, whether it's a bus being late, picking up a sibling, practice times changing, or communicating with an employer. Communication regarding activities such as these is vital to students lives outside of school. And if left till the end of the day, it can cause significant stress for students, which is what is proposed

156by the new potential policy. I also believe that the real danger of this potential policy is the extremity that it provides. It's I've seen how bad the phone usage was before any policy. My freshman year, it was absolutely wild. The phone usage was out of hand. And I think that the policy we have now is the perfectly balanced middle ground. I think it works so well. As I said, I'm its number one fan. It has seriously been the best change. students are engaged and staff have great relationships with them. And this is not on accident, but it's a direct result of the current policy. Obviously, there's always going to be some outliers. There's always going to be kids who use their phones either way and are disrespectful to the policy. But the proposed policy is

157just going to push the outliers further out and punish those who are currently happy with and benefiting from our current policy. At a high school level, we're preparing to enter the real world, and part of that preparation is learning how to use technology in a balanced and responsible way. The proposed ban would eliminate all opportunities for students to learn this and potentially have the opposite effect that is intended. Also, remember that the current phone band data is still fresh and we may not be getting a full glimpse into its positive outcomes if a new stricter ban is hastily imposed. As I've said, this ban is working. The current policy works so well and I encourage you all to celebrate the success that has come to from this. We are not asking for an abandonment of

158progress. We are simply asking to not undo it. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, thank you for your time. [applause] Okay, up next is Ellie Schultz and following Ellie is Lisa Castow. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Um, my grandchildren go to the Fruda High School and the Fruda Monument U Middle School. They will be entering 8th, 10th, and 12th grade in the fall. They believe the current policy is perfect. Um, and they would like to see it continue. As I watched the students here being recognized, it was unbelievable to me that those students of such stature and recognition would be banned from using their cell phones as seniors in the high school setting. It just didn't seem that that that didn't seem to make any sense

159to me. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that there are many mental health issues that come with using phones and not using phones. Um, my granddaughter is a very quiet child and she likes to have her phone at her lunchtime to to communicate with her dad. She's really close to her parents and she finds it very helpful to her own well-being to be able to have that connection and she would really hate to lose that. Um, she also communicates with friends she has in other schools, uh, homeschooled children, uh, children who attend other schools. So that kind of connection is really important to her well-being. So I think when you look at this you have to consider the well-being of all the children and look at the whole the the child as a whole.

160Um I spent many years in the schools not here but as a school nurse and doing health education and I think you have to really look at the whole child. Um, I do think that the um that if you just pull devices out of schools and you prevent the kids from engaging with the technology that they're going to have to use for the rest of their lives, I think that that doesn't really prepare them for that. What I would like to see is some sort of policy that teaches digit digital agency, which is how to use technology intentionally and responsibly instead of just banning the use of it. If there would be I don't know if that's even in place in the schools. Um, and I think the real challenge is not how to keep

161phones out of the classroom or and out of the schools, but how to prepare young people to thrive in a technology saturated world. I mean, I think kids need coaches to do that. I don't think they need referees to say you can't do this, you can't do that. I think they need help to do that. And I think banning phones all day long does not do that. As the other students said, it seems that the current policy works really well. And on behalf of my grandchildren and how I see them functioning in the schools, I think you should continue with the current policy. So, thank you. >> [applause] >> OKAY, up next is Lisa Castow and following Lisa is Pete Ray. Good evening board. Lisa Casto, Gateway. Uh just some details. Uh you had a

162in the August 5th board meeting in 2025, you discussed Gateway. Uh Meg Morris came and spoke and reminded you that we were on fire at that time. Uh August 19th, there were minutes in the board board minutes that said that you were going to email answers about the gateway questions that Mr. Bolton had posed on our behalf. Uh to my knowledge, none of those ever got answered. [snorts] That seems to be what is happening now as well. I have sent several emails, been here few months in a row. You're starting to recognize me. What is the goal for the gateway school buildings and campus? Uh, so far I got a lot of silence and some lies. So, uh, well, I'm wondering why we're being so secretive. Uh, when will the demo begin? Where is the

163money coming from from the demo? U, Mr. Garcia said that it's not coming out of the budget. So, where is it coming from? I did get my core request. Thank you. Uh, [snorts] and so my question for the minutes is, are you are you pursuing the subdivision option? Uh, and and the appraisal of the old schoolhouse building came from the only new building in the entire area, the little general store, not the 100-year-old store that, you know, was subject to flooding, like the 100-year-old schoolhouse, but the new store. Um, which was interesting to me. Uh, and are you going to allow me to operate the food bank at the Gateway School? That was also in the the questions that I asked, uh, Mr. Garcia. [snorts] Uh, how about the community open gym? Uh, it gateway

164has been and is the exception to the rule. Our community wants our school back. We want our area back. It feels wrong that the school district has control over our area when very few times anyone related to D51 even comes to Gateway. Someone was Oops. I saw them there. And I wonder when we were discussing the mill levy, the 2017 mill levy approved the roof for our schoolhouse, but the funds were not allocated to repair the roof. And then when the roof roof goes down and the building goes into stray, we wonder why the voters think that their money isn't being used appropriately. That's why. because you said that we were going to be getting a new roof for the schoolhouse, but we didn't get it. And then you're like, "Oh, see." And then in

165the August, I apologize, I'm not sure which minutes it was, that presented in the 2023 strategic plan that the schoolhouse was in disarray, the roof was in bad, that there was fire code violations, which were minimal and could have easily and not very expensively been repaired. So, I'm just hoping for some answers from my community as I assume this week you'll be sending your demo team to tear down our school. Thanks for your time. >> Okay, next up is Pete Ray and following Pete is Caleb Hicks. >> Hello, my name is Pete Ray. Uh, I'm a teacher at Fruit Monument High School. I was not planning on speaking tonight, but I I was just inspired by my students, Henry and Grace, who are awesome. Uh, so I apologize if my thoughts are not altogether. Um,

166and they're definitely not going to sound as good as Henry and Graces, cuz they're awesome. Um, from a teacher perspective, I could not agree more that the current policy is working. If I was here two years ago when we were talking about adopting a policy, I would have been at the forefront of like, yes, please do this. Um but I I think what is working is working and we do not need to ban phones um completely. Um I also feel that a big thing as a district that we focus on, we definitely focus on it at Fruit of Monument High School is belonging. Um and I do think phones offer a piece of belonging for students. Um, if you walk into Fruit of Monument High School at lunch, um, like you will see students showing

167Tik Toks to each other, YouTube videos to each other. That's how kids operate today. Um, and kids connect through that, through their mutual interest in sharing those things. Um, like Henry said, I also think it is super important for kids to be able to contact their parents and bosses. Um, I teach seniors and I can't tell you how many times I have students ask me to call their boss. Um, and these are students that like need to work to support their families. Uh, they're watching siblings at home. Um, so taking that away, um, I I just worry about mainly the implementation of it. Uh, Miss Evson, you mentioned earlier, uh, like being from the safety and security background and how that gives you a unique perspective on things and I feel like we have that

168as teachers too. um where I don't see how this would be implemented properly. It's going to put a lot of stress on admin and teachers as well and that's going to increase negative interactions that teachers have with students which again I think brings down the belonging that we really want in our schools. Um finally um I grace stole my if it's not broke don't fix it. Um, but I I truly don't think we have anything to fix. What what is happening right now is working really well. Um, and I just think there would be a lot of stress added to both students, staff, and parents if this was changed. Um, and with my remaining 30 seconds, uh, I just like to say thank you to all you guys. My whole family works in education. My

169dad's the superintendent. Um, so I know how hard your job is and being here is. So, thank you guys. >> [applause] >> And last we have Caleb Hicks. >> Hi, I'm Caleb Hicks, also Fruda Monument. Um, I teach physics at Fruda. Um, I've been there for 20 years. I have seen the before and after of the phone policy and I would like to thank all of you and Dr. Hill for um adopting the phone policy. I agree with everything everybody's said so far. So, I'm not going to I'm not going to go on and on, but I feel like our district is a leader in the state as far as what we've done with electronics. And um I'm pretty proud of that. Anybody who um knows me knows that I am a pretty big phone

170hater. Um, and so I am fully on board with what what we've done with this and it's been awesome. Uh, Henry and Grace had a lot of good points from the high school student point of view and I'm just here to um sort of back them up and say from the teachers point of view. I can only really speak for my classroom um in in my building. Um so I don't want to you know I don't want to speak for uh the school as a whole or the district as a whole but I can say that it has been night and day um difference with with the policy. I am um reminded of an old district acronym uh gurr which stands for gradual release of responsibility. Um Nikki Johnson will be very proud of me

171for remembering that. Um, and I do think that that is that is what we have right now. Elementary school, we have a tight lock on the phones and even the watches. I have an elementary schooler and I've seen that the middle school, um, we have also a tight lock on the phones and I think the students are we are gradually preparing them for being in college and um, and in the workforce and managing it themselves. So, I do think them having part of part of the day and their passing periods to to be responsible with their devices is a positive um under that that gurr model which which I think is a great model. So, that's all I have to say and uh thank you. [applause] >> That concludes our conversation. Thank you all. The

172next thing we have is the consent agenda. Is it okay with that we all put the 9 A, B, and C together? Okay. So, I would call a motion and ask for a second to approve uh the consent agenda. Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Mr. Chavis. >> Mrs. Cole. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Evansson. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Heights. >> Yes. Mrs. Woods. >> Yes. >> The next thing we have is our business items. And the first one is uh policy JCJ student use of cell phones and other personal electronic devices. This is the second reading and adoption. I'd like to call for a motion in a second >> regarding the policy. >> Motion to approve policy JICJ, student use of cell phone and personal electronic devices. >> Second. >> So now

173I'd like to open it for discussion before we vote. I think this is a topic that um you know I have been going back and forth in it from one extreme to the next. Um I asked a lot of questions, spoke to a lot of people, asked some parents and it's been difficult um to say the least. Uh I even asked um Henry we spoke earlier about is it the responsibility of the of the school district or teachers to be able to or the district to um teach children how to handle their phones. So I had difficulty with that. Um must say he gave a nice answer but it didn't help me any. Uh he said it should be a balanced u so that didn't help much. Uh I do the so where I struggled

174a lot and then um I went to a KKK uh showcase and there was a gentleman that spoke about phones and he has conversation. you were saying that phones are not helping students learn because it does um it keeps them entertained but it doesn't really help them learn and that stuck with me. And he also said that he sees that instead of his fellow students using their own skills or their brains to try to figure something out, they use their phones for the answer. And he says that is and he felt that that was hurting students and that stuck with me. Um, that's where I'm at. I haven't decided. I I'll say where I'm going later on, but uh that that student's um statement saying that only the phone use is hurting disabled students in

175class really stuck with me. So, some of my thoughts on this are, you know, as a parent, we didn't give our son um a phone until way later on. And he's a ninth grader now. He'll be going into 10th grade next year. But, you know, that was a decision that we made as parents to give to him. And so, we took the time to teach him. And we are the ones that are regulating that. and we're the ones that I feel are responsible for that. Um, I kind of go back to the to the military mindset when they when they said to my to to like Marines, if you needed a spouse in the military, we would have issued it to you. And so I think about that with phones like if you needed it,

176we would have given it to you. So I wonder about I think about what our job is as a district in public education. Is it our job to be teaching children how to properly handle something that we didn't give them as part of education? Um, and how much is it being used uh in the high school level, I guess. And so I guess I'm kind of struggling with that. I know that I can speak again from my experience as a security officer. Um, there are some kids that I happened to run into last year. uh the military signing. And funny enough, the girl that I ran into that I had the conversation with joined the Navy this year. So, I got to see her again, but we had a conversation last year when this was

177being implemented. And she said to me, you know, I can't believe you're taking our phones away. And I was like, well, it's good you're in high school because, you know, this is kind of where we're at with high school. But I asked her, how many of your incidents in middle school involved uh cell phones? and she said every single one of them it was all all the bullying all the social media stuff it all involved that and some of the data that I had asked Dr. Hill to provide us was some disciplinary stuff and how you know how we've kind of ebbed and flowed with that and how that worked out and we have seen a significant decrease and I do agree with you that the students that are going to do it are going

178to do it you know they don't they don't care what the policy says the rules are only there honestly just like laws for the people that are going to abide by them the people that want to break them are going to break them no matter what um so that's come into my thought process as well And I hear you guys because I also do think about how much of this is teach like maybe we're not teaching it but we're providing the guideline which we have done with the policy that's currently in place providing that guideline and that baseline of this is what you can do if you violate this then there will be consequences for your actions and so I wonder if we continued with that and with the gurr model you know how would

179that look further down the road so that's kind of my thought process also like how would this look if we gave it another year of what we're currently doing. Um I don't know talking a lot and I'd love to hear what the rest of you think. >> Uh I asked a series of questions [laughter] prior to this vote. this I mean the series of questions that I asked you know I had I had seen on social media but I had also gotten from parents and students and things like that and something that keeps coming up that I feel like just and I hope it's okay that I share it but um that came up was if if there's an emergency with my child I want to be able to reach them. Um and I do

180just want to point out that in the policy it does say there are an exception for emergencies. Um, so from what I'm reading it says the US is necessary to respond or rep report an emergency. So, um, while that's not necessarily a way and I know have done many lockdown drills that it's please don't use your phones because that can cause even more issue, but the idea that there you won't be able to contact your child in case of emergency. I just want to I feel like that needed to be brought out that that is in the policy there. Um, but I do feel and I, you know, I also am a strong proponent of gradual release of responsibility. When I think of my child, I think about what are the things that I allow

181her to do. But that's also me as a parent. Um, and I too am struggling with the what's our role um and what's the parents role and how do we protect the instructional time? How do we protect our child our children's mental health? How do we protect their um access to information that maybe is not developmentally appropriate within the classroom setting or within the school setting? Um but I hear it. I I understand I hear from I hear from PR from students right now that are saying I was like, well, you know, it's a really great way for me to contact my my friends who don't live in state anymore. And so I do have those opportunities to still connect um with people and there is data that kind of goes back and forth either

182way. So it's just in my mind not conclusive yet. Um I said in the beginning you don't have to convince me to go for this ban um because not I don't even want to call it a ban. It's just more protection of our educational time. Um and uh I don't really know what else to today, but I did I I understand the grad gradual release of responsibility and at the end of the day, my my idea is just how do we protect the very limited time that we have with students for educational purposes? And I understand that passing periods and lunch are not necessarily educational parts of the day, but they are um especially if it does carry on into the classroom. Um which I have personally seen it do. So I'm just I I

183have some thinking and I would like to hear what other board members have to say. I think this is going to be a robust discussion and that's what I'm hoping for. Well, I just um I guess I'll reiterate some thoughts I've I've kind of mentioned the last couple weeks. Um, so I think I even brought up kind of the gradual release of responsibility a few weeks ago in that, you know, we have eighth graders that are going to be coming into high school that already are used to um the the policy we have right now through K8. So the timing for me makes sense because they're they're already used to the the policy. Now, what I always appreciated in high school was that juniors and seniors had more freedom than freshman and sophomores, which or

184at least I think they should because they're they're upper classmen. And so with the policy, um you know, and I know some some of our campuses deal with lunchtime differently. Um you know, if you get to leave campus for lunch, then you're off campus and you get to check your phone. Um, and that's actually how life, real life works. I mean, um, you get to take your lunch break, that's when you get to go check your phone. When you come back into work, then you're back at work. And so I just, I think it kind of lends to a lot of what we're already talking about. And I don't like calling it a ban either because um we don't allow stuffed animals at the elementary school level because they're a distraction. Um and while you

185know kids may love bringing them you know my teach my kids teachers have said please don't send those to school with your kids because they end up becoming a distraction. Um and while cell phones may serve some great purposes at different times I think there's times that students will be able to use those. But from a board level, I agree with Director Cole. Um, our job is to protect and give access to as much instructional time that's unhindered and without distraction. And so I actually think there's going to be ample time for kids who will actually be in work situations um to check phones and sports situations. And I guess in the off event that there's something that comes up, I think they can just go talk to their principal and um and the principles

186will be able to figure out how they want to handle, you know, case by case situations. And so I don't think we have to as a board hash out every single scenario because the principles will know the buildings the best. And I think they can figure out like you know if if someone needs to come in and check something they can decide whether they want to do that or not. But I think from you know the proper role of the board is to provide the space for instructional time and provide the time for teachers and students to connect. And I agree. I think it bleeds over into passing periods. Um, you know, and and I think those times are need to be protected. So, I I probably um will echo a lot of what Director

187Heights is saying and I kind of wrote a few words down because like the rest of us um you know, I think about how I about it. Personally, I'm a parent. I've been an educator my entire life. Um, I believe public education and what I believe is public education is about learning and ensuring that we have the space in every classroom across this district to um ensure that teachers are able to uh do the work that they were hired to do. And I know that teaching is much more than reading and writing. It's about making social relations within with their students um and with each other. But it comes down for me that schools are really about learning and protecting that learning environment to the best of our ability. And I think from a board

188um I feel like that's what my job is is to ensure that that can happen. I do hear I appreciate everyone who came forward today from a grandparent to um students and teachers both. Um we're not hearing tonight from those who um are proponents. You know, that kind of is sort of the case for board meetings sometimes as you know maybe hear more from those who may be opposed, but I think there's equal to more of those who do support. Um, I also know as teachers and heard from two teachers tonight who probably have um a really strong culture in their classrooms. Uh, real respect among staff and students and students aren't bringing phones in. When I look at the data of the disruptions in our schools, it's in the thousands of how teachers and

189staff are um you know having to get in front of students about phone use. Um, I did have to deal with that as an administrator and not so much at the elementary school, but um, my work in secondary schools, you would see more about technology, not so much smartphones, but it just takes away from the learning that um, should be happening in our classrooms and in our school. So I think yeah we could make a case that uh passing periods aren't about learning but I I believe it is. I think it is about interaction. What I would say about smartphones just in general is I do recognize our children and youth are navigating a very different world than I did. And I'm not here to say that we need to do it just the way

190we did 101 15 years ago. That is that's not fair. Um but however I do um this does not change the expectation of distractionfree learning environment for every student in all schools. Um, smartphones have brought different expectations and habits and behaviors to all of us. When I hear, you know, that we have employers calling our students during the during their school day when they're in a learning environment, that doesn't seem right. Um, I think that if you're an employer and you have a student that is doing some work for you, then the appropriate, respectful, professional thing is to make sure you contact them outside of their work day, their school day. So, there's just some of those I think is it our job to teach kids what's appropriate and what's not. of course, you know,

191I think that's always been part of public education, but um I think that's a parent's role to um ensure that their students know when appropriate phone use is okay outside of the school setting. But um so I'm I feel like this is a good appropriate next step. I don't think I could ask an employer who um receives our students after graduation that they would allow um their employees to come in and have their phone out um even maybe during passing periods. I don't know what that would look like. So um I think it's the same, but that's how I feel about it and I think it's an important next step. If I can say one last thing, um the other thing I really appreciated is that there's a there is a bit of autonomy among

192schools. Um not necessarily with to not follow the policy, but to like like director height said a case by case basis, how how is this going to be implemented? What are you going to do? How are we going to come together to make it work? Um, but I think that like like you young folks here, it sounds like you have a really good strong school community that you could come together and and try to find a way forward whereas there may be other schools that are really struggling with this and they they they might need more um of a strict policy in this way and it is our responsibility to look at every single school and to make sure that um even in my walkthroughs with schools like I have seen Um I have seen

193phones out in classrooms and I have seen a sea a forehead of or a sea of foreheads, you know, like I have seen those kinds of things. And so um I think that's where our role lies is also looking at it from a from a bird's eye view and that there may be schools that are doing really well and are and it may seem like a punishment, but that's not what this is. It's not a punishment. It's um an attempt to protect childhood um and to protect because we are we are still children, we're still young adults, but protect childhood and protect our education um for all of our classrooms in all of our schools. Um I think that's really where I'm I'm landing is what um what happens now. And I won't say that

194I'm not open to in a year or two we come back and we're like hey wow uh that didn't work the way that we had planned to. That's what being a nimble organization is meant to do. Um but right now I do see I do see a need for this across the way like like uh VP Wood said you know it's in the thousands these disruptions um and we just don't want that for our students I don't think. I have a quick question about the discipline matrix and maybe um our director of safety and security can give a little guidance on that. Sorry to call you out. I know you never get to come up to the mic so here's your turn. Um yeah, so um you know it talks about student violation of the

195policy like in the violation section, disciplinary action and whatnot and that it could be up to suspension, expulsion and then has our discipline matrix changed at all in relation to this or is it the same? Does it remain the same? Dan probably the head of >> Gosh. >> But I will take the mill. [laughter] >> Oh my goodness. >> Could you ask that again? So, >> so does our dis is our discipline matrix in reference to cell phone violations staying the same as it is now um or is it going to change or tweak a little bit here or there um as far as um you know first violation, second violation, third violation or is that more left up to I know that there's like a baseline right but then >> is there room for

196buildings to make uh any shifts on that or we just sticking strictly with that >> right >> discipline matrix. Um, you know, I think when you look back, you know, two years ago when we implemented this policy, um, you you saw principles would get together and and I could see that happening again. They already had started to do that in some of the early conversations this spring, uh, when we had them in this room, thinking about what this policy could look like. um thinking about what the logistics of managing this policy at the high school level uh with the large school structures, the the amounts of students and and staff. um they had already come together to start thinking about, you know, what could stay uh when it comes to what the infractions look like,

197what the thresholds look like, what the warning system looks like, and then obviously what would change if the policy went to, you know, a complete removal of the phones. Um certainly um I wouldn't see right now I don't see the need to um crank down you know I that's that's a horrible term to use but to say that we would change anything in the matrix when it comes to you know when high schools would you know the classroom teacher sees it takes it you know go through the same steps the thresholds of they all agreed that at four you know four repeat offenses that that the consequence would get stiffer. Um, we left um the ability of the the principles to to have a minor violation versus a major violation uh not to have to

198jump right to exclusionary discipline and an out of school suspension for things. Um so I really um even interacting with the principles as we did this spring I don't see a lot of changes uh that will go on in the matrix. Um we every year we we get into the matrix, we look at our data, uh we talk with principles, we have a team of principles that come in. Matter of fact, we're meeting this Thursday to to look at what potential changes need to be made overall in the matrix. And I'm sure there'll be conversation Thursday around uh depending on what goes on tonight with a vote um what changes would potentially need to be made. Um but we really didn't hear and Dr. Hill was in the room at that time, too. We didn't

199hear a lot of um like we've got to do something different, right? Um our K8 students are are on they function on the same matrix uh when it comes to violations and when it comes to minors and majors. uh where we see it turn into the major obviously could be just that excessive repeat offense or it gets down to then it becomes um um really um a power struggle with with a teacher or you know administrator when it comes to I need your phone right now type of situation and I think that's some of the friction that um is created by the removal you know and and um then it turns into more of an insubordination situation it turns into something more than what I think the teacher or the administrator planned on it to

200be. But, um, we've kind of weathered that and you've seen in some of the the results how the the data is starting to to get better. Um, I will just say 72% of our cell phone violations as a system are coming from obviously the place where the cell phones exist the most and that's in our high schools, right? So, um I could see very similar numbers and drop offs, you know, um if this were to happen in in our high schools. So, yeah, I it uh we do there's some level of autonomy, but there's also an important idea of consistency. We want to be consistent and our our leaders at our high schools come together as a group and they want to make sure they're being consistent because they also know that they trade students

201back and forth with each other all the time throughout their high school careers. So, um, and they've already talked about how they need to be consistent. That help? >> Yeah. >> Well, and that was brought up when we implemented this the first go around was, um, man, when we we were even kicking this around the first time, it was proposed like, do we beta test this at some schools? And and overwhelmingly students said, no, it needs to be the same across the board for everybody. And so, yeah, I think consistency is really key. um you know just across the district. One I think to make it administratively just easier as well for everyone. Um you know two when we were at Palisade the first year we had some students telling us that you know if

202out there if they they saw the phone even in like an open backpack it was taken because our policy is the bare minimum. if a principal decides to up the ante more so they can they can build upon the policy for their building. Um you know so our policy you know basically what we we require and then if the principal wants to take it and do more with it they certainly can. Um, but I do think consistency is key and I think um, again the way that we framed the language in the policy is we're giving back time for kids and teachers to connect. And so I I just I feel like that's the obligation of the board. >> Yeah. And I'll echo I mean I do appreciate hearing student voice so thank you all

203for being here. Um, even though I obviously don't agree with [laughter] what y'all said because I wouldn't be bringing this forward. Um, if I didn't think it was important, I you know, it's it's not a major shift. This is a pretty minor shift that we're making to the policy. Um, I would say to your point if we look two years down the road, I can't find a district that's moved to a full day ban who said we regret doing it. So, I don't I don't anticipate that's going to happen. I think what we're going to see is actually going to provide or produce better results for us. Um, you know, I, um, [snorts] I love the quote, um, if we're going to look at data, let's look at data. If we're going to go with

204opinions, let's go with mine because it's the best one. Um, and the data is pretty, sorry, I was being facitious, the data is pretty clear on this one, right? Like it's it's pretty clear the impact that these devices have had on not just kids, adults, and and all of us in general. Um, and this idea around what is um what is that seven hours a day that we have with students? what's the what's the main goal of that time? And that main goal of that time is to provide distraction-free environments where students can learn, but they can also be social um and they can also learn those skills that they need um once they graduate. Um I love the idea of gradual release. I'm not sure that I agree with gradually releasing kids to a

205device that is addictive and and is producing um the things that we're seeing in the data right now. So, well, I I do understand what the point was being made. I'm not sure that I agree with that. I I think we're helping students understand that there are going to be times where you don't have access to these devices and you need to be focused on what you're there for and that's and that's to learn. Um and I think we're going to see better results um because as well I also just want to remind the board that um the data was pretty clear from our our staff as well. We pulled uh high school staff and a majority said that they were in favor of moving in this direction. Um and so um our principles are

206ready for it as well. Um, and so while I value, you know, everyone's perspective, um, I we cannot argue with the the data that's out there on the results that we're seeing because of these devices. And the other thing I just want to mention, then I'll I'll shut up, is um the the idea that we would um expect teachers uh who are already um strapped with time, have a lot of responsibility, all the things that they have to educate our students about, and then now we would tell them, we need you to now educate our kids on how to um be responsible. the device that billion-dollar companies are using to hook children um to keep them addicted to it. And now we're going to tell a teacher that you need to figure out how you're

207going to tell your kids to responsibly use that. I I don't think that's fair to our teachers um or our principles or any of our staff in the school building. I think what's fair to them is to say we're going to give you back and we're going to protect those seven hours that students are with you during the day by removing this distraction. I understand the idea of jobs needing getting a hold of you. I worked in high school as well. your your job is going to have to adjust. If they can't get a hold of you, I understand the idea of coaches text us during the day. Your coach is not going to be able to text you during the day. They're going to have to make adjust. So, the adults are going to

208have to make adjustments to this as well. And that is on the responsibility of the adults to say the situation is different in the high schools now. And I'm going to have to adjust how I do things as well. So, I also don't think that that's fair that we're just because there's a convenience with access to students during the day with phones doesn't mean that that's actually the right thing. Um, I think we're actually going to be able to give them back that full seven hours to not have to worry about those distractions and they can be more focused on their learning. And then was mentioned before, there kind of is some gradual release because once you're in junior and a senior and you're off campus for concurrent enrollment classes, um, classes at CT or

209CMU Tech, you're going off campus for lunch, you have off periods. When you're not on the campus, we're not monitoring th those things. And so, you will have access. it's really going to mainly impact the freshman and the sophomores that don't have as much access to leaving campus and even some of them have access to off-campus lunch. So, it's not going to be a full day where you don't have access to it necessarily. Um, so again, I I appreciate the opinions and the different viewpoints, but I I can't overlook the data that's coming out around this and it's very clear the impact it's having on our students, the impact it's having on this generation academically, socially, all the things that are there. And I don't want us to lose sight of that um because I

210think this is a very important decision and I think it's actually going to be a benefit for our um students in the end. It could be an inconvenience, but that is not outweighed to me um the benefits that are going to come from something like this and I'm glad we're seeing the benefits from the current policy. I think it's going to be even better um with this one. So I'll get off my soap box. >> I just have one more thing to say because I just can't help myself after. So, the president of Monument High School for next year, you know, um such so well spoken and thanks for being here tonight. Um but it's a little heartbreaking to me to hear the pressures our kids feel because of all of the requests they get

211on their phones all day or work or co from coaches from whatever it is from, you know, I just think this isn't anything towards parents either, but um shame on us. for kids should be at school doing school and we need to let them >> I had a lot of opportunities over the past couple of weeks to just touch base with teachers, you know, I mean between graduations and graduation parties and a lot of teachers are showing up to those and to be completely honest, I mean even not the data that came through that we saw as far as polling of the teachers, but every single teacher that I spoke to with the exception of the amazing teachers that are here this evening were like get it out of my classroom. Like it just makes

212my life so much easier. And it's kind of like I said, it's it's a parent that puts that device in a child's hand. And I feel like it is my responsibility to teach my my child how to properly use it, not the school's responsibility. And I mean, unless we're going to bust out with an elective class on how to properly use technology, which I don't think that we're going to, um, I just I feel like I feel like we're paying teachers to teach the things that kids need to know as far as educational, but not and and granted, we do reach into, you know, behavioral things sometimes and teaching kids how to be kind and all of this, but I honestly don't believe that the school's responsibility to teach kids how to use that cell

213phone. Um, and I feel like a lot of teachers do want it completely out of their classroom so that they don't have to struggle with it. And I had a conversation with two counselors this past week and they felt the same way. Like they gave me data from the the situations that they're dealing with and they're just like personal data, not like data data, you know, opinion based data I suppose, but things that they're dealing with in the counseling office and they're like this thing wasn't here, this would alleviate so much of the drama that I have to deal with on a daily basis. And some of it flows over, you know, from outside of school and you can't control that. Um, that could come from any, you know, any avenue, I suppose. But, um,

214baseline, I guess, right now, you know, just in my head, I'm thinking it's not it's not public education shop to teach you how to navigate something that that someone put in your hand. We didn't give them that. we have other things we need to teach them how to do. That's not one of them. >> Well, and that's the difference to me between responsible tech use, educational technology versus responsible use of a cell phone. That's not an educ that's not a piece of educational technology. That is a device that you're not every kid has in the school. You're bringing on your own. We do teach kids how to use edtech. Um if it's for the benefit of learning in the schools, I I don't think that that's our responsibility. I don't think it's responsible that teachers

215can now teach you how to use your addicting cell phone um during class time. I just don't think that that's fair to them. So, I I hear what you're saying. I just want to make sure to clarify we're not anti-tech in the district. We have edtech in our schools and we can teach kids how to responsibly use edtech. I just don't think that that's fair to ask you to now teach kids how to use their cell phone properly in school. >> Can I call the question? I'm ready to vote. Sorry, I don't want to cut anybody off, but if anybody has any more to say, but I'm ready to vote. >> Mr. Chavis, >> Mrs. Cole, >> yes. >> Mrs. Evansson, >> yes. >> Mrs. Heights, >> yes. >> Mrs. Woods, yes. >> Thank you

216all. >> The next business item is MVA contract. resolution. Can I have a call for a motion and a second? >> Motion to approve the MVA contract resolution. >> Is there any discussion? >> I would just like to thank the teams on both sides that they're willing to come together things out. We do appreciate it. Uh as the facilitator said, this was the fastest contract thing that she was able to ever see within the whole state of Colorado. So, I really appreciate the work that both both sides were willing to do. So, thank you. >> If there's no further discussion, let's take a vote. >> Well, and I I just want to echo that, too. I know I mentioned it in my Friday update, but I am appreciative of um Dan and the team from

217MBA um and our team at the district. It just it just shows you that when you can work together leading up to the negotiation um dates, like just how smoothly things can go. So, I do appreciate everyone who gave time leading up to those meetings because they were quick because a lot of work was done ahead of time and it just feels really good this year and it feels great to be able to um give our hardworking staff um you know steps and and the cola increase. So, thanks for everybody's work on that and the board for being there. I appreciate you all showing up to meetings. >> Mr. Chavis >> approved. >> Mrs. Evansson, >> yes. >> Mrs. Heights. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Woods. >> Yes. >> The next item is Mesa View Elementary

218name change request, moving it from Mesa View Elementary and adding STEM to it. Uh, could I have a call for a motion in a second? >> Motion to approve name change for Mesa View Elementary. >> Second. >> Is there any discussion? >> No. >> Mr. Chavis group. >> Mrs. Cole, >> yes. >> Mrs. Evson, >> yes. >> Mrs. Heights, >> yes. >> Mrs. Woods, >> yes. >> Next, we have future uh meeting future meeting agenda items. As as always, if you have any agenda items, please let u woods or myself or Amy or Mr. Dr. Hill know so we can put it on there so we can have a discussion. Thank you all. Future meetings is June 2nd, 2026 at the Harry Butler room. It's a board work board work session. We also have an

219executive session at that time at 4:30. Uh June 6, 2026 Harry Butler's boardroom. It's at 5:00 in the board's business meeting and there's an executive session at 4:00. >> I just want to clarify, do we have a we have an executive session at 4:30 on June 2nd? >> At 4:30 instead of 4. >> Yes, it I believe it's an expulsion appeal and there it said 4:30 instead of >> okay well I know we have Jenna setting on Thursday I think there's a chance we'll add either before that or after the meeting uh a chance to talk about um property again um Fr so we can figure that out so if we think we can get it done in like a 30 minute period we can maybe do that 4 to 4:30 and then 4:30 the

220other one otherwise we'll have to do it after the meeting on the second okay >> so finally could I have a call for a motion and a second for adjournment Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Thank you all for all of your patience and your comments. Drive home safely. Thank you.