lifting the leaves in the tree. Well, there they all exploded. >> Good evening everybody. Welcome to our study session. Today is June 8th, 2026. It is 6:03 p.m. And I would like to welcome everyone and start with our land acknowledgement. We acknowledge Robin Still Area Schools is located on the homelands of the Dakota and Ajiway people. We recognize the painful history of genocide and forced assimilation of the indigenous inhabitants of this land. We honor and respect the many indigenous peoples who live on and hold sacred these lands. And we stand with members of these nations to fight injustice in all of its forms. We uphold the preservation of Dakota and Ajiway languages, land-based education, and tribal sovereignty. And we are having a study session tonight. I'm Gita Evans Becker. In a study session, uh, we go around and we introduce ourselves and then we'll begin with our agenda. So, Gita Evans Becker, board chair. We'll go that way. >> Terry Style, superintendent. >> Helen Bon Helen Basson, school board. >> Caroline Long, school board. >> DJ Brennan, school board. >> Renee Bowman, clerk. >> A Helen Bang, school board. >> Connect Wood vice chair. >> Thank you. And our cabinet members want to start. Anthony >> Anthony >> Amy O'Harn, executive director of human resources. >> Joanna, assistant >> Bob McLol, assistant superintendent. >> Kristen Hoheisle, chief financial officer. >> Thank you everybody. So purpose and agenda. I'm going to pass it right over to our superintendent. >> Excellent. Well, good evening everyone. Thanks for being here and for tuning in online. Thank you board members for being here. This is an additional uh study session that we uh scheduled um several months ago knowing that we'd be in a place that it would be very important to have more time to talk. And that is really what the purpose of study sessions is is for us to be able to have conversations and discussions and to share with the board information um so that you have everything that you need to make uh efficient and effective decisions at the board table. Um tonight really we have one agenda under the uh board role. We have two agendas, both under the board role of uh oversight of operations. Um the first is we're going to continue um looking at our long-term facilities uh planning, monitoring enrollment trends and planning strategically for current and future facilities staffing and budget decisions. So we'll spend the first part part of the morning part of the morning first part of the meeting um talking more about uh responses to the information that you had requested as we um have reflected and worked since we got some of the data back from Peter Leman last Tuesday. And then secondly, we'll be taking a look at the long-term facility maintenance 10-year plan. Um and those two things are on this agenda tonight because there is definitely some intersection between them. >> Okie [snorts] dokie. So that takes us right to the operational performance oversight and organizational direction >> which is exactly what I just talked about. Yep. I just talked about those things. So I think I jumped the gun a little bit. Uh >> okay. So we can go to the presentation. >> Yep. We can go ahead with that. There we go. All right. Good evening, board chair Evans Becker, School Board, Superintendent Stalo. Um, as we shared, we're going to start tonight by picking up the conversation that we left off last time we met with regard to uh potential review and comment options and uh results of the Leatherman, Peter Leatherman Morse Leatherman study and uh trying to answer some questions of what does it look like if we have other options uh in addition to the main option that we presented um previously. So, if you look at the first slide, the top gray box is the original uh review and comment uh voter approved bond option for $425 million. You remember uh CFO Hole Heisel and team talking about that being approximately a $23 a month spend. You'll notice on the right hand side that gets us to 11 sites. And then really just a summary, uh, it's inclusive of an additional $90 million anticipated in LTFM. Uh, it takes care of the vision assumptions as have been presented along the way. And it assumes that if there were a second question, the second question would be for approximately 31 million uh, that would uh, essentially close the Lake View building and and build a new elementary school on the RMS site. So that's the that's the the combined option that we've been talking about to this point. So after hearing the Peter Leatherman uh presentation last week and you all heard him say that we're right around the $15 mark from a tax tolerance standpoint. And so um I'm going to bring our Nexus team up here as well as we start talking through this. Uh since last Monday, we've been working to figure out what does [clears throat] that look like um in terms of how do you operationalize getting working backwards from roughly $15 or less a month for a voter approved ask and and what might that look like? So that's the center box here. So [snorts] a $343 million option is the closest we've been able to get to $15 a month. Uh it does increase the site need to 12. and we're going to talk in detail about what all this means. So, the way that I have [clears throat] the slides set up is we're going to do an overview slide and then we're going to dig into each one so that you've got time to process what I'm saying and then also have some details about what each one means. So, this is the options all on one slide. So, this $343 million option targets roughly approximately $15 a month. There would be 12 sites, so an increase in a site needed long-term. it um assumes an additional $116 million in LTFM would be needed to to accomplish all of it. It does make some changes to buildings. Uh one of the things is as we start reducing the sandbox per se that we have. We have to be looking at other options in terms of making things work from sizes of buildings in addition to condition of buildings in addition to locations of buildings. The first of which you will see is the second bullet. In this model, we would actually recommend moving early learning to the Neil building. This is for the reason that Neil H if we didn't move it to Neil, we would need to figure out at Pilgrim Lane a couple two, three, or four additional classrooms, which is cost square footage. Neil already has that. And so again, now you can kind of see as the sandbox changes from a cost standpoint, it changes some of the assumptions we have to make. We can't just go off of condition if buildings aren't created equally. We now have to go off of size. We have to go off location and all that. [snorts] In this model, Fair Crystal becomes a foursection elementary school. C. Olen stays a three section. We would not be adding on all that to C. Another reduction. Uh Armstrong High School site would still would house Spanish immersion, high view, community ed, adult academics. So you'll see a significant change there. [snorts] PMS stays as a middle school. So this would be one of the big changes here is the middle schools would stay Sandberg and Plymouth and we would have to do something different about the stage and what that looks like because of that. And then we would not be doing the the addition to the pool lobby at Plymouth. We would take that off. The next bullet, ESC and Robbinsdale transitions would actually move to Lake View in this model. So again, one of the first questions people are going to start coming up with is why this building, why this building, why this building? It all has to do with how can we more efficiently put stuff in places and minimize the amount of buildings that we have in operation. Again, you'll see that this keeps 12 buildings, not 11. If there were a second question, the last bullet, it would be a [snorts] $52 million second question, different than the first, and it would close Lake View and have a new elementary school. It would also then have ESC and transitions move into the Fair Crystal building. And we're going to get into details because that last thing I talked about is the partial reason for the increase between 31 and 52 million in that second question. >> [snorts] >> The next closest thing we could come up with and the reason that it is this way is it addresses the first it addresses the stage issue at the middle schools. Right? So in the in the middle box there we're saving a lot of millions of dollars not putting in that stage that we talked about at Sandberg amongst other things. So, the $360 million option is approximately $17 a month, $2 more than the 343, but it allows for both middle schools. We're back in having that stage at both because Plymouth moves to Armstrong site. Uh we keep the LTFM early learning still goes to Neil, Fair Crystal is a four section. The same with C Olsen as a three section. You'll notice that now Spanish immersion, we're back to moving to the PMS site. [snorts] Samberg pool gets converted into that theater in the round. PMS and High View go to the um Armstrong site and then community ed and adult academics go to Lake View. You'll see then that a second question would close Lake V Lake Lake Lake View and would then open a new elementary school and you would see that ESC community adult academic programming then moves to Fair Crystal which again on the next slide here you'll see um a visual representation of the first one. So that 40 or $425 million ballot option visually, this is the one we've been talking about, right? One high school, RSI at Plymouth with the pool, middle school at Samberg, middle school at Plymouth, early learning, community ed, adult adult academic programming at Fair Crystal, and then the six elementary schools. The additional second question would come in at around $31 million and would essentially essentially replace Lake View with a new elementary school. The second uh proposal or option that I talked through, this is what that visually looks like. So, you'll see in the top left corner, this is the $343 million option, one high school. RSI moves to Armstrong in this one. Sanberg and Plymouth stay as middle schools and we have to do something different with the staging because now we've got to figure out something for the stages because and we have some unique options there but it's not the same as the previous option. ESC RTC initially go to Lake View early learning to Neil the six elementary schools and then a second question that replaces uh a new elementary at the RMS site. We move ESC and RTC to Fair Crystal and closed Lake View. Again, you'll see in the next couple slides why we have the increase in cost, but essentially what you have to kind of wrap your head around is it's more expensive to adjust Fair Crystal into permanently into something that's not an elementary school than it is to adjust Fair Crystal long-term as an elementary school. There's more cost associated with that. All right. So, here are some of the specifics of how we got to 343 million from the 425. We eliminated the additions to C Olsen and Lake View. Those were our buildings that had the two largest additions. If you remember the pictures, uh C Olsen had a really big addition on um the one side of it to build the tower. It also rem it also moved the kitchen and the entrance changed. A lot going on there. Lake View, you'll remember we had to put addition on two sides in order to get that building to be a four section SC elementary school along with the parking lot and just a lot going on in that building. Those were our two most expensive ads as elementary schools. So, we started there and took those off. Then we eliminated the uh PMS pool lobby. Uh that seemed like it would be something we could meter out and figure out something later. Um, and then we had to eliminate the theater at Sandberg. That would mean that it would at some somehow we would have to figure out still a performance stage in there. We would have to figure out a way with one of the locker rooms more than likely to create a space inside of there. It would not be the same as the theater in the round. And then we would do something different with the pool that's at Sandberg to make that still a usable multi-purpose space or something like that. Uh, we would have to we'd have to redo that. But that's how we save uh the money there. It like I said before, it's less expensive to keep PMS um as a middle school versus remodel for RSI. So that's where you see RSI going uh to a different place. And then it's less expensive to make Fair Crystal and Elementary rather than to have permanently or permanently make it into the ESC and all that. We can also move some of the qualifying remodeling to LTFM. And then that second question ends. There's a there's a lot going on there, but essentially it's a net addition because while we're saving from Lake View, there's a need to add back as we have to remodel Fair Crystal. So that's where you land with that extra amount in there for the $360 million ballot option. Essentially, this is the same as the last one except for we go back to Plymouth going to the high school, RSI going to Plymouth. Um, and then the second question gets us where ESC, community ed, adult academic program to Fair [snorts] Crystal again [clears throat] and we close Lake View. Here's what gets added back. So moving from the 343 back up to the 360, what gets moving moved back is we convert the pool into that theater at Sandberg. Plymouth becomes RSI, Armstrong becomes a middle school, and the option two question goes up an additional million because of the remodeling again. So it gets kind of complicated in there, but in order for us to figure out the closest we thing we can to numbers, we're adding to certain spaces. We're not now adding to other spaces. And so you have to calculate out what you think is the net result of that to be the most transparent with what the numbers would actually land at that. And we obviously we've got a large conversation. So, that's the overview getting us to where we need to get to as a board decision next Monday, which is the next slide. That review and comment. The review and comment. The reason we put this slide in here is so that you could see that it really is made up of seven parts. You [snorts] as a board don't need to worry about all seven parts because we're taking care of that behind the scene. Think of it in the same manner of the statutory operating debt plan. when CFO Holeheisel came up and presented here's the whole plan board we need you to fill it we need you to make a decision about this this and this and then we put that into the overall plan the parts of the review and comment that really are what we're talking about I have pulled out the site specification site concepts budget breakdown impact on the operating budget and a construction schedule that's kind of what we're overarching talking about what we need to get to from a board perspective is a first question. If that's where we're headed, we need to know what budget number do you want to go after and what site configuration makes up that budget number. And then the second question, if we're going for a second question, the exact same thing. All of the other stuff happens after we get that information behind the scenes between us and Nexus to put the full review and comment together. So, [snorts] at this point, that's the that's the intro. We've got all of us up here, including Nexus, to try and now back up wherever we need to back up for you to have a conversation, ask questions, us try to clarify what we can clarify and get you one step closer to making whatever decision it is you feel comfortable making. So, board chair, I'll turn it back over to you how you would like this to go. >> Okay. I just have a clarifying question. Sure. >> Okay. So the additional 53 million that second question on whatever level it is um does that only come into play if the first question passes how does that work? How does that trickle down? I mean is it like if you vote yes? >> That is correct. It's contingent on the passing of the first question. >> So it says that right on the ballot. If question one passes, would you be in favor of what this >> Okay. And so what's the tax impact of 53 million? >> I can tell you 52 million because that's where it was run. So assume it's close, but the tax impact for that is $8. >> Thank you. Okay. Board members, questions, comments? >> [cough] [clears throat] >> Director Hillbrand. >> Um, let's see. Um, four questions. One is, you know, as we look at this a few months ago, not having a school in Robbinsdale was a big concern. And two of these plans do not have a school building in Robbinsdale. Is this something that we're still concerned about or the political implications of this? So that's one question. Um I don't expect you to necessarily have an answer. I'm just throwing that out there as one of the potential issues. Um but with um Olsen um going down to three section, you know, thinking about how does that impact our capacity because I thought we were building to a certain capacity. So we're losing, you know, a class in each grade. and also will the school then be um resourced you know have enough kids to be fully resourced as well. >> So these are all trade-offs. So [snorts] the other thing you'll notice is that um in the the second and third proposal we increase by a site. So we go from 11 buildings to 12 buildings. Um so that's how we make up for the capacity is we're increasing the amount of sites that we have. Does that increase the elementary capacity or I mean does that even out >> utilizing the buildings? So the trade-off is it won't be even. You're going to have buildings that are four section buildings and a couple buildings that are three section buildings. >> Okay. I guess I just didn't see the trade-off in there. Thank you. And then um then that leads me to my my other my final question which is what is the budget implication then of operating an additional site? Right? Because the trade-off too is that we're going to have an ongoing budgetary impact that will make it harder for us to get out of sod. So what is the ongoing budgetary impact of running an additional building? >> So the what we've shared with the board is that we can assume that every elementary school that we run has a baseline annual operation impact of a million dollars. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Director Basset. >> So, um I'm going to I'm just going to ask one question right now. I may have some I will have some others later, but one of the questions I have has to do with that last slide that you that we just talked about uh which talked about the timeline I believe or as you said here is where the board needs to make decisions. I'm looking for that paper. >> Second last. >> It's the second last one. >> Well, yeah, but I'm just making sure I got the right document to look at because I was following it, but you know, I got a lot of paper. So uh but in any case my question kind of has to do with um item number one because the geographic area and the populations to be served will shift somewhat. all of the boundaries and all of the work that we did ear all the conversation I will say that we had early on as we closed buildings and did a variety of things. We received a presentation that talked about if this then that meaning shifts in where the kids go. If this then that and if this then that and I distinctly remember these kids will go above 169 or below and so that conversation is that you remembering that presentation. Okay. So if we are now um looking at different site configurations that will have an impact on boundaries. Now theoretically it typically always had. So, I'm not sure if that I'm just that's you know I can be wrong. Uh but that's kind of how it's always worked. And so, um as I think about that, that's a question. What is because it says done here, but I I'm assuming that you'll go back to the drawing board and you will look at the configurations based on whatever it is that we determine that we're going to do. >> [snorts] >> uh you know uh the last time it was shared with us, we had a little bit of discussion about it uh some discussion um but um I do believe that it will also be an opportunity for us to look at the populations that we serve. Um, [snorts] and so, so you kind of answered my question because you did say yes. That will re require some retooling of the boundaries. >> Is I see you shaking head. Yes. And I >> Yeah, I think it anytime you you make some significant changes like this, you're going to assume that >> I'm sorry, uh, Superintendent I Susan, I I can't quite hear you because you work right in the mic, but >> So, anytime you make changes like this, >> you're going to assume that you're going to have some boundary changes, but specific to what you're talking about here, number one is current state. You're explaining what is the current state of the district. So current geography, current demographics, what is it that is currently in place that you are building up to the change? >> I understand that. But if we are going to retool this review and comment sheet to submit to the department of education, it I want to make sure that what we send is what that I have voted yes, we're going to do. So, if there's going to be some retooling and going back or yes or no or whatever, whatever we all vote. But the fact is is that if there's going to be some retooling of it, then I think that that deserves a look. Um, and uh I'm chair I I thought I saw that >> a little bit is that when we send it to the review and comment, it's basically just stating the outline like the whole geog geography of the district. It is not saying like school boundaries at that point. Okay. >> So we are just putting what is included in Robinsdale area schools. >> So So if I'm understanding that the proposal that goes to them does not have to be that refined. >> Correct. >> Okay. Got it. >> Correct. >> However, back in the back of the ranch, which is where we live, uh there will be some adjustments based on where the config where we land with certain things. There'll be some retooling of that. And there'll have to be there. you know, >> inevitably there would have to be because you're talking about uh at least existing a couple of schools that don't even have neighborhood boundaries at this point. So, yes, that is accurate. >> Well, and and I and I think that that matters to me and to the community because understanding what that might look like if I live in New Hope or if I live in Brooklyn Park, a little side of it or Brooklyn Center or Plymouth. Does that mean anything to me or not? You know, and if it does, what does it mean? And so I think that uh that is the question that I have. So to the extent that there and I'm assuming that maybe you've, you know, did a little bit of looking at that because you you are you've got the 11 or 12 facilities and so you've got the buildings kind of thought about. So I'm assuming that there's been a little bit of thinking about that. There won't be any thinking at this point about what boundaries would look like. That's fair. I mean, no, that's fair. >> Okay. But, but you answered my important question, which is the fact that there will have to be some more retooling of that. So, what people have relied on and thought about, as we go into the summer, and as we prepare for next year, there could be some shifts. >> There there will not be shifts for 2627. >> 2627. Well, I like I like hearing it from you. I don't want to I don't like assuming stuff. I ask the question because I don't know >> and you're working with it. So, I appreciate Oh, I appreciate you're you know sharing with me what your vision is. >> Yes. What what parents know to be true at this point is what will be true for next school year. See, and and I I'll just say this. One of the things that that really kind of does concern me is and a value that, you know, I I've always believed was a value is to the extent possible, not having parents have within a certain time frame have to have their students move more than one time. You know, to have kids have to move twice would not be ideal. So, I just would lay that on the table and say as you're thinking about these things, I I think that that's very important. And um so that's my question for now. You've answered it. Thank you. There. So it's a whole geography and so at some point you'll come back and we'll talk about whatever it means for boundaries depending on where we land with these buildings. >> Okay. So somebody else might have a question for >> Okay. Thank you. Director Huto has a question or comment. >> Yes. [clears throat] So I'm looking at the uh second option that we have. Um should we should the board decide to go with two questions? I'm wondering if we've made any assumptions on if option one passes and the voters decide against option two, what happens to all the things that we are anticipating will happen in option two if that doesn't pass. >> So you're talk Well, let's just make sure we're So you're talking about the $343 million option. Okay. the middle one there. And so let's do this. I think this might be easier to look at it this way. So what you see on the screen now is the is with basically without the second question in play. So this is this is what happens. Um and it kind of goes back to the question about the three section four section. So what you notice is that everything that's in the boxes is what would be in play. What would change is only if a second question were to be approved would something change from the boxes on this slide. Otherwise this would be just the first question. >> Okay. Does that answer does that get at what you were asking? >> Yes. >> 343 is just the first question. >> 340. >> So 343 would have one high school. It would have RSI moving to Armstrong. And one of the big changes is the two middle schools would then be Plymouth Middle School and Sandberg. So maybe if I take it so I'll stop there for a moment and take it a next step out. So, let's say that we have to at that point the the voter approved bonding only gets us that far. As we move down the path, as we decide what are we going to do with buildings that have been closed, as other funding mechanisms because of lease levy or anything else that CFO can talk to specifically come available, the board might be in a spot where you have a priority list. The next thing we're going to do is this as soon as we get this amount of money from sale of buildings or another funding mechanism and after that's done then we're going to do this. So I think [clears throat] maybe if I'm thinking through the question you asked things that aren't happening in this model will have to be metered out as we move through time in terms of when does dollar when do dollars become available. So for a followup for this option then for everything on here to happen we can assume that 343 million plus 52 million will have to be what the voters approve for all these scenarios to play out. >> That is correct. For everything on this slide that is inclusive of the items on the far right that aren't in a box. >> Excuse [clears throat] me, Dr. Another way I think it is the thing that says second question on the right pretend that's not there. Everything in the cutter boxes everything in the cutter boxes happens with 343. >> Thank you, [clears throat] >> Dr. Bowman. And that is true on the >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So everything you see in the colored boxes is what the referendum amount would be. >> Question one. Question one on any of the options, it's everything done in the colored boxes. >> Thank you, >> Dr. Long. Yeah, I I'm just feeling like th this should have all been talked about before we even talked about closing any of the school buildings that we had. Um I feel like we should have sused out all of this stuff before we got to this point because now here we're talking about we moved people from Sonison to Neil and now we're talking about doing something differently with Neil. again, Lake View is brought up. Uh, was there a conversation with that the with the Robbinsdale City Council because I remember them saying something about good luck coming to us about resoning. Um, so how are they going to feel about that? We bring this back up now. We're going to be using Lakeville Lake View for something different than what what it is being used for. Well, I think what what we were tasked with doing is, you know, we needed to wait for this point and this has been exactly the the timeline all along. Um was to get an idea from the residential survey of where um our community is and then the board from that information, we need then to then say, okay, then what does it look like if we don't go forward with what that original plan is? Um, so that's what we're breaking bringing forward um to you now is what additional options could look like uh without going for that full amount [clears throat] um of the bond. >> Dr. Brenten, >> I've got so many questions. Um why let's start with the second question stuff. Why why do the flippity do with Fair Crystal? Like why why don't you close Forest instead or Metal Lake or I'm just why why is that the one you pick to like then suddenly decide you're going to put ESC RTC? >> Do you want to take that one? >> Yeah. say that. I'm sorry. Say that one more time. >> Yeah. I I just I I'm trying to understand why why Fair Crystal at the end of the day is the the one that kind of is the the one that's being chosen to kind of shift around, right? Like we're going to use fair as an elementary, but if we ask the second question and it passes, then fair is the one we decide gone. A >> fair question, >> right? Yeah. >> Um because it's one of your newer buildings. You you don't have to use fair in the second question. You could keep like in this example on the screen, you could keep ESC and RTC at Lake Fuel and you could sell Fair Crystal. That's totally your it's one of your newer buildings. So the the thought was maybe trying to keep that building. [snorts] It's one of the options. Um that that I think I think that's why it's in play in that second question. >> I mean I've said this before. I don't think Fair Crystal should be a school. I think it's the best to be used as a school. I don't think it should be office space. Just throwing that out there. >> Well, 20th time. >> Just just to clarify >> in the most cost effective way. >> Yeah, it is. >> That's what we came up with 343. >> Dr. Stall was right. We had a plan that came out of the vision team. We priced it up. We tested it with the public. >> Too expensive. >> Come back, try to get below 15. What do you need to do? Right. >> This is as inexpensive as we can. And the most inexpensive way to use Fair Crystal is to use it as a four section elementary as we're showing. >> Sure. So I as we go through this, right, you're going to ask the questions like what are the thoughts of the board generally, right? My thought when this all gets flushed out, right? Ideally, fair crystals being used as a school >> most cost effective use. >> Correct. Like and that's what we should be looking at, right? Like just throwing it out there for the whole world to hear. >> [snorts] >> Um, that's question one. Question two, now that we're kind of looking at this, is there is there any logic of hitting the pause button on the ESC move right now [snorts] since we don't really know where it's going to be? >> Like the building's not going to burn to the ground or anything crazy like like >> No, it's just it's the savings. It's not actualizing the savings that we have as part of the balance budget for next year. >> How much is that savings though? Do we know? I'm just because you're going to have to move everything and then a year later be like, let's pick everyone up and move them again, right? Like I'm just there's a there's a costbenefit analysis there that probably should be done is all I'm saying. I'm not >> I I I don't have a number. >> Right. I didn't I didn't think you would. That this session challenges is back to when all decisions on building closures and programming were playing out and we needed to have a home for High View. We needed to be paired with High View to get the building closure savings. I mean, so utilities, custodial, um, that that two sites versus one. It's back to I mean, >> yeah, I get that. But the the flip side is I mean, we've talked about it before. We're not out of this building September 1st, next year, right? We're we're going to be here for a while. It sounds like >> I would say MEA. >> Oh, we're out of this building that fast. >> November 1st, we would I would anticipate us being out of here. We have to that is the plan. We need to we need to let our buildings land and then I mean departments will be moving but we can't move enrollment during the >> heaviest timing those sorts of decisions. >> That sounds faster than what was implied before. So >> um I'll let someone else ask questions. I'm still thinking through all of this. Sorry. [snorts] >> Dr. Basset. >> Yes. Excuse me. Uh back to fair. Uh so uh the highest and best use of a fair I'm assuming would be its current use which is a as a middle school as a middle well so it's a middle school now and it can be a middle school without any configuration reconfiguration >> to a certain size >> to a certain size might need some accommodation but it's a middle school so Um, I do take exception to using it for something other than a middle school, particularly since it was built specifically to be an arts focused middle school. And to close that and not have it used for that highest and best use is what it was built to. So, I'm just not only have I thinking about that in terms of just a term of art for the business for when you're talking real estate because I'm not a real estate expert, but it's a term I've come to be fond of, you know. Uh, but so there is that as it currently stands right now. Now, I'm going to switch a little bit and I'm going to talk about um my concerns related to this is maybe more for us. my concerns related to the population growth that's going to happen so quickly at Plymouth Middle School and Sanberg Middle School and uh and with the closure of Robinsdale Middle School, we're going to be having if I my if I reme recall correctly over,90 kids at uh I think it's Samberg and 900 and something at um Plymouth Middle School. So both of those will grow appreciably. Uh, I've not heard and I I can only assume I that I believe that the superintendent is probably monitoring or somebody's working on um the populations, not only the student population because kids are pretty malleable. They can, you know, they're pretty fluid, the parent component, um, and all of the things that go with it. So moving and and and I what really I'm focused what really really got me there is we made a decision about the closure of that program in one meeting when the board decided that we were not really comfortable closing the transportation down for a Spanish immersion. We all kind of agreed with that typ generally that what was immediately put on the table was we're going to close fair programming. That was immediate. There was no opportunity to talk about it. No really look at anything else. That's how it got decided. And so that has not sat well with me then because of all the time we've taken with all of the other moves we've made. But we didn't do that kind of diligence in my opinion with that site. And so to close the program down so abruptly from its highest and best use is very troubling to me, particularly after we have just had an investment by the school trust people to come out there and do what they do with the grounds and all of that. So all the things, you know, so that's troubling to me. So having that as a middle school, if we're going to close something else and find some other ways to save money, which we can, one of the things I've talked about that has we've never really gotten into very deeply is that where else can we save money? We know it's people. We know most of our business is people, but we also do a lot of work in contracting out. We have a lot of contracts in this district for services of all types and there was some thought that I heard that I didn't say it but I heard at the board and I also have said it uh with looking at contracts and working we cut. So I'm going to not go very far I'm not going to go any further down that path but I'm just making it clear that that's a concern of mine and I'm very concerned about the middle school situation. very concerned about it and and the fact that if we're going to reconfigure Fair Crystal into an elementary when perhaps there are some other alternatives for elementary growth because we're already talking about doing certain things with certain bit certain buildings. Um I think that's an issue. So the last com well may not be the last one but the last on this little segment that I'm going to talk about is I thought that um this scenario all of it drives toward one high school now and and what I have always thought is because I think I've heard it I could be wrong that it's either one high school if we have two high schools it's going to cost us more money and so that's one of the reasons we don't want to have two high schools um and we're going to lose enrollment. Those are the big issues that I've heard talked about. So, [snorts] I have advocated and said, "Well, what would it look like if we had two high schools? What more do we need to do?" Well, I have asked that question and um it's come back void because we still don't have the answer to that. So, in some ways, maybe we feel like we've discussed it and we have the answer. In some ways we may do because we've talked about it a lot and talked around it. But I'm just saying that um because that was all contingent as I understood it if if we pass the referendum or not. It was framed in that discussion that the referendum we need to have that uh and if we don't have it that's tied to the one high school. Now, maybe I heard that wrong, but that's what I think I was hearing. So, I've just stopped bringing it up, you know, but because I thought it was married to they had married that either you have one high school, if you have two, it's going to cost you more money. So, you're going to have to get rid of the one and we're going to have two for a while anyway because we can't fit everything into one high school as it is, you know. So, we're going to have two high schools. If we have to live with those two high schools until is it 2030 2031, what's what's the plan? You know, cuz I don't see that here. If we have to live with these two high schools for a while, what is the rest of these configurations that get us to closer to where we need to be? Because let me just say this. I am not against I'm not against a referendum. It's just what are we buying is where I'm at and what are we getting. I've never said that that I'm against a referendum and I don't want that out in the air that I said no. I've not said that. But I am concerned about when I see this I it would be helpful to see if we have to live with these two high schools for a period of time. What is that going to do to us in terms of these the layout? Is it two years from now? Is it three years from now? we have three, you know, more elementaryaries or how many elementaryaries? I that's not here. Is that an issue? >> Um, to answer your question, I think last week, maybe the week before and the week before that, I had a phasing document that shows yearbyear what the initial plan would be for what the building sets would be for each year. >> Well, >> based on moving to this model. Well, you know, this is very clear and so that's that's that's all I'm saying is that so it's nice to be able to compare apples to apples. I [snorts] I thank you for reminding us about that phasing document because quite frankly I've thought about that too and this whole idea of metering or phasing and I think I had asked you if you could do a little bit more thinking about that quite frankly and what might that look like. Um do you remember that? I do and until we get more clarity at the point that we're at, we can't cause that to that. I don't want to belabor it, you know, but I but I'm just saying that um >> the numbers associated with two high schools until 2030 2031 is what we will have to live that because we won't have it. We won't have the capacity. So, we got to live with it. If we have to live with that as we move toward that does that affect at all this configuration of elementarymentaries and middle and if it does how I mean in terms of >> I'll try to answer what I think you're asking >> okay >> is regardless of what the if the board would choose to go out for a ballot question and the community would vote to do that and it would include one high school like on the screen now. Then there's an entire construction schedule that would dictate which buildings would domino all the way out to 2031 because we can't start moving into the secondary buildings Armstrong moving into the Cooper site until the Cooper site is done. That means that once that happens in this model, RSI could then move into the Plymouth site when Plymouth is done. That means that the RSI Sunny Hollow building would be able to close at that point. Along the way, there would be other elementary schools that would be closed as other the rest of the sites became completed. For example, if I'm trying to think of the easiest one here. Um, let's say in this model that Fair Crystal becomes an elementary school of four sections and that gets done. You'd be at a spot where you could then move early learning to Neil [snorts] to Neil. That would change that. In the previous discussions we've had, early learning was going to be at Fair Crystal. So that would have been the spot where you would have seen Neil be in a place where it could close fully. But now we're repurposing that in order to gain some efficiencies in dollars and make it all fit. So it's it's kind of to the point it's going to be contingent upon what the actual decision is. But yes, as things get completed, buildings will be able to change as long as I would say this, as long as we aren't in a position to then have to do boundaries multiple times across elementary schools. We would want to avoid that as much as possible. So there might be a lag where someone's going to say, "Yeah, we should make this move right now." and we're going to say no because if we wait 6 months then we're going to do both of these boundary changes at the same time so that we're not I mean there's going to be things like that happening again kind of like we talked about last Monday we are in a place where because there's such a need for such detail with so many assumptions right now [snorts] we are in a place different than where districts typically are at this point in time. Typically a board is not staring at a screen with this level of detail trying to decide do we or don't we go out for a referendum. They are saying we want this concept to take place. We want these buildings to be touched. Our ultimate goal is to do X. We're going out for a referendum to accomplish that. We are in that conundrum as I explained last week of we can give you lots of information and it's going to lead to more questions that we may not have the answers to because those answers are contingent on what else plays out. So I I I get it. We're just this is just where we are. We're going to have to be okay living in that at the moment. and and what yeah what I'd like to share as well you know I understand that not every board member might be delighted with every decision that's taken place along the way we have continued for months now moved forward based on decisions that have been made at this table um by the board as a whole. So the decision around closing Fair Crystal, whether that was something individual board members disagreed with, the direction we got from the board as a whole was to move forward with that. The direction that we have gotten from the board for months has been to work on a plan with a one high school model. So, we're at a point that we've continued to take the direction from the board as a whole, and that's what we're here tonight to continue to do. Um, and these are these are options in front of you right now for discussion. That first option changes nothing that you've heard for months. Um because of the concern that uh the board members talked about um with some of that survey data, we needed to come back and say, "Okay, how do we scale back and still ensure that we're able to do as much of that operationalizing the vision as we possibly could and that's what the options um in front of you are now. But it but in terms of decisions that have been made along the way, we are simply following the direction that we've been given by the the board as a whole. >> Thank you. Um I have got Dr. Hillenbrand then Brendesen then Long and then Basson. Whoops. And your Okay. Long and Bowman and then Bassin. >> Um Okay. Well, first of all, just about fair, it was actually built as a fourth through eight. So, it wasn't built exclusively as a middle school, just as a point of so it was also intended for elementary students. So, it actually fits very well within the use parameters that it was built for um to turn it into an elementary school as well. And um I think I I just want to say too that while we had to make some decisions in a quick time frame, I don't I I want to say that I believe at least for I'll speak for my part that the decisions that we made were well thought out and were made with due diligence. And so I don't appreciate um going back and or having the implication that we that they weren't well thought out, that we didn't put our time and effort into making those decisions as a board because I think as a board um as a whole that we and I know some people weren't even on the board when we made some of those decisions. So, um, but that that we did think these things through as we went through them. Um, and that they were made understanding the weight of those decisions as we made them, at least on my part. And so, I want the public to be assured that we didn't just willy-nilly um quickly um just decide, sure, we'll just do that. No, we put thought and attention and time and care into these decisions because we understand how important they are and they affect my kids personally. They affect every the children in our school district. They affect our community and they're really important and we don't just um kind of you know um just make random decisions. These are important and we put our time and effort into them. And I think that's really important to to put out there. Um, and I also think that it's important that we choose what we think has the most um the best impact on students um for the future, but also has the best chance of passing, right? And so for me, I you know, I I see that this the secondary option, well, it doesn't have the second the 360 um I'm looking at the right one. 343 is the second one, right? Um the one that's the $15 um seems to fit within the parameters of what we heard from um uh sorry uh Peter uh Leatherman last week and um and I know that those that he really knows what he's talking about when he does these surveys. I think that it hits the marks of what we're trying to get at um in a very big way and I you know for me it seems to tick a lot of the boxes. So right now that's what I'm leaning towards but I I'm interested in hearing what my fellow board members think about some of these um options as well. So >> Dr. Brenten >> uh rapid fire time on option B. It says we eliminate the pool lobby. Are we eliminating the competition pool then too or just the lobby? Cool. On option B, it says the exact wording is Sanberg gets performance, arts, classrooms, and stage, but then it says there's not I can What does that mean? I guess >> yes. So to the last Tuesday morning, I get a call saying, "Hey, the survey came back. We need to get to 340." So that's what's driving this. Um the savings come from not turning that pool into a theater on the round. And so right now u Plymouth Middle School has a stage in the gym. >> Yep. >> You can't add a stage to the gym at Sandberg. So we either had to do it's a funny term like a Murphy bed. There's a Murphy stages. They [laughter] come down [clears throat] >> or you do a portable stage, right? And you still can do this lights and the sound up on the ceiling and all that. So that was the thought process is to have it equitable between the new middle schools and this option. both would have a larger than normal classroom to teach performing arts. And then when you want to do a performance like a choir, you have a band shell or band you can do there. But if you want to do a big performance like a big play with sets and all that, you either utilize Fair Crystal or Armstrong, you already got those two beautiful facilities. Let's use them. >> Okay. I I just want to clarify because he had that in there. Okay. Um >> option C. I'm giving these letters because they don't have letters before. Um, Hive View is at Armstrong question mark. It's not listed anywhere. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah, it is. It's on the far right. It just says ALC. >> ALC. Not >> Oh, okay. Got it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Just I was just trying to figure out where that was on there. Okay. >> Maybe it was too long. >> That That's fine. I just I just um I was thinking different adult. All right. uh three four general questions. So by next week we don't need to have what buildings are moving and all this like the the key thing by June 15th is to say we are going to go ask for x number of millions of dollars in one question and potentially a second question. We don't need to know the the mechanics of every building move. Is that true? So this is where our partners at Nexus come in because this is what they do as we get to this stage and figure out uh with the help of CFO Hoheisel [laughter] and come up with what language with this box that I've pulled out on this slide. How do you write it in such a way that it it explains exactly what your intent is >> but allows for the board to be flexible with some of that >> without getting away from what the intent of the overarching ask is about. >> Sure. >> Okay. That's that makesense. >> People need to know what they're voting for. >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> And that's okay. Um couple of last questions real quick. Olsen going to three sections. Are we concerned about elementary capacity? I know we were at four sections all the time. Everyone was four sections. Da da da. Is I 150ish fewer students total. >> Yeah. As as we're looking at like even on this one here, the 360 345, they start out the same way. Doesn't matter there. There isn't a concern with the six because Olsen Elementary is the only three section on these. The rest are four sections and then we are um assuming with particularly with a second question right when you add that RMS site you're adding another larger four section elementary school. So definitely with the second um but there wouldn't be a concern with four sections right now uh and the one school being a three. Got it. >> But there is a financial impact. >> Sure. >> Because when you are looking efficiency as far as staffing ratios, the number of buildings we have open are all impacted. Now when you say Olsen becoming a three section, Olsson currently is a three section. They would stay that way. But that is I I just don't want it lost as as the board works through their their information that it is an extra building every year and you do lose efficiencies amongst all of your buildings by having one more building open. >> But but regard it's still seven elementaryaries at the end of the day though, right? Like the old 425 million plan was seven ele six neighborhoods and RSI. is still six elementaryaries and RSI. >> Yes, but it changes as we go along because you you have to add a building to make it all work by not moving. >> I get Yeah, I get where you're adding that extra. But from an elementary footprint is what I was saying that the footprint of the number of buildings remains the same. It's still seven in both. >> Given the demographic projections for elementary schools, we have room in here. Um, right now Olsson is a three section at the Yep. >> towards the higher end of theirou for for class sizes. It doesn't have to. Oh, we're we're not trying to change it. We're trying to keep it the way it is. And I was one clarification I want to make for the board. Um, if you go back, you go to the sec go to that slide right after this. Eliminate additions at OS. I'm sorry and I wrote this and I'll tell you right OSEN would still get an addition. It would still get four classrooms, two on one level, two on the other level. It's just a lot smaller than what we were proposing in the first option. Okay. So, I I will fix that. I apologize. >> Okay. All right. [snorts] >> Um I had one other question I think in here. Sorry. RSI, how many? 550. Like can RSI fit a fair bigger? Right now >> they're bigger. >> There's 700 of them. >> Okay. [snorts] Um >> fit them in a lake almost. And the last question the we could do a different thing for the second qu like our second question could be do you want to [snorts] put theaters at Sandberg and Plymouth as an example as an alternative to >> this huge elementary that has a domino of all sorts of other crazy stuff. >> Thank you for clarifying that because again the only reason for the second question being the way it's written right now is because of what we heard from the board last Monday. So that's what we went off of was it seemed like there was interest to see what a second question around the RMS site would actually look like and how would that impact anything else in the mix. Yeah. >> Good. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Next is Director Long, then Bowman, then Basset. >> So, um I am so appreciative that we all here at the board respect each other's perspectives and our viewpoints that we're sharing here at the table. Um, I just want to say before I get to my question, I voted no on all this stuff. I've been asking for more information about what it would be like for two high schools, more having [clears throat] equal time on what's our other options are. And now here we're getting another option, but I've been asking for this all along. what you know and more time on what would that option look like if we just did LTFM dollars which been asking for equal time on that too and that hasn't been happening. So all these decisions that led the board to whatever this is my vote was no on all those decisions. So I just want to be very clear on all of that. My vote was no. I felt like all this work that we're doing right now should have happened before we decided to close any of our schools. We should have had a clear path as to where we were going before we started uprooting families and uprooting children and we don't and we still don't. And we're still talking about future plans where we are going to be uprooting children. That does not sit well for me. Those things [clears throat] should have been decided way long ago before we're even deciding this. I'm also feeling too that we're not going to get to whatever this dream was that we wanted, but yet we're going to ask people for all this money at a time when everybody is strapped for money. People in my neighborhood are not, you know, lawyers and doctors and making that kind of income where this is going to be suitable for them. They're they're working union jobs. They're working hourly jobs. is that's not fair that now we're asking for all of this and still I as a board member don't understand the errors that we made in our finances here and the errors that we continue to make and all the outsourcing that we continue to make in this district. Why we continue to fire teachers and get rid of EAS and cut those positions when those are the positions that are going to bring in our bread and butter. So to my question now on this slide it talks about uh moving some qualified remodeling components to LTFM. Can you talk through in detail what those uh remodeling components would be that would qualify for LTFM? >> Sure. after um after we're asked to look uh try to come up as per the per this public survey to be below $15 a month, how can we get the the ballot question down? I asked my team to say we looked at the different remodeling that was planned in the original option for some of these schools in some of the light remodeling. Um and I'll I'll give an example of um all right, we're going to cut a new door in in this wall. Okay, adding a new door doesn't qualify for LTFL, but when I do that wall and I paint that wall and I put a new vinyl strip on the floor and all that that there's a component of some of that remodel that qualifies as as LTFM. So, we just took a harder a harder look at that. So, it moved it moved like 9.6 million from the ask to LTFM and that that's all it is. Nothing more than that. >> Okay. So, one of my questions I had asked before too was how did they go about doing the upgrade at C and I still didn't get an answer to that. And so, I'm kind of wondering uh how that fits in with how the the LTFM dollars work and if we can get more detail into each of these buildings that were going to be how what things can be LTFM in their remodels versus what cannot be. So to answer the question about um C is back in 2016 and in 2017 the district issued two one each year certificates of participation with a certificate of participation. One impacted Fair Pilgrim, the other impacted C, which then allowed the district to add on a piece of learning space or adjust a piece of learning space that is still a part. One of them might have fallen off our debt program right now, but we're getting to the point where they're almost paid off. That is how the district did that back in the day, a decade ago, give or take. um to the LTFM piece. I struggle with that a little bit, Director Long, because throughout you saw the original heat map of what buildings needed what work done and and it wasn't it's not project by pro. It's not, you know, paint and roofs. And it was like this is the cost to get get these buildings up to um to the repairs that um are needed. And then as we close buildings, you saw a revised map. Um what's presented before you and in part of the package tonight is the 140 million with the closed buildings of the work that needs to be done with a 10-year plan for that. And then it alters a little bit um to what Brent was saying that if the configuration changes from essentially the option we've been talking about all along, you're adding different things back in the mix again. You're not remodeling, you know, however me many buildings. There's more buildings in play. You're not doing new dollars on them. So, you have to do some repairs. So, that goes up. I I I apologize that I don't exactly know what more do you need for long-term facility maintenance because we continue to discuss it. >> Yeah. Well, I need a lot more. He talked about a vinyl strip that's on the floor that could count towards the LTFM. Is that right what you were saying? >> Yeah. So, simple terms and in very black and white terms, you cannot do any new construction and you not cannot reconfigure a space. I can't take a classroom and turn it into an office with LTFM. I can't take a classroom and make an apartment for RTC program with LTFM. I can paint the walls. I can replace your eight roof. I can fix your HVAC. We can do the finishes. You can't remodel and add on with that. So, >> that's fine. But then what about So then what is it then exactly? Because then I keep hearing like for like, but now you were just giving an example where you could use something in the finishes and count that as LTFM dollars. So, I'd like to know what else there are. Are there some light fixtures that we can use and count those as LTFM dollar light switches? I don't know. Wiring within the walls. I don't know. So, that's why I'm asking this question. What exactly then? Because it seems like there's a broader term for like for like and I'd like to narrow it down in my head as to what that like for like is. >> Okay. We'll have to work on that answer for you. >> Thank you. I just wanted to note and I I maybe it wasn't the exact question that you asked um Director Long, but I know on May 19th um CFO Hohheisle did respond to the question about the long-term facility maintenance being integrated um with the debt profile and there was uh that same information that she just shared that there is that outlined um about the C renovations as well. are you? >> Yeah. No, that that is not what I understood at all. And then things keep changing and the information keeps changing and so the definition keeps changing for me of what it is you're exactly talking about when the information and all those other things keep changing. So, no, it's not the exact same. You can list that out if you want. We talked about it on this date at this time. But yet again, here we are with another uh presentation that has just been given to us. Wasn't even in the packet, wasn't even online for me to review beforehand with different information in it. So, it keeps changing. So, along with that, yeah, I'm going to continue to ask those questions. And you might think that they're redundant questions, but they're not because when information changes, then my understanding of that information changes. Uh, >> Dr. woman. >> Uh thank uh thank you. Um I'm I'm not Can I ask a clar clarifying question first? >> Um and that is are we ready to take temperatures? Is that something we're able to talk about at this point or I mean I don't really have I have some couple of comments and >> uh pretty soon we could probably take a temperature. I think a couple more people. No, I want I just have one thing to say. >> You know, I'll just go ahead with with what I have to say and and if it falls in the wrong spot, you can think about it later. How does that sound? >> Um, I too agree with you uh, Director Helen Bran, that decisions were uh have been well thought out and they uh, [clears throat] and that the due diligence has been done. Uh from my perspective, there's a lot of uh fluidity to what we have going on, but that's uh the difference from here to other school districts is that we're not just talking about one building or one or two buildings or maybe three buildings or a section here or a section there. What we've been tasked as with as a board is really reimagining the entire district, which um to me is different. it's it's the vision and it does keep things [snorts] a little bit fluid. Um, but it's all been understandable to me. So, I really thank people for the um incredibly detailed information we've received. From my perspective, I can support in all the information we've received, the information that's been most important to me has been the information provided by the Leatherman Association last week [snorts] because to me it showed uh the taste of what people are willing to spend. People understand we haven't had um a a bond a referendum in 50 years. uh people understand that in order for us to create achievement and student success, we need to make uh some really big changes in what we're doing, not just little changes. We needed to have our entire school district revamped. Um, it's been a big push and uh, for me I support the $543 million ballot option uh, because I believe that it allows us the greatest a great amount of flexibility in it and it holds us within what would be acceptable to what the community has said in the Leatherman >> 343 >> the 343 million ballot option. >> 343. Thank you. sorry, the 343 ballot option because I think there is flexibility in there that we haven't talked about in any sort of length because that's a really fluid area and that's as we begin to sell off property and buildings as time goes on. We can add back in those extra pieces, more performance play space, more you know the pool lobby, the and the great news about that is that the plans will have are fully vetted by that point. uh it creates greater clarity over the next three to four years and uh I just think the flexibility is going to be there and also the probability of its acceptance on the on the part of the community uh is really in that 343 uh you know you can talk about people's monetary situations etc you know uh I'm on a fixed income and and that's a whole another household in this community many The people in my group understand that there hasn't been an investment. We've been living free for 50 years off this school district with no referendum. And as I talk to people in my age group, we're all horrified. What? How did we miss that? And uh and so people do see the need and they do see the importance of making an investment in the community. And um uh and gratefully we do have a lot of union workers in our community because they're making good union wages. >> [gasps] >> So, I think that 343 is the option I would be most comfortable with. I think it offers us the flexibility. I think it's it lives in an area that uh our surveys suggest is most likely could pass. And so, to me, it checks all the boxes. So, and I don't have any questions because it's been pretty clear to me. I I just know there's a lot of moving stuff out there, but um I can see the plan. So, thank you. That's it. Um, director Basset. >> Well, um, you know, I I I do want to say that, uh, I have we have been on a long journey and it has been very fluid and so we've had to address a lot of things. Having said that, it is true that often the information because we had an accelerated calendar. It's quite often that we have gotten information that has been a we've gotten a bit late. Uh and well, when I say late, that's relative, but we've gotten it and had to kind of quickly turn around like a Thursday and then come back and talk about something and talk about it again on a on a on a Monday or whatever. That is a reality. is that we've been on a fast clip. That's not a negative statement. It's not putting anybody bound down. It's just saying that's those are the facts. And it's also a fact that when we talked about Fair Crystal, we didn't have a big window of time. That same night, we made a decision about transportation and took Fair Crystal programming off the table. That is a fact. that's not denigrating anybody or you know anything like that. It's just a statement of fact. And so I I too think it's important for the community to get a particular picture. But the community has been paying real close attention. They already know this. So they know that we made that decision because we have people marching because they didn't get a chance to weigh in. So I don't want to be seen as I'm casting negativity and all that stuff because I'm not. I just like the facts and the facts speak for themselves. No amount of rhetoric can change that and I don't need to refute what anybody else is saying at this table. I'm just concerned about what I'm saying. Now, um I do and you know and I had another thought here and I want to make sure I don't lose my thought, but I um I'm looking forward to uh where we are right now to kind of move along to our next steps because we do need to do that. I don't know that I'm uh prepared to do it in this moment um because we have another week and I think sometimes temperature checks can get you in trouble. Although I have said um that I'm uh open to um you know a referendum of sorts. I mean I think we do need to have an investment in our buildings and so it's high time we did quite frankly. So [snorts] we just want to make the best decision that we can that's not putting anybody else down and um I think as we talk about these questions the subservient question that comes with that and some of the extra things we will do I think that deserves some more communication and perhaps we'll have time for that next week. I don't know, you know, because I mean, the next time we meet, we'll have a little bit of time for some of that and you'll maybe even have some additional information for us because of this conversation, you know. Um, so we'll we'll kind of see where we all land with it. And um oh I know what I was going to say in addition to what I already said you know and that kind of had to do with this whole thing about um if in fact by the second qu the subservient question. It means that we would need to close two additional elementaryaries and I think I saw that on this sheet. Um so um so then I it says ESC to RTC and Lake View Early CH Learning and Neil are those two that are over here because if we have the six elementaryaries in pink that are there these two uh if we have that subservient question now where I'm coming down is if we're going to be reconfiguring some of these other buildings uh I see no reason why because we will be that we can't build in a spot for cuz if we do a brand new build at RMS. I don't see any reason why the ESC can't be there, you know, we've got a big enough footprint, you know, and so why we have to close Fair Crystal because if we close that, I think it should be used for the best use and uh, you know, and director Hillbrand, thank you because I was, you know, around when it was a 4 through eight, but it's been used as a middle school lately. So, I mean, I think most people have been watching it know that. So, but the primary use has been for a middle [snorts] school and that's what I was speaking to. So, just so you know, just because you raised it, I just, you know, come back to that. Um, so I think that that's something to think about because Neil and uh the ASC and in Lake View, if we have a brand new build at Robbinsdale Middle School site, that is a wonderful uh opportunity to really build for the future. In my opinion, and I'll just say this, building for the future is building for families who want to be there with their little kids, and that's where you hook them. You don't hook them in high school. We lose them. That was my other question that I was going to send and I didn't get a chance to. We lose kids when they do the middle school transition, when they do the elementary transition, and when they do to middle school to high school. If we build a brand new high school, but we've already have an attrition at middle school. We're going to the wrong end. You know, I mean, but that's where we have traditionally had attrition. where you get families in early and you [snorts] and people love it. The I think the capture rate is when I heard it was something like 77% or even higher. You know, for our elementary if we're going to put a stake in the sand, I say we put a stake there. And quite frankly, I you know, it may come a time when we do need to downsize our high school. I I you know, I'm the last one to kind of fly in the face of what might happen, you know, but I we don't know that for sure. and we've got a window of time before we get there. And on top of that, I think we need to be trying to keep these families and focusing on that. I think that's very important. We haven't had a chance to do that. So, I like the idea of since we were talking about putting the ESC in one of the other configurations. I see no reason why it needs to be at Robbinsdale Middle School. I mean, at the at the um you know, fair when we're going to be talking about a new build anyway. And uh it's a perfect opportunity to build if we're building something, build it so what we need it can fit. That that's just some feedback from me, you know, that you know, but that a bottle of water will get you make a bottle of water. You know, I realize that. But I just think I want to be, you know, uh, as clear too because if we that mean we will have fewer people will know we're forecasting if we're going to close two more elementaryaries, we're going to close them, you know, and the likely ones will close will be this and this. Uh, but we're building a brand new build and if it's in Robinsdale, it will make it, you know. Well, I don't when I Robbinsdale, don't get mad at me. I'm not saying they're gonna pay for it, but I'm just saying it will be in the city limits of Robbinsdale. And that district, that part of our district has deserves, we all deserve, they deserve an investment, you know, because they have uh been there without an investment for a long time. And we've invested in other places. We invested in Forest, brand, the last brand new building was built in Forest. We've invested in other places. And I think an investment there would be a good investment. Um and you know and that's where the growth is in our district from the demographer says and even we already knew that from the last couple of demographer reports we've had the western side or whatever that our northern side of our district and the eastern side is where the most growth has been in this district. >> Good. Are you good? >> Okay. It's gonna be me and then superintendent if that works unless you need to jump in right away. Okay. Um, getting back because I put my name on the list when you were saying it when you were talking about closing the schools and why we did that then rather than now. Um, I want to remind everybody the reason we had to close those schools was the statutory operating debt looking us right in the face of and those schools. We were so underutilized in our schools. I mean, a school, an elementary school with 250 kids, >> of course, one would love it, but it's not economically feasible at all. I mean, we could take two schools and fit them into one and still have room. That is an expense that we had to cut and we had to do it. We That is one of those things we could not wait on. And so I just wanted to remind people that those decisions that we made and they were not made lightly. I mean we had a lot of information and a lot of discussions on which schools had which things to offer and how were the facilities were this and that and lots of questions and answering time before we made those decisions. But they had to be made because of the SOD plan that we had to submit. We could not keep those expenses going the way they were. Now, switching gears, looking at these plans, I know you said uh the 343 would be what you My first choice would be the 360. It's just a couple dollars more and you get so much more for it. I mean, if I had to settle, I could settle for the 343, but really my first choice would be the 360 if if one were going to be going for an option. It's just so much more for $2 more a month. Okay. Um, Superintendent D. >> Yeah. Um, actually, it's interesting that, uh, Chairman Becker, you said what you just said because I just was going to also very much state the obvious. Uh just to level set again and remind our our community um we are in a different place than than many other school districts and there is urgency that has required a comprehensive strategy. Um so it's touched on a whole lot of things in part because of what you said uh that we've got buildings that are simply were simply underutilized um for a number of years and decisions weren't made. Um, we are in statutory operating debt. We do have $140 million in deferred maintenance needs. So, [snorts] again, the the needs here are pretty extensive. And going back to what uh Director Basset just said in terms of of what students deserve, and I know you were speaking specifically to to Robbinsdale, but that that is right, the community engagement process that we embarked on um was to hear from our community about what what is what do you want for the future of this school district? What is the school district our students um want, need, and deserve? Without a plan and a very comprehensive and strategic plan that we've been working on for a year and a half, without that we would simply be in the the business of reductions. And again, from the very beginning, what we chose to do is to engage the community so that our story wasn't just reduce, reduce, reduce, reduce, reduce. Instead, we said, "What does this community want?" We heard that from a robust community engagement process. We have gotten direction since September 23rd, 2025 from board members almost on a weekly basis, and we're trying to be responsive to the direction from the board, um, based on what we heard from the community as we're trying to get a plan forward. Um, and it's complex. It's really, really complex. There's multiple tradeoffs. There's multiple different uh strategies that that we've employed. Um but I I just think that the reality of this school district, I I still have a huge concern that people don't understand our current reality and that somehow there's this idea that if we do nothing, it's just going to go away. And I'm just want to remind folks that's simply not the case. It's it's easier to say, "Nope, we don't want to close buildings. Nope, we don't want to ask the taxpayers for dollars." Um, and and we're simply in a really different place. So, again, I know I'm stating the obvious. I I know that 100%, but I I just think it's important to to remind um our public and our our board members about that. >> Dr. Brenten and then Director Basset. >> Okay. >> Uh real brief since we're on the you know, I guess have we officially hit the uh temperature stage of this? >> Only a few people want to talk about it. I'm not going to >> not All right. Here here I I will give you my temperature and I think this is fairly consistent along the way, right? Um [snorts] nothing's changed in my mind on the one high school vision. I have been on that bandwagon for over a decade. So I'm the other things I would say is like the differences between the 343 and the 360 like I'm not married to either one. My big thing is at the end I think Fair Crystal should be a school. It shouldn't be used for offices slash whatever else you want to put in there. I think right whatever we do and however we phase this we need to make sure that we're eliminating student moves as much as possible. We know they're going to happen. We all get that. But how how do we eliminate them or minimize them the most? Um and I think the the big thing right I mean uh superintendent kind of mentioned it right. We talked about two two meetings ago, I wrote this down again, right? Like we talked about the preliminary budget. Our costs go up 2.7 million per year without giving people raises or anything else like that. Our costs go up 2.7 million per year and we get 1.9 million per year from the state. We're upside down. So, we got to do something to stop being upside down. >> That's it. >> Thank you, Director Basset. Well, um I um with with rec not only reducing the number of moves but forecasting out as far as we can things that moves that we know will need to happen and so minimizing them and forecasting. So, um I I have heard the discussion about the 4 343 as opposed to the 360 and I guess I'm somewhere I I I believe that somewhere in that range would would make some sense for me to support. I [snorts] am uh very uh interested in new bill for the the new elementary and uh I am also uh into I agree with director Brennesen with regard to having uh the fair crystal site be used uh as much to the extent possible for students and um so you know so the having guidance about Well, what age level of students needs to be there is is somewhat open. But if we have a a new elementary early education center, that's a new bill that we're looking forward to. I think that that will reduce some of the pressure on some of the elementarymentaries that we do have. I believe that the whole idea about the cost of doing business from year to year uh is suggest and the fact that we're at sod right now suggests that we have to look at what more do we need to cut. The further out we can forecast what we're going to do to address that, the more opportunity that families have to make decisions they need to make. a stake in the sand for elementary says we're not going anywhere because quite frankly I don't think it's g I don't think the high school get does it although I hear what you're saying but I don't think that's the thing that's going to keep families staying in the Robbinsdale school district you know I think you have to get them early and keep them and do some of the other things that I know we want to do in terms of academic achievement and some of the other things because it's not the building >> you know it's what's in it. >> Thank you. Um, you brought up a point. Um, >> are you looking at me? >> Y, you brought up a point. You said, um, something about make the biggest cuts we need to be cutting. And what I would like to say is the biggest cut that we can make is going to one high school. >> Well, >> because that's million. I hear you. >> That's a that's a million and a half >> a year. A million. Three million. Three million. That's even better. I >> I understand, but we're not going to get there right away. >> Well, it's going to take time, but we got to get it going. >> And if you've not heard me say two high schools in the last two minutes, have you? Except tonight. >> Maybe the last five. [laughter] >> Yeah, let's not let's not go. No, let's not go there. Let's just focus on what we know. >> I'm moving forward. >> Thank you. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? I'm just taking notes and I want to be sure that I heard um the the build on RMS. You support that as the second question? >> I do. >> Okay. I just wanted to be sure that it was the second question and not in the original package. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, you know, then so these the way they're written confuses me a little. >> Nope. Nope. I I we were on the same wavelength. I just wanted to be sure that's what I heard. Can I just >> and to clarify >> the building bigger, >> it makes the dollar amount go up. >> I don't want anyone to be surprised when it comes back and you add to it, it gets bigger. >> So, what I want to do is finish what I was saying. Okay. >> Well, he >> I know there's been a chain of it, but it's okay. I'm very comfortable with that. I'm very comfortable with that. I just want to continue on the line that I was um so that three million a year that we're going to save by having one high school allows us to do the programming that we need other places. And the thing of it is that we have to have that rolling ahead because it's a very slow roll and we have to get the ball going on that because it is it does take so many years. But that's the first um that's the first thing that gets into place. Okay. Director Basset, you do wanna >> comment on what Brad said? >> No, I you know I've already said I haven't said two high schools in two meetings. >> I heard that. >> Okay. He's persuaded to say >> don't say it. >> Don't say it now. Don't say it now. You're on a roll. >> Okay. Okay. Darn it. >> Said it tonight. >> Okay. Dr. Bowman. >> Uh thank you. [clears throat] Um I think I think it is important to talk about the fact that the buildings are really also as important as the programmings that we're putting into the buildings. Um because I think that that represents what I learned from re-imagine that they talked about the the district holistically of buildings and programs together. uh as we saw many of the presentations that showed us of various schools and I'm in the Centennial School District a lot because my grandkids are up there and it's new and it's vibrant, lots of new growth and up in that area. Lucky them. Um, but one of the things that always strikes me is that first sense that you have when you walk into a building and when we saw the pictures of the White Bear Lake High School and saw those, you know, saw photos that made me think, God, as a student, I want to go there. And I think that that's what the buildings reflect for me that they become, they're not just brick and mortar. They're places that draw somebody in and they fe they know they can go there and they can learn. And I think that that the kind of buildings that we have uh to me at this point from what we've discussed over the last two years is as important as the programming that we're putting into those buildings because we all know when we have things at home that look really tragic in our homes or oh let's remodel that or whatever. We know the feel-good feeling of what happens when our environments um are are kept fresh and new and and I want that for our students. I want our students to be in awe of the buildings they walk up to and because it really represents that welcoming of the whole community. The community says you're worth it. We're going to give you a great place uh to learn and grow and be part of this community. So, I don't want to minimize uh the important work that we really need to do in all of these buildings, which is why I'm willing to be so accepting of the fluidity of the plans, the shifts and the movements that need to go on. Uh it's the same thing that happens in home remodeling and home building. Um but the ultimate goal for me is creating a place where kids are excited to go to every single day. and that's important and I think that's what the point of our new buildings is all about. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Director Line. >> Yeah. Um, again, I really appreciate people not trying to disprove other people's uh perspectives here at the board table. That's great. Um, just kind of wondering about uh the LTFM information. When can I get that? Cuz that is really important. >> Well, couple days. >> Okay. So, >> I I'm not I'm not entirely Yeah, that the honest answer is what I said before is that I I'm clearly missing what you're requesting. I thought that the board was provided, remember I had said that there was a data request that had come through and the board was provided a a substantial PDF of that data request that was specific to long-term facility maintenance. Right. I saw that. But then he brought up something else here today about some of the remodel and how some of those pieces could count towards LTFM. So he he knew what I was talking about. So >> Okay. So, you're talking tonight's information, Director Long. >> Yes. Okay. Yes. >> So, I'd like to know how some pieces of this remodel can be turned into LTFM dollars. I really want to understand that. >> We we'll work on that. And I we'll work on that. And I do want to remind you from as far as making a macrolevel decision out of 300 Well, this one here, you add the two together, you get $460 million, it moves a needle by $9 million one way or the other. it it doesn't move the needle is my point but we will certainly >> that's like 3% or less. >> Not a big number. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So for me I you know as I stated before I don't feel like a lot of my other questions have been answered. I guess I'd like to see option four five six. I'd like to see the option with two high schools. So, I don't know where I'm at right now. I still, you know, want to go back to saying, too, I really wish we would have had conversation about all this other stuff before we started closing schools. I feel like, yeah, we were in SOD, but you know, we knew for some time that this is where we needed to go and we should have started some of these conversations long ago and we just didn't. And yeah, I'm just really upset about, you know, the tears that people had at the end of the year not being at their schools because really it's the people who make it the place that people want to come to. If there's a teacher there that people don't like, they're not going to want to go there because they don't like that teacher. If there's an administrator there that they don't like, they're not going to want to go there because of that administrator. Um, I don't know. In all my years of being a parent, that's, you know, the way the building looked wasn't really something that my daughter talked about. It could have been a tent and she would have been happy depending on who those people were that were there to educate her and give her attention. >> Depending on where my office was. >> Yes. [snorts] And she loved your office. Yes. She still has memories of you. Sorry, off topic, but she loves to brag to other kids still that she still gets to eat your baked goods and they don't. [laughter] >> Okay, >> where is that? Okay. The the one thing whether you are absolutely in favor of one of these options or you're opposed to these options or you don't know, one thing to consider is we need to let the public decide. >> There you go. And so, um, that is just when we're [snorts] thinking about what do we support, we need to let the public actually be the ones, the final ones to weigh in on this. And they, if [snorts] we don't put it out there for them, they don't get a chance to say yes or no. Thank you. >> Dr. Hillbrand. >> Yeah, Grea. I just wanted to say that's a really good point. What we're really being tasked with is choosing what we think is the best option that to present to the community for them to decide, right? And what has the best chance, what is the best balance of and I think I said this before, the best balance of being right for students and for the school district and also has the best chance of passing. It's not really what we particularly want or don't want um but what we think the community would respond best to that balances the needs of students. So it's really not necessarily even about what we um prefer or don't prefer. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Um, Director Basset, did you >> I just want to make sure these this these options 343 the targeting and then the uh 360 option. Both of them on the last bullet have the second question approval and we know that it would be contingent but that is that 343 is inclusive is not inclusive of that number. Correct. >> You're correct. >> So the so the really the 343 option is really not well unless we just don't have the second question. Correct. >> Okay. >> And just for my own benefit, the reason the trade-off for me with the sec adding the second question is clarity about the fact that we need to close two more facilities and we can forecast what two they might be or may two or more whatever. But we can forecast and there gives lead times to families about what the future looks like. I'm I'm I'm looking at you, but I'm kind of just thinking through my logic. >> It would question two, you wouldn't have any more or less total number of buildings. >> I'm sorry. >> If you were to vote, if the public was to vote, >> yes, >> and approve question two, you would not have any your total number of buildings would not change. You're trading out >> old Lake View for a shiny new building, >> right? Well, I'm sorry. You lost me. You kept talking about closing two more buildings. >> Well, it's just it's one building. >> I'm sorry. Huh? >> You're saying it's one building. >> It's not two buildings. It's one building. >> Well, I know. >> It's not even one building. You're tra you're you either have Lake View. >> Mhm. >> You have everything in the colored boxes. >> Or Fair Crystal in this bottom box here moves up to where that green Lake View is. Lake View goes away and a new building goes where Fair Crystal is. But in the end, the upper right corner where it says 12 school sites stays 12 school sites. >> However, I thought I heard in this presentation that if we that a new build uh would be and I know I've heard in some of our conversations we've talked about the need to close two more elementaryaries. This district, this board has talked about had that conversation that we need to close two more elementaryaries. We've talked about that. So when I say two, I'm thinking back to that. Now, that may not be landing here, but it's been a very robust >> But but you accomplished that with question one. >> I'm sorry. >> You still you're accomplishing that with question two doesn't bring you the two buildings. Question one brings you the two buildings. >> Whichever. I'm just saying if we're two down and you're saying even if we do question one, we're going to still end up with 12 buildings. Is that what I'm hearing? >> No. >> Yeah. >> Not question one. >> Well, she's saying to question one. Yes, you don't close as many buildings >> with option two. >> With option two or three as you do with one >> as you do with one. Okay. >> Well, then we're spending more money. So, you know, who want you know I don't that don't seem like a good tradeoff because we're spending the question then is $425 million. Oh. Oh, here. What are you looking at me for? I need my peripheral vision. Sorry. >> So, and I'm going to come back to at least an area um of responsibility because it's in my title as finance. uh when when looking at the three options as presented on the page, the original option, which is what we've been talking about, has us at one site less. That means annually our operating costs are down by one building. It is a higher voterapproved dollar amount for question one. It would not be adding on with question two would be less than the other two options. So in totality with LTFM and everything, you would theoretically be looking at if everything went 35 to $36 per, right? So you're saying, okay, but voter approved would be with two questions would be 28. If you move to the second option, you've now just kept another building in inventory. So, your operating costs annually are going to be higher. You have another building in play. However, when you look at pure voter approval for question one and question two, you're talking $23 a month. >> That's including the 52 million for the >> That's including the 52. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Yes. But your LTFM also goes up there. There's more there, but just know. And then the final option, the third option, you're looking at $17 to the voters and $8 to the voters, which brings you to 25. >> Mhm. >> And again, you still have to add the LTFM component. All things in LTFM and everything included. And again, the voter approval matters. as we heard it from Peter was to say the first question will run you $35 to $36 all in. The second question runs you $35 all in. The fourth the third question runs you actually $37 all in. You mean options? >> You're saying of the three options >> of the three options, not voter approved, right? >> Total dollars if everything went >> now it comes down to one the consideration for voter approval. >> Right. >> Two, the consideration of annual operating costs. So, um it is true that the board always has the option of closing more buildings. We just went through that. If instead of 12 buildings, we believe that going to 11 is best and that's been justified by the you a configuration as you think about it to take one more building off of the scoreboard then I would say that that is information that's worth getting because uh you the work that's been done to look at these three options that we have here now if having 11 buildings as opposed to 12 gets us to a better ongoing operating cost with a smaller footprint and with closures that we can forecast out as to when they would happen because they don't all have to happen next year the year. I mean they they happen when they need to happen based on the numbers. So I I guess I'm just saying that because uh rem what I'm hearing is that the second question is going to be subsidiary anyway. So if you ask them for the first question and they go for it, that's done. If people don't want to do the extra and we will go through and call whatever that priority list is for the extras cuz we got some information. Um then that will help inform it as to what that second question is, whether it's just all the brand new build or it's it's, you know, you need a pool or whatever that ends up being or a theater. I don't know. But anyway, um, so I hope that that made some sense, director or superintendent, because I know you've been the one answering most of these questions related to that stuff. >> And you and Nexus here. >> Well, and and I'm assuming Brent's having the same thought I am in terms of >> I know that it's I know that it's a frustrating answer, but it depends. >> It depends. listening, >> right? You look at where you're sitting right now, the the question I would ask back is, we've already heard it tonight. There's not an appetite to close Lake View. Well, Lake View is one of your three section schools. >> The only other three section school out there is Se Olsen. So, the the hard part for us gets to be as we get this granular [snorts] back to the review and comment, which is not going to be this granular. You don't have to make all of these decisions. You're approving a vision direction that has a price tag to it. What you're trying to get to, there is going to be flexibility in how we decide because we also need to be taking into account geography. If you're only a three-section building and you're not going to close Lake View as an elementary school and Olsen is, are you taking out the most southern elementary school in the district? So, so I would say for the board and for all the people watching, I get it. But the more details we give you, I'm telling you, the more you're going to ask nuanced questions about and want to have nuanced answers, and you're going to start getting to the spot where we are right now, which is it depends. What are the other three moves you're going to make? What are we willing not to do if we're going to do that? What are we willing to meter out? And this is what happens when you get three just to get to just to get to this. That took three days of trying to figure out, okay, how can we make this work to get close to $340 million and keep everything that we've got going on to the degree that we think we can keep it. It isn't that we can't do it, but we're at the spot where there's going to be trade-offs. We can only close so many buildings in the current configuration without making adjustment to building sizes. >> Well, because we're going to run out of space. >> Since you were kind of responding to I just want to follow up right quick with him and then I really this is >> okay. And then as Bowman, you know, that's and so which goes back to what I what I said which was That's why I'm and I was pretty um you know clear about really preferring to have a new build at Robbinsdale Middle School. I mean elementary the new build because then if Lake View goes away you got the brand new facility right down there. So I am aware of that. I'm just you know just so that you know and you can forecast out then that's going to happen. You're going to get the brand new building if that's what the public decides. I I'm just saying, you know, um thank you. >> Thank you, Dr. Bowman. >> Great. I would love to go back to [clears throat] Kristen's uh point that you made uh about option because I want to make sure we're using the same terminology because I think it got a little bit muddy. So, we speak in terms of option one, which is 425 million, whatever it is, 425 million. Option two, 343 million and option three 360 million. And then we talk in terms of the second question that would be asked and then also you add on to that the LTFM that would be added to that either 425 package or 343 or 360 package. So I just want to make sure I'm clear. So the figures that you came up with is that if option one was approved along with question for option one, is there a question on option one or not? >> 31 million. >> No. Yeah. Along with a question on option one, um the total cost to the taxpayer would be a total of 35 to $36 a month. Correct. >> Correct. >> That's what you're telling us. So then option two, which is where which is where in the and where I'm getting to is math is beautiful at this point, right? Because option two then would be if option two passes along with the questions passing, it would m be $35 a month, right? >> And then option three, if that passes along with the question passing and the LTFM, it'd be $37 a month. >> Correct? So, what I'm really seeing is that in any of these package packages, I mean, they're all the same almost, which I find really fascinating and really interesting. And so, can you kind of tell me now? I think I'll just leave it there because I mean that just clarifies it. If I have another question, I'll ask that. But what I'm seeing is [snorts and clears throat] that each one of these options, if every bit of the option went through, it'd be about a $35 a month increase to the taxpayer. Right. >> Correct. >> So then, can you give me the information? Here's my thing. If the questions don't go through, what would be the total cost for for one, two, and three? Do you have that figure? >> Uh, when you say the questions, >> the additional 53 million or >> Got it. Sure. Um so for >> for just >> for one it would be 30 >> okay >> 30 30 31 for number two it would be 27 >> okay >> and for number three it would be 29 >> okay that's really helpful >> just will you ask about just if if the second >> looking at the screen here are you talking about the 425 and not the 90 excluding the temple >> correct the voter approved the voter. Oh, inclusive of everything without the second question. >> Yeah, cuz like like question is below 15, not 23. >> Option two. >> Yeah, on our slides it says 2315 and >> it wasn't without the LTFM. It was without the second question was the question. >> Okay. And so when you quote from this, it where we say the original is 23 a month and that includes the $90 million of LTFM, but does not include the 31 million. >> The $30 is is $23 voter approved, $7 non- voter approved. The $27 is 15 voter approved, 12 non voter approved. And the $29 is 17 voter approved, 12 non- voter approved. >> And when you say non- voter approved, that's just what we can levy for. Correct. >> Correct. Okay, >> that clarifies. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Dr. W, did you have your question? >> Yeah. I think the question I had was what director Bowman just asked, but as we continue to have this discussion, in my mind, I'm thinking how long has it taken the district to get to where we are, >> right? So if we are trying to skip, yes, I get the savings part for the community because that is where the community wants to be, right? And they get to decide that in the very close future. However, if we are beginning to decide, okay, what do we let go to use LTFM in the next year or the year after that? How much repairs are we going to need to use those dollars for again? Right. So, are we better off really asking the community for what we are hoping for? And if they say no, it's a no and we regroup. Right. To me, that is where I think maybe we should be putting our energy is yeah, we we are hearing the $15. Yes, that is where everybody feels comfortable with as a community. But knowing what we know, looking at these numbers of $35 to $37 with these options, if I were on the other side, I might want to consider let's build new so that we are not putting more money into repairing what is already going to need repairs in the next year or two. We keep 11 sites versus 12 sites. So then operational cost in the next 10 years is going to help the district to continue to do what the kids need the most. And I I get the survey piece that that is what people are comfortable with. But are we better off just channeling ahead and saying this is where we are. It's been years since we've done this. And if we don't do it now and we patch buildings, then in the next 10 years, we might need to come back and say, "Hey, these buildings don't meet the needs of our kids." >> You can fix potholes only so long till you need a new road. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> And I get the dollar piece. It's is it's huge. But to me, I think we just step on the gas and ask. I just have a simple ask. I I I appreciated Director Bowman's last question. I think that we've had a lot of discussion about if you have this or you don't have that or you don't have this. this document here. If there's a way to include have a legend that breaks those numbers out uh because we know what the tolerance is. The Miller survey says blah, you know, and if we do this, this is how much it costs in, you know, LTFM. This is the cost, how much it's going to cost you with the referendum. And this is what it cost you if you add the second question. just the numbers, you know, um because if they're right on the actual option, it will be helpful in small print, whatever. I'll put my glasses on, but just so that you know it's all in one place and I don't have to say this cuz my notes are, you know, I don't want to rely on my own notes. I want to make sure that we're I'm getting the information from you. I um I can appreciate that, Director Basset, and and I understand where you're coming from and and this is more of a just recognizing, you know, individual documents in, >> you know, numbers were still coming in at 5:00. I mean, >> number the numbers that I just read were still coming. I mean, >> back to the just the sheer volume of an option takes 3 days and then then the finance people have to get around that and say, "How do we structure it? What does it look like?" You already have an LTFM plan in front of you. So, I just I think it's getting lost about the nights and weekends that are given up to try to create a singular document. >> Well, I guess the only thing I'm saying is that um that's why I said it the way that I said it. >> I'm not asking for anything new. Yeah, >> I'm just saying the conversation we just had is helpful to really make sure we put the dollar amount >> and what it's going for in the option. That's it. >> I can appreciate that, you know, and thank you for saying that because I'm not trying to make any more work for anybody. I think I feel like we're distilling and distilling and distilling and just having the final numbers here will help us because quite frankly I think some of the comments that both my colleagues have made, you know, for Dr. Ruth said because at the end of the day, what are we going to go for? That's the bottom line. And so if I if I know what each one of these dollars buys, that helps me, you know, in my consideration. So that's that's it. If and I'm not asking for, you know, you to go out and do some more calculations and and if that what I asked requires you to do that, that's not what I my intent was. >> No, I appreciate that. It is not that it's additional work. It's back to the timeliness comment about not having material so far in advance. And unfortunately, just the sheer volume of information that's coming and then the calculations that go behind it don't necessarily lend itself to a timely >> situation of two days with getting the numbers. Can we do it? Absolutely. Is it additional work? It is not. But literally, the numbers were coming in at 5:00 tonight. >> Okay. Well, what was that meaning of my question there? I mean, what are you >> uh meaning to for me to then extrapolate a presentation that we've already run copies of to try to get it done by s I'm just saying it's there. We can get it. >> Okay. Well, I'm >> just It's really challenging to get all of the information in a two-day window. That's all. >> You know, I I appreciate that. I really do direct the whole high school and I don't want to add more stuff to it, but I I want us to get down to the bottom line and get done, you know, and so that's really where my head is at is what what's the bottom line here and what can I when it's time to vote, what can I support? That's it. And if I know kind of what each one does, I can not even not only will I know, I can share that with others who will ask me, >> you know. So, I'm just trying to be clear and do my due diligence. So, >> okay, we've been going for two hours and 10 minutes. Um, I would like us to take a little recess and then if somebody has a closing thought or a question that comes to them, we can finish up with that. But I think we need a little bit of a break right now. Just like a fivem minute break that works for everybody. Is that okay? Yes. Yes. I see enough yeses. Let's do that. Five minute break. I'll be back at 8:15. >> Shorter every year. >> That's really six points. You have a Yeah. And we're back. All righty. So, what we're doing is we're just kind of finishing up with the review and comment options. And I'd like to just hand it over to Assistant Superintendent McDall. And >> thank you. >> We'll see what happens. >> On our little recess, just try to I think bring all the details about kind of confusing. I'm sure >> now I got to say it exactly the same way again. >> So, >> um, so we're back to Right. So, so the the review and comment is for the voter approved portion of anything is is the first part of this. The second part is what the what the options we've put together is and are options to show you what it would take all in whatever the funding mechanism to pull something off. The third part is LTFM dollars in these any of these scenarios are not guaranteed because the board has to approve them. So it's not a guaranteed expense to the voter unless the board approves it. [snorts] If that doesn't happen, then we're left with whatever the voters approved. Last week we had Peter Leatherman share with the board and what we tested for was what is the tax tolerance in general and what is the tax tolerance when a community member is given the information about a one high school, two middle schools, etc., etc. The board's information takeaway, I would argue, is you were told $15 give or take a month is your community's tax tolerance. Voter approved. That's the tax tolerance. That's the conversation we are about right now. So, what does that mean for you? was really back to what a couple people have talked to tonight is to what degree do you want to put something around $15 a month in front of the community to say yes or say no to as a voter approved referendum. Then you as a board will have to make some hard decisions about what you're going to do with other stuff. But really we're talking about the voter approved. What are you going to ask them to either say yes or no to? And that is the plus or minus of $15 a month, which gives you what we've tried to share tonight. At least the opportunity for the $343 million option. That's what we kind of need some direction on as we move into next week is where are you as a whole with that, right? What does the board as a whole believe is worth it? And that the answer to that question is everything from nothing. We're not going out really up to 425 million anywhere in between. We have simply given tried to give you an option that can visually represent what does 4 340ish million look like which is the equivalent of approximately $15 a month. You saw there were trade-offs to that. You saw that we might have to wait for other buildings to be sold and get different funding mechanisms to do different stuff, but that's our best guess at what can be done at the tolerance tax level that the community told in the Morris Leatherman survey. And so I know we talked about all other stuff, but that's I I just would not want people to be confused about all the other numbers when you're you're really talking about voterapproved dollars. [clears throat] >> Okay, everyone is clear and I don't see any more questions and I don't see any more comments. So that means we're going to move to uh staying on the same topic but moving a little bit LTFM 10-year plan. Is that we're ready for that? >> Next on the agenda, right? >> So can I just before we move to that? >> You want to make a >> Are we making a decision on these next week or you want us to narrow these down this week? >> Well, here's what we need to know as from the board as as a whole. Is there something different we should be bringing to you than what we've brought or are we going to continue this discussion? And the reason I ask it that way is if we're bringing this option back, what we will bring bring back is a more flushed out review and comment of this slide for you is really what we would kind that section of description of proposed project. we would have that part for you to say if we're looking for something different because I what I did hear at least one person say is is there a way to get close to this and keep Fair Crystal as a school? Like that's what I'm talking about. If that's what the board would like us to see if it's even an option, then that would be an example of [snorts] and I would tell you this, I don't know that it can happen. >> Dr. Wood, >> will the framing that you are talking about come back for all three options that we have in front of us? >> The description for option one, option two, option three. Is that what you're talking or do we need to narrow down for you which of these options may become the board decision? >> I would I would answer that this way. What I heard from each of the board members was we are sitting right now at a comfort level around 343 million as 343 to 360 million as the call it an option. Okay, that's about where we have a appetite for collectively. So that's what we would come back with is something around that. If it were me, I'd be coming back with the 343 if that's what I'm hearing and say, "Okay, would do we flush this out anymore?" I mean, in the end of the day, yes, you as a board are going to need to give us a number, and then that's the number we're going to put in there, and if we have to reduce any verbiage based on like, let's say you said, "Actually, we're going to 320." Okay, we're going to have to figure out what 320 looks like and how we put the verbiage in there. [snorts and gasps] But based on what I've heard tonight, my inkling would be to get things squared away as a starting point at the 343 and come back to you next Monday with that unless I heard differently. >> Uh, Director Basset and then Director Bowman. Uh, superintendent, assistant superintendent, I see on the 343 option, it says Fair Crystal becomes a fourth section elementary. So, it's on here as a school. >> Correct. Until you until you add the second question in there on that one. Do I have that right? >> Oh, very last line. >> Transitions moves to Lake View. Um, >> so you are correct, director Basset, first question only. It does. >> Yeah, I mean that's why I mean it's there. So the second question changes things and and if I'm understanding you both correctly, the review and comment that we send in is going to be >> specific enough to pass muster, but broad enough to give us some flexibility uh in the in the finish. >> Absolutely. We could get to a spot in all of this where the referendum passes and there's a legitimate reason why we choose a different building over another building as an elementary set >> and and that's I mean and so I'm just that's what I thought I was hearing and I'm I'm just really uh doing a little bit of you know I mean emoting I was not be honest because and I've been very clear about it. I, you know, would like to see Bear Crystal stay as it is, but that's not what, you know, what's in the plan. So, I get it. But there's nothing stop me from, you know, I mean, I'm >> you good unless we're going to make >> A meant you finish saying what you were saying. >> Yes, I am. >> Thank you, Dr. Bowman. >> Great. Thank you. Uh just to do a weigh in after tonight's discussion, I'd be willing to go with the 360 number. Uh personally, because that 15 to 17, it's so close that I think it's worth the extra. So I would rather see this 360 number more than the 343 number. >> Okay. >> I I spoke to the 360 already. >> Yeah. I Yeah. I actually I really want to do what Kenneet has to say. director of Wu. I really want to go for the 424. I just really dreaming big. I'm still disappointed that the aquatic center is not even part of the vision because I've always dreamt it. I have always agreed with dreaming big and large. And it's served me pretty well, but I'm a little bit skittish in today's world. So that skiddishness puts me at 360, but my heart says 43 425. So [snorts] >> um I'm out of people. Anybody else want to weigh in about what you want to hear about next week? >> So >> I think we need Director Helen Brandon. Yeah, it would just be interesting to know um with the lower cost plans um I guess sorry I just because I haven't really thought about this part yet. How much of of any of the secondary pieces, how much of the stuff that isn't in there that's in the the more expensive plan could be eventually realized? And the reason I asked that is because right now just where the economy is, right? I mean, we all know how much gas is costing, how much groceries are costing, but maybe in five years, you know, things or even two or three you whatever the next cycle for election is, we could be in a different place and there might be another opportunity to then continue and and fulfill the plan. And so I was just wondering how scalable or um could a portion be added on or planned for later if the economy changes and we're in a better place. Um so just curious about that if that could be [clears throat] answered or or brought um just to help to understand if it's um not what the right word is. Sorry. >> Hopefully you understand what I'm asking because I'm not being very clear right now. I understand that. >> Yeah. I think the again back to the thing that would change is the degree to which we could forecast what we could sell buildings for and then what that could be used for which is a a guess at best. I do know that CFO wholeheisel has talked about even with any of this we would stagger the the bond dollars anyways. We wouldn't take them all out at the same time. So you're not it these dollar amounts assume everything is at once taken out. And so you're it isn't it isn't necessarily going to be $15 day one because you're not taking all of that uh necessarily at once. Um it it's just all nuanced. I guess I can I can just go next. Um I I think yes, looking at the dollar amount and also the community tax tolerance, I'm okay with the 343 uh coming back as an option. Um so >> I I can live with 343. I would just prefer the 360 because I think for the extra $2 a month being able to have the theaters in both buildings being an if we're really being an arts district, I'd like that. But if that's the deal breaker and $2 will do it, I don't want to break the deal. So, okay. Mine hasn't changed. I would still like to see more options. All right, direction given more or less. So the next thing on our agenda is the 10-year LTFM plan. Uh CFO Ho Heisel, you want to take it from here? >> Absolutely. Um you have multiple documents that are in front of you and they range from first the talking points, uh the Thank you, Brett. the 10-year long-term facility maintenance expenditure, the revenue, what debt issuance would be, and then um the resolution for debt issuance, and then ultimately statement of assurances. But what I'd like to focus on particularly um I will presume that you had the opportunity to read the talking points and I'd like to go directly to the on long-term facility maintenance 10-year expenditure sheet. I'm gonna just sort of look up to make sure that you all have it available. Yeah. Good. So just a few items um that I'd like to point out on this sheet. When we are talking because of the timing of the levy, we are actually looking for projects in uh fiscal year 28 which means the 2728 school year. So that's how far out we are. And if you go to the bottom third of that um spreadsheet, you will see where it says in the center FY28 revenue projection 10-year spreadsheet. What this area does and you go to the very bottom where it say you have fund one and fund six. Fund six is when we issue debt. Fund one is when we do the pay as you go levy. So just to be clear of the difference and and what was explained uh by Michael Hart with PTMA is that the pay as you go is an annual request. It provides you the greatest flexibility because it's an annual request. You can change it the following year. You can do $10 million one year. You can do $3 million the next. The difference is is whatever you request needs to be spent in that year. You do not have the option to delay projects like we have when we issue debt. Now when you issue debt um there are you do have interest costs. You do have cost of issuance but that money no different than in 2024 when we issued debt. That money stays in your pocket and there's no timeline per se to spend it down. And that's what we've done since 2024. So when you look at fund six, that's when we issue debt. You can see that for uh 2028, we would be looking at issuing $30 million right away. That supports the paperwork of the resolution and the debt schedule that you're looking at. That's why you have those attachments in there because depending on the direction this board takes with the LTFM plan, again, this is very preliminary. It's to get it onto our levy, you always have the option to back away from that up until essentially mid December when we finalize or when we do it's actually beginning of December when we finalize our levy. Um, you do not have to issue debt. You can you can backpedal as much as you want until that point, but this is saying we would issue $30 million in debt of in uh 28. We would issue another 15 million of debt in 30 and then we'd issue the the remaining piece of debt to get to the full um 70 million in 2032. The other is annual requests that we make. And you can see that our expenses uh total 10-year plan expenditure, which is just above the revenue piece, we're right around the 22 23. And as we get out into up until 2034, uh 22 to 25 million annually and then there is a drop off because again this was a intended to be a the 140 million was a 7year um cycle that we anticipated as expenditures. This all changes with uh a a passage of a referendum. I shouldn't say all there. There's no work that is prescribed in here or the timelines in which they're prescribed that would get altered. Um we don't have projects in there that we would necessarily have to pivot away from in year one or two. Those were placed farther down the line depending on what the voters approve. And so the top of the page back to the top that is your health and safety category. that is um depending on the year what we spend uh just with pure health and safety um situations like asbests, fire safety, indoor air quality. And then as we move farther down, you can see uh where where the large majority lies is in category five, sort of middle of the page. That's our annual expenses in those particular categories. That's what we're projecting. So essentially the rest of the documents that you have in front of you support what the plan is on this expenditure side. The the revenue just says how we're going to levy it, what's going to be done, but the the expenditure the expenditure side really does tell the tale. And then there's the debt component which um we would be looking for along with approval of the 10-year plan. uh be looking for board approval at the next meeting. Uh Michael Hart will be here for follow-up questions. Um should they arise, you need to you want to discuss, but I just as it relates to the 10-year plan, the potential to issue debt and the revenue cycle, I will just open it up for questions at this point. Director Benson, I >> I'm just looking for clarification on one of the documents that was posted because I just didn't understand it. >> Sure. >> Um, >> hold on. >> Is the prelims schedule LTFM 2026? As at the top, it's got the like 30 million go bond series 2027 and then the next there's three pages here. I'm just trying to wrap my head around I'm just trying to understand what this is trying to tell me because like if I add up the bonds on here it's like 60 million that doesn't align with any of the other numbers we talked about anywhere else. I just like >> what is this and why do I care? >> Okay, so what this is and why you care a go is general obligation bond. So that is if we back to the split between issuing bonds and doing the pay as you go levy. Ultimately, it's all levy. But if we issue debt, the [snorts] first page says here is your $30 million. Okay? And ultimately, you're going to be take your principal is 30 million. You can see the cost of that with interest. Um, with debt service, you have to levy 105%, not just 100% because you do have people who don't make payments. So, they they the state makes you overlevy to account for. So you always are able to make your debt payments in a timely fashion. That 5% always exists. >> Okay. >> Um and so that is the $30 million schedule that was referenced for 2028. The next two pages are the same concept but now the now with legislation. Um we are we are it is incumbent upon us to pull apart how much of that is roofing versus how much of that is just the deferred maintenance program. And that's why they're highlighted >> on the next two pages. In totality you come up with the 30 million. That's what I was wondering. >> It's just the way it now needs to be done supports the next two. So, yes, you're right. It's 60 because it we're not doubling up. It's the way what the board has been used to seeing and now how we would need to do it based on legislation. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Makes sense. Thank you. >> Any other questions? It's a lot of numbers. expertise we have hired. So next week when Michael Hart's here, what points do we have a we have to approve a resolution next week? >> Yes, it would be. So it it's twofold. Um what it would be is we would be approving the resolution to adopt the long-term facility maintenance 10-year plan which is both the expenditure and the revenue plan. The additional component um which was done in 2024 then would be um what legal council I I should say the the resolution that legal council provided was for the debt issuance. So, you'll approve the 10-year expenditure and revenue plan. Ultimately, upon approval, Terry would sign this statement of insurance saying this is the 10-year plan. Then, we would move forward with these two documents to say we plan on selling debt. It's these two. We plan on selling debt. Here is the resolution. Here is the debt. Again, that sale won't happen, you know, in August, September. That would wait. is just putting it in queue like everything else. So depending on um the next steps forward, we are prepared and ready to go. >> So we have the resolution next week and we vote on it, but then the final vote is not until December >> to issue debt. The two things, the final vote to lock in the long-term facility maintenance plan does not does not have to happen until December when you set the levy. uh PTMA and Michael Hart will not issue debt until after the school board says, "Yes, we want to issue $30 million of debt." And you may decide to move forward with that because even with successful passage of a referendum, again, that 30 million is already baked into um work that we would be doing one way or another. Okay. Okay. um questions, clarifications, director Basset. >> So, but so then based on the um the option that we select because there are some varying LTFM dollars plotted there. >> So, we'll be your to use your term baking in that decision for how much we're going out. That won't shift No, it wouldn't shift either way. The the first I I should say like the first the first year of ex of LTFM expenses are expenses no different than what we've been doing now this last year once it was decided with school closures. We know those are going to exist. We know those are going to happen with successful passage or not a successful passage. We know that. >> So we've front and loaded it with stuff we know we're going to do. >> Correct. And uh so the number that we we settle on in the prop the three proposals we talked about that's what we can expect and the community can generally expect. >> Yes. >> Basically. >> Yes. [snorts] But the plan calls for the 140. that was in in in in the event of a fail that was decided early on that that's what we would move forward with with our needs with LTFM only to be backed off with the successful pass passage of a bond. Got it. >> That's important. That's important to note. >> It is important. Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, everybody's clear and we'll be able to vote next week. No more questions, comments, right? Then then um we don't have anything more on our agenda. looks like to me. I would like to remind all of the board members to get their superintendent evaluation forms filled out with the comments and send them to Stephanie Herrera at MSBA by Wednesday at 10 p.m. because on a week from today, we will we'll get the results back I think Sunday probably Sunday and then um we will be going over them Monday. >> Okay. So, >> I have a question about that. Yeah. Why isn't it just a Google form? Because it's just like a form. I'm going to have to save it and then >> submit. >> I can't do that with that. >> It is a Google form. >> Mine I downloaded mine as a Google form. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right then. Thank you everybody. Have a good evening. We're done. Thank you. Whoops.