The most pressing topic was the structuring of the referendum questions, which are designed to address urgent needs without increasing taxes. The first question aims to cover essential projects like media center renovations and security upgrades, with a projected cost of $21.2 million. This is expected to be tax-neutral due to existing debt service payments rolling off. The second question proposes additional enhancements, including science lab upgrades and comprehensive mechanical system overhauls, which come with a tax impact of approximately $250.37 per year for the average assessed home if approved.

The board underscored the necessity of passing both questions to secure critical funding for the district’s infrastructure needs. Concerns were raised about the financial burden on residents, particularly seniors and those facing economic hardships. The board emphasized the importance of transparency in communicating the tax implications and the benefits of the proposed projects, noting the availability of a tax impact calculator on the district’s website.

Community engagement played a key role in shaping the referendum proposal. Surveys and feedback sessions helped prioritize projects, with significant input from staff and residents guiding the decision-making process. The referendum includes projects like parking lot repairs, roof replacements, and security enhancements, each identified as critical by the facilities audit. However, there were debates on the prioritization of certain projects, with some board members advocating for a different distribution between the two questions to better reflect community priorities.

Student representatives highlighted the need for improvements, sharing personal experiences of inadequate heating systems and leaking roofs in classrooms. Their accounts underscored the critical nature of the proposed upgrades, emphasizing the impact on the educational environment and student safety. The need for modernized science labs and media centers was particularly stressed, with students advocating for spaces that support hands-on learning and current technological demands.

The community expressed mixed reactions during the public comment period, with some residents questioning the prioritization of athletic facilities and others emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to address all infrastructure needs. Concerns about transparency and the inclusion of essential projects in the referendum were prevalent, with calls for clearer communication and accountability from the board.

The board also discussed potential implications if the referendum does not pass, highlighting the risk of continued deterioration of school facilities and the loss of state aid.

Further discussions revolved around special education models and the support provided to students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The board examined the transition from traditional integrated classroom models to a collaborative consultative approach. Concerns were raised about the clarity of communication with parents regarding these changes and the adequacy of support provided under the new model.

The issue of student transportation also surfaced, with board members expressing dissatisfaction with the current busing system. Lengthy bus rides and overcapacity issues were highlighted as concerns, prompting calls for further discussion in the finance committee to explore potential improvements.