The equity resolution had been a focal point for the board, with multiple speakers during the public comment segment advocating for its retention. Recent graduate Bennett Gillespie, among others, articulated strong support for maintaining the resolution, emphasizing the need for resources to ensure student success and warning against alienating vulnerable students by rescinding it. Brian Fleming, a resident and educator, echoed these sentiments, stressing that retreating from equity work could erode community trust and compromise student safety and respect.

Despite these appeals, the board’s decision to sunset the resolution was driven by a complex interplay of budgetary considerations and differing views on the resolution’s effectiveness. Some board members questioned the resolution’s impact on academic outcomes and argued for focusing on a new strategic plan prioritizing academic success and unity.

The meeting also addressed concerns about the lack of transparency and adequate discussion leading up to the vote. Several community members and board members expressed dissatisfaction with the decision-making process, noting that the resolution was a product of extensive community involvement and revision. The failure of a motion to move the equity resolution discussion to a future study session for further public input only intensified the debate.

Following the equity resolution decision, the board turned its attention to the district’s financial matters. Director Frederickson presented the 2025-2026 final budget. The budget projected general fund revenue of $122,193,283 against expenses of $123,175,721, with a total revenue across various funds reported as $174,412,799 against expenses of $175,170,790. The approval came amid discussions about the district’s financial challenges, including rising transportation and special education costs.

Board members expressed concerns about the discrepancies between projections and actual figures, particularly the significant increase in expenses despite a decrease in student enrollment. These concerns were compounded by the need to address budget cuts previously estimated at $4.1 million, with only $1.7 million in reductions reflected in the current budget. Director Mason highlighted these issues, seeking clarity on the additional $2.5 million in expenses and the implications for the district’s financial stability.

Facility use and potential school closures were also major topics of discussion. The board approved a 5% increase in facility use rental fees and considered proposals for neighborhood school closures and facility consolidations. Superintendent Dr. Michael Thomas presented scenarios for closing Westwood School and relocating the district’s support center, emphasizing operational efficiencies and future programmatic growth. The potential closures and consolidations aimed to maximize space utilization and address budget constraints, but sparked concerns about class sizes and instructional space availability.

As the meeting progressed, discussions touched on future levy requests, with Dr. Zumbush outlining possible timelines for engaging the community on funding needs. The board considered various options, including a potential levy request in November 2025, to strategically plan for the district’s financial future. The importance of effectively communicating with voters and aligning funding strategies with community priorities was emphasized.