The most prominent topic at the meeting was the debate surrounding the proposed levy increases. The board members engaged in a discussion about certifying a levy with no increase from the previous year. A proposed motion to maintain the same levy amount as the previous year, effectively avoiding any increase, was met with discussion. Concerns were raised about the financial burden on taxpayers, particularly in light of an 18% proposed increase for Morrison County. Questions arose regarding the impact of this decision on the district’s budget, specifically on the general fund, which is vital for covering operational expenses, including teacher salaries.

The business manager provided an update on the district’s financial status, revealing a positive overall outlook with revenues projected to exceed expenditures by $69,000. However, the proposed levy, which would increase the general fund by $81,789, represented a 9.9% rise from the previous year, largely due to a new building land lease. Board members expressed differing opinions on whether to levy the maximum amount or consider underlevying in December, considering the potential financial impact on both the district and taxpayers.

One board member voiced strong opposition to any levy increase, citing the financial strain on taxpayers and advocating for internal budget adjustments instead. This sentiment highlighted a clear divide within the board regarding fiscal responsibility and the management of taxpayer contributions. Ultimately, a motion to certify the levy with no increase was voted down with a 5-1 outcome, leading to a subsequent motion to levy to the maximum amount, which was passed with similar results.

The meeting also addressed issues related to the safe schools funding levy. Questions arose about the allocation of these funds, which had been consistently levied in the past. The discussion clarified the use of safe schools money for safety upgrades, such as cameras and locks, and emphasized the importance of appropriately allocating these funds to avoid their loss.

Staffing challenges, particularly in recruiting substitute teachers, were another significant topic of discussion. The board acknowledged difficulties in attracting substitutes, noting that many potential candidates preferred nearby districts offering higher pay. The challenges were compounded by the lengthy licensing process required for substitutes, which can deter prospective candidates. The board considered matching pay rates offered by neighboring districts to make Royalton a more attractive option for substitutes.

The implications of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) were also discussed, as it could increase the demand for substitutes as staff members take extended leaves.

Facility maintenance and planning were also addressed, with reports on the condition of the district’s infrastructure. The board discussed potential projects, including plumbing repairs and air handler replacements, to proactively address maintenance needs. The aging plumbing system in one of the older buildings and the need for a comprehensive replacement strategy were highlighted as priorities.

Additionally, the meeting touched on the School Resource Officer (SRO) program, with discussions about the proposed contract and budget implications. The board expressed enthusiasm for the program, recognizing its potential positive impact on student safety and community engagement.