A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the SRO contract, with board members debating the necessity of additional language to ensure that disciplinary actions are handled by school district staff rather than law enforcement. This distinction was emphasized as crucial for maintaining student discipline within an educational framework and preventing law enforcement from overstepping into school disciplinary matters. Concerns were raised about the potential use of force by SROs, specifically the controversial practice of “prone restraints,” which some members argued against due to the associated risks. The board acknowledged the need for comprehensive training for SROs and building administrators to ensure that interactions with students are handled responsibly and in alignment with district values.

The board discussed the importance of data privacy in the context of SROs’ access to educational records. Concerns were raised about how data is shared with law enforcement and the potential for violating privacy laws. Members called for clearer language in agreements to limit SROs’ access to student information.” A motion was proposed to amend the SRO contract to include an end date. This amendment was aimed at ensuring that the contract would be revisited and assessed against gathered data, offering an opportunity to adjust based on actual outcomes rather than anecdotal evidence.

Financial constraints were another pressing topic, with discussions focusing on the inability to match revenue increases seen at the city and county levels, which limits the district’s capacity to offer competitive staff compensation. The board expressed concern over the potential for budget cuts if revenue cannot be increased to meet staff compensation needs. The ongoing financial preparations for fiscal year 2027 were highlighted, with the preliminary levy set at approximately $44.5 million. This increase, while not substantial, was seen as a positive step from a taxpayer perspective, as it does not raise the overall dollar amount. The board emphasized the importance of providing taxpayers with a clear understanding of the potential tax impacts before the final levy certification in December.

The complexities of the levy structure were discussed, noting the limited control the board has over levy amounts, which are dictated by state formulas and voter approvals. The board acknowledged the challenges posed by abated taxes, which have resulted in a shortfall in expected tax revenue for the current fiscal year. This shortfall affects various funds, particularly the general fund and community service fund, necessitating adjustments in the midyear budget. The board discussed the need to advocate for changes in the safe schools funding formula, which has remained unchanged despite evolving safety needs.

The meeting also touched on the broader context of levies within the community, with comparisons drawn to the higher proposed levies from the city and county. Board members expressed frustration over the restrictive nature of state statutes governing their levy capabilities, emphasizing the need for continued advocacy for equitable funding and streamlined financial management.

In addition to financial and SRO-related discussions, the board considered rescinding Policy 627 concerning school volunteers, which received unanimous support. Board members shared updates on community engagement activities, highlighting participation in staff welcome-back events and the positive feedback received.