Robein Grade School

Special Meeting of the Board of Education

School Districts #85 and #86

February 22, 2005

President Norvill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Members present: Mr. Norvill, Mr. Buttice, Ms. Cunefare, Mr. Dearing, Ms. Schwader and

Mr. Visocky

Members absent: Mr. Popken

Welcome and Introduction:

Superintendent Mueller welcomed everyone in attendance and introduced Dr. Norm Durflinger and Dr. Brock Butts. Dr. Durflinger thanked the two Boards for the opportunity to conduct the study. He also thanked the Superintendents, their secretarial help, and Principals for their time and effort in gathering all the materials needed to conduct the study. Everyone involved was very cooperative. Dr. Durflinger explained that he would be presenting the financial aspects of the study and Dr. Butts would be reviewing the findings of the study in all areas, such as boundaries, enrollment, facilities, transportation, demographics, curriculum and staffing.

Consolidation Feasibility Study Presented By Dr. Norm Durflinger and Dr. Brock Butts:

Dr. Norm Durflinger and Dr. Brock Butts presented Robein District #85 and East Peoria District #86 with a 142 page Consolidation Feasibility Study.

The following were highlighted areas discussed by Dr. Brock Butts:

• Page 54 – Curriculum: Very similar with only differences in the Jr. High level. Combining would create a larger transportation need, but if the districts continued using the services provided by District 309 the changes would be minimal. Future transportation needs would depend greatly on which configuration the districts chose in building utilization and grade configuration.

• Page 50 – Demographics: higher low income and mobility rate for District #86, but very similar racial backgrounds and attendance rates.
• Page 52 – ISAT Scores: almost identical, with both districts performing quite well.
• Page 55 – Extracurricular: Robein students could have more extracurricular activities if they consolidated with East Peoria #86.
• Page 59 – Certified Staff to Student Ratios: very similar 13.1 for #86 and 13.0 for Robein. There would be a reduction of only three teachers if consolidation was completed.
• Page 34 – Facilities: Eight total buildings between the two districts presently. Three possible scenarios were presented for consolidation:

1. Scenario 1: 6 buildings used

Expansion of Central Junior High School has to take place in order for the consolidation to take place. Square footage would also have to be added to Armstrong School. There would be four K-4 buildings: Armstrong, Glendale, Shute, and Robein. There would be one 5-8 building: Central Junior High School. Wilson School would be used for Early Childhood and the Administration offices.

2. Scenario 2: 5 buildings used (Most likely scenario)

This scenario would provide $500,000 operational savings. Expansion of Central Junior High School has to take place in order for the consolidation to take place. 20,000 square feet would have to be added to Armstrong School and 10,000 to Glendale School. There would be three K-4 buildings: Armstrong, Glendale, and Robein. There would be one 5-8 building: Central Junior High School. Wilson School would be used for Early Childhood and the Administration offices.

Mr. Dearing - Robein School Board:

With your efficiencies and cost savings, originally you said we would see $18 million in building projects first. How long do you project until the long term cost savings would come into effect?

Dr. Butts:

Basically the first year you are in the buildings would be the first year of operational savings. What you have to bounce is whether you are saving a half million in operational savings instead of a half million in bond payments.

Ultimately the communities are going to have to make the decision do they want efficiencies or neighborhood schools?

3. Scenario 3: 2 buildings used (one for K-4 and one for 5-8) - This scenario would provide the most financial efficiencies long-term. It would create more efficiency in staffing, transportation and operational costs. It is much easier to reduce or increase staff needs when the enrollment fluctuates and the students are all in one building.

Mrs. Reinholdt – District 86 Board: Commented that we all remember growing up with neighborhood schools, with our children and grandchildren. We all want that, that is ideal to parents, but school districts just can’t afford that anymore. Not unless the taxpayer wants to take more out of his pocket.

Dr. Butts: Again the best configuration would be a PreK-4 center and a 5-8 building would be the best long-term configuration. It will be an up front investment by the community, but if you look at the long-term investment that is the best plan. That would generate some significant efficiencies in all areas. It is ultimately up to the community if consolidation is to take place. The bottom line is: Do we want efficiencies or neighborhood schools?

Dr. Norm Durflinger discussed finances. The following were highlighted areas:

• Pages 19 – 22 – Enrollment Graph of District #86
• Page 23 – Enrollment Graph of Robein
• Page 28 – Flatter Trend – both #86 and Robein: Teacher methodology, not class sizes affect learning. Dr. Durflinger commends both boards for their tight ships. Neither school district spends a lot of money.
• Page 73 – Tax Rates: #86 has a 2.9083 rate; Robein has a 3.6020 rate. Dr. Durflinger stated that Robein taxpayers and community has been very supportive. Both districts, however, need to look at the future.
• Page 135 – Table 35: both districts are in pretty good shape now.
• Page 98 – Table 17: District #86 and Page 100 – Table 18: Robein: very good numbers considering negotiations.
• Page 110 – Table 22: These are just scientific guesses. Boards should look at trends. Things can change in a moment based on State Aid. Think of working cash as a savings account.
• Page 134 – Table 34: Discussed differences between consolidation and annexation. With consolidation there would be a new district, a new name, new school colors, new boards. With annexation the smaller school (Robein) joins the larger school (#86). The smaller school (Robein) loses their identity and their board. There is a strong financial future with consolidation. Dr. Durflinger stated that both school districts’ finances are in fair shape presently, but not great. Consolidation would leave the district in pretty good shape. Although he stated due to the expansion to buildings taxes would need to be increased.

Dr. Brock Butts: He reported that the strength of a school district needs to be long-term. A district has to look down the road and prepare your district so that later children aren’t harmed. A quality education needs to be the same no matter where they live. In order to proceed with consolidation attorneys need to be involved. A committee of 10 should be formed (5 board members/5 people from the public) to delve even deeper into studying bus routes, boundaries, sports teams, etc. He suggested that the boards should visit other school districts who have already successfully consolidated.

Unfortunately communities have different support systems, but re-organization is feasible.

President Densberger – District 86: If we were to decide on Consolidation and we would wish to go to new tax rate that would be two separate items on the ballot?

Dr. Durflinger: Yes.

Mr. Dearing – Board Member - District 85: Was there any study on what effect consolidation would have on families that would have children attending more than one building?

Dr. Durflinger: I have found that what it does to children is directly in relation to what it does to the parents. Usually the children adapt. One positive would be that if you have more than one child and currently they all attend the same K-8 school that you would have to split your time between the children when, for example, parent conferences are being held. If you had children in different attendance centers, they would have your full attention and time for those occasions because they would be held on different dates. There are always positives and negatives.

Board President Gary Densberger – District 86: We have been approved for a State Building Grant that would pay for 60-65% of the cost to add a wing onto the Junior High and to expand Armstrong School. We needed the money for our fair share to advance in the process so we had to ask for an extension and put this on hold. It looks as though the State is going to fund this construction grant again. The approved plan would add a 5-6 wing on the backside of Central Jr. High, and the front side of the building would be remodeled for the 7^th and 8^th grades.

Superintendent Burdette – District 86: Overall tax rate has dropped the past three years and our per pupil expenditures have dropped in the past three years. Increase in revenue of only ½%, but we are still providing a high quality of education, and our test scores are showing that.

Dr. Durflinger: It takes a resolution to begin the process of consolidation or annexation. And it would be recommended that the Boards have an attorney to take care of all the necessary details. A Committee of 10 may be formed. A friendly scenario would be where representatives of each Board and people from both communities form the committee. Their purpose would be to study in more depth the consolidation report, possible configuration, bussing, boundaries, and other areas of concern.

Boards should also be cautious when doing this. If the districts consolidate there would be a whole new board. Some of the current members may be on the new Board and some may not. It was also suggested that each of the boards visit some other school districts who have already

Community Questions:

The following inquiries were discussed by audience members and the boards:

• District #85 Robein Parent, Ed Newlan, asked about tax caps and additions to Central Junior High School. He pointed out that the two newest buildings in District #86 were built in the 1960s. He asked why it was not in the study what would happen down the road to maintain these older buildings. He stated that he did not see any fantastic reason why consolidation should happen.
• Kurt Neelly, District #86 parent/Board candidate asked what major programs were cut in District #86 and Robein due to the tax caps. Board President, Gary Densberger, responded that District #86 programs were shaved, not cut. Old textbooks were being used, old computers, class sizes were increased, boundaries were redone, retired teachers haven’t been replaced, and they cut the position of Assistant Superintendent. President Steve Norvill responded that Robein saved money by contracting busses through the high school.
• Parent and District #85 Robein employee, Terry Newlan, discussed segregation and making children different. She was worried about the stigma that would be placed on children who were bussed to another school if they had special needs.

Adjourn:

President Norvill asked for any further questions or concerns. He thanked Dr. Durflinger and Dr. Butts for the presentation.

Motion by Dearing, seconded by Buttice to adjourn to joint board meeting at 7:50 p.m. On roll call, the following votes were recorded:

YEAS: Norvill, Buttice, Cunefare, Dearing, Schwader, and Visocky

NAYS: None

Motion by Roberts, seconded by Gross to adjourn the joint board meeting at 7:50 p.m. On roll call,

the following votes were recorded:

YEAS: Densberger, Ennis, Gross, Roberts, Reinholdt, Wright

NAYS: None

______________________________ _____________________________

Steve Norvill, President Shauna Schwader, Secretary