Red Wing School Board Meeting, June 9, 2026
The meeting started at 5:03 with all present except that Mr. Reister was virtual. There were several community members, members of the Early Childhood Community Committee, and three Sitelogiq representatives and a few Red Wing administrators.

Supt. Jaszczak started his comments with current developments regarding the sale of Jefferson. The RW City Council split off the Jefferson property from the other rezoning applicants and in two weeks the Jefferson rezoning will be voted upon with a super majority needed to pass the request. This will be discussed at the next school board meeting.

The next item to be discussed was regarding the public comment period during the board meetings. Supt. Jaszczak suggested that after reviewing other districts’ policies, his suggestion was to stop the videotaping of public comments. His suggestion of not taping public commenters was met with a fair amount of discussion from board members. Mr. Koenig had concerns with the issues being presented by public speakers not pertaining to the agenda and perhaps there’s a need for more specific public forums. Mr. Riester would prefer not to video speakers so as to not promote a specific political agenda. Mr. Bryant would like to see more accountability time for the board to respond if there is incorrect information given. Ms. Marshall Schoenfelder also agreed with Mr. Koenig that comments should be about the agenda.. Ms. Tift spoke of how few opportunities exist for the public to comment and that perhaps there would be more people willing to speak if they were not videotaped. Ms. Anderson would like the public to be more informed as to the roles of the school board and have an overview of their jobs. Ms. Bjornstad read the rules that are on the intake sheet the public signs and noted the difference from the rules Mr. Riester reads prior to the speaker beginning. Mr. Jaszczak will look at combining the documents and the information and will have a draft for action to be taken at the next board meeting. {My guess is that there will be a stoppage of the videotaping which makes sense from a speaker’s privacy perspective.}

The next item for discussion was regarding the request from Ms. Marshall-Schoenfelder to have principals attend board meetings. The superintendent suggested that they could be asked to be present and relay information about their buildings at workshop meetings or regular meetings at every second or third meeting. Not all of them would be at the same meetings, and he will be talking with them in all in the future.

There will be an update on the Superintendents evaluation and goals at the next meeting during a closed session with the final evaluation done in December.

On to the meatier parts of the meeting: There was a discussion regarding the idea of a capital projects levy which will have and impact of about $9 a month of a $300,000 home. The proposed levy of one and a half million would be over a period of ten years and is to be used for tech, tech staff and curriculum. This year alone curriculum cost $450,000 {!!} One AP class can have books costing $20,000. { as a former elementary teacher I can attest to the fact that consumable books that kids write in, cost more in the following years.} This proposed levy needs to be reviewed by the Minnesota Dept. of Education first and then to the voters in Nov. Mr. Bryant asked how was the number arrived at and Ms. Marshall Schoenfelder suggested that it seemed to be high, especially if the enrollment goes down. Mr. Koenig asked if the levy can be changed, and it was determined that the levy amount could be adjusted downward annually, but the question on the ballot would be for one and a half million. { This it got a bit confusing.} He asked if this accounted for inflation, and the answer was yes, to the best of their ability to foretell the future. There was a short discussion regarding the difference between an operating vs. capital levy with the operating levy based on student numbers while the capital levy stays flat and has less impact on a residential property. {I don’t know why, it wasn’t discussed further than that.} Ms. Bjornstad suggested that if we don’t ask for enough there could be a negative impact of class offering hurting the district’s ability to keep or draw students. The financial officer, Chris Mulvich said that currently the elementaries have no wiggle room left so the upper grades will need to take the hits. He also stated that there’s a negative change in funding streams from the state. Later in the meeting the board voted to authorize and submit for review the capital levy question to the Minnesota Dept. of Ed. Ms. Marshall Schoenfelder was the lone “no” vote. A ballot question will be formulated after the reviewal.

The next lengthy discussion revolved around the changes to the Early Childhood programming and building questions. {I noted many side glances from the community members as this was going on.} The building project is for 12.7 million to reorganize and remodel the RWHS and Sunnyside Elementary with the bulk of the building changes being made to Sunnyside beginning in June of 2028. The funding would be spread over 20 years if the referendum passes. The representative from Sitelogiq said they will be doing much of the coordination of the process with input from the board, administrators, staff and community. They will be working to help inform the public at large what this project is about and why it is needed. If the building issue passes, they also coordinate architectural planning (including accessibility and ADA rules), contractor bids ( which they try to source locally first ) and communication input between staff and others during the planning stages. They said they are used to working on construction that has a three -month window, (all this was in response to the board’s questions). Ms. Marshall Schoenfelder asked if Sunnyside would have enough room if the programs were successful in gaining students and the Sitelogiq rep said they had two plus rooms that would be planned for this contingency. The superintendent reiterated the challenges of the current Colvill building and the lack of play equipment for children, but he was emphatic about his belief that children would have a headstart into kindergarten just by being in and sharing the same spaces and learning the routines with the kindergarteners. Mr. Bryant said that we need to give kids a chance and sometimes that means a big -ticket item, but to do it for the kids. Ms. Bjornstad agreed with the superintendent and in her statements held that building cohorts such as prek-k, grades 1-3, grades 4-6, are natural points in student development. Ms. Anderson said it is difficult to make a decision with so many unknowns and to do this right. Ms. Tift agreed in that change is scary but there is a need to make a better change. There was discussion on steps and timelines but it boils down to this:

1. Submit the review and comment to MDE
2. In July get out and communicate the plan publicly
3. Create a ballot question
4. Voters decide, and if it passes, the planning starts immediately.
   The board voted unanimously to authorize the superintendent to submit the review to MDE.
   The summer board retreat will be either July 14 or 15.
   Meeting was adjourned at 6:55.