With much of the meeting centered around presentations and the largest action items concerning district bonds and construction projects, the Waterloo School Board also saw some conflict among board members Monday night in response to a surprise during December’s meeting.

Having been delayed first by Martin Luther King Jr. Day and then by the recent winter storm, the board finally held their January meeting just this week, with board member James Yaekel absent.

Though no one signed up or approached the board when the time came for public participation, board member Jodie Burton spoke up to offer her own remarks.

She opened by noting  she is the senior-most member of the board with four terms and 16 years, adding that efforts have long existed to cut costs in schools in Waterloo and throughout the entire country.

Burton went on to recall how board member Nathan Mifflin at the previous December meeting read a statement in which he proposed a budget task force to attempt to find possible savings, the statement made without prior warning to or discussion among the full board.

As previously reported, Mifflin made this proposal at the prior meeting, suggesting that the task force be composed of board members, district staff and members of the public who would see if there was any excessive spending in the budget that might be cut.

He made this proposal alongside mention of tax levy abatement, indicating that the task force might evaluate the budget and then advise the board about unnecessary spending so they might adjust the December-approved tax levy prior to it being finalized.

It was noted during the meeting that a substantial majority of the entire budget and an even larger percentage of the education fund in specific goes toward salaries and wages.

Ultimately, the tax levy and budget task force were approved together, with Mifflin, Board Secretary Amanda Propst, Board President Lori Dillenberger and Board Vice-President Neil Giffhorn voting in favor and Burton, Yaekel and John Caupert voting against.

Returning to Burton’s comments Monday evening, she went on to chastise Mifflin for bringing this proposal up on his own.

“Mr. Mifflin demonstrated a lack of respect for the board’s collective decision-making process, a failure to encourage and engage in open and honest discussions in making board decisions and a failure to respect differences of opinion among fellow board members,” Burton said. “A school board member with a specific agenda creates tension and dysfunction within the school board, the district and the community.”

She referenced the oath of office administered to incoming board members, specifically the fifth paragraph which states “I shall recognize that a board member has no legal authority as an individual and that decisions can be made only by a majority vote at a public board meeting.”

“I was blindsided at the last meeting when Mr. Mifflin made the motion in open session to create a task force to study the district budget,” Burton said. “A motion such as this should have been developed and proposed by a majority of the board, not one rogue individual. I believe the way it was presented was deliberate and designed to make some of the other board members look inept and incompetent. For the first time in the 16 years that I have been on the board of education, I was embarrassed to be a member of the group.”

Echoing a sentiment expressed at December’s meeting, Burton stressed there is no need for a task force given the board already has a finance committee which reviews the budget each year with the superintendent.

“I have served on this committee for at least eight years, but I was not appointed to it this year because Mr. Mifflin asked to be appointed to it in my place,” Burton said. “He knows that the committee does an excellent job of reviewing and monitoring the financial well-being of the district.”

She concluded her statement by proposing the task force be abolished, calling it “completely unnecessary and time wasteful” and adding, “We need to get on with the important business that we have of translating the vision of the community for public education into actionable decisions.”

Shortly following Burton’s prepared statement, Caupert – the most vocal opponent of the budget task force in December – offered his own remarks.

He noted that he is the second-most senior board member with 13 years, with multiple terms served both as board president and a member of the finance committee.

Caupert echoed Burton’s sentiments about Mifflin’s statement happening without any prior notification.

He voiced particular concern about taking a large amount of money out of the budget, Mifflin having said in December, “I’ve been told people can find 1, 2 percent waste in a budget in their sleep.”

“It was stated in that prepared statement in December that a 1-2 percent savings can be found in just about any budget anywhere,” Caupert said. “And then it was stated after the fact about, well, we wanna make sure that this doesn’t impact teachers or teachers’ salaries. I think we all feel that way. But here’s the thing. A 1-2 percent savings on a $27 million-plus budget is somewhere between $270 and $540 thousand dollars that’s supposed to be found by a group of individuals coming together over the course of the next five to six weeks when this board of education has worked on a budget over the course of five to six months.”

He reiterated a point made in December, suggesting any cuts would inevitably have to come from salaries.

Caupert further remarked that the proposed 1-2 percent in savings would equate to roughly $96-192 per student with the district’s current enrollment.

“What we’re actually doing through this effort is harming students,” Caupert said. “We’re taking directly away from them. That’s not open for question, comment or concern. It is a reality. If something like this were to be established, you’d establish it at the very front end of the process.”

He went on to again reiterate an argument he made in December, that being a budget task force already exists in the form of the school board.

“The community duly elected seven people to serve three primary purposes,” Caupert said. “You employ the superintendent, you approve policies, you approve budgets. If you’re saying that you’re incapable of doing one of those three tasks – the financial part of it – then you resign from this board of education, and you allow somebody who can fulfill all three of those responsibilities.”

An additional sentiment expressed by Caupert echoed Burton’s original concern about Mifflin’s statement coming without any notice to the board as a whole.

Caupert said the motion was provided to the board secretary prior to the meeting, and the proposal was “at least discussed” with another board member.

He remarked, “I hope it stopped there,” further saying, “You are directly soliciting your fellow board members to take a position on a motion. That is a direct violation of the Open Meetings Act, with discipline up to removal from the board of education by the Regional Office of Education.”

“I applaud the initiative and the passion,” Caupert said. “I’m appalled at the manner in which it took place.”

Mifflin did not offer response to Burton or Caupert during the meeting, nor did he respond following the meeting when the Republic-Times attempted to contact him.

One of the largest action items brought before the board concerned the approval of the issue and sale of no more than $22,300,000 of General Obligation Refunding School Bonds and the levy of taxes to pay these bonds.

This item was connected to a presentation at the top of the meeting from Jasen Pinkerton, associate vice president with PTMA Financial Solutions.

Pinkerton’s presentation centered around the board’s intentions to save money by potentially refinancing its current bonds to save money and keep the tax rate for bonds and interest steady for taxpayers over the next few years.

Waterloo Superintendent of Schools Brian Charron prefaced Pinkerton’s presentation.

“I know the board also has an intention to keep tax rates as steady as possible and not see any jumps in those,” Charron said. “What Jasen’s going to talk to you about tonight is the two options that the board has. One of them sacrifices some of that savings, but it does serve to increase the likelihood that the tax rate for paying bond and interest stays steady as opposed to jumping up between now and 2031.”

Amid bond discussion, Charron suggested tempering expectations when it comes to Waterloo’s Equalized Assessed Valuation.

“We’re trying to predict what EAV is going to be doing six, seven, eight years from now,” Charron said. “We can’t do that. I don’t wanna count on 5 percent EAV growth indefinitely. I don’t think that’s going to happen. There were several years where we were seeing around 2-3 percent EAV growth.”

The plan ultimately approved by the board was to refinance the existing debt, spreading the cost out across eight years rather than five, anticipating EAV growth of 5 percent through 2031 and 2 percent after and keeping the tax rate for bond and interest payments around $0.69 per $100 of EAV until 2036 when the rate is expected to begin dropping.

Another large action item approved by the board was authorization for FGM Architects to begin working with the Illinois State Board of Education to finalize the cost and scope of Health-Life-Safety improvements for Waterloo Junior High School.

Charron reminded the board of the proposed third option for the school, building a new wing to replace the oldest part of the building rather than renovating the entire structure or building a new school altogether elsewhere.

He likewise reiterated that, should the district renovate 50 percent of the building, the entire building would need to be renovated at great cost, though the district is allowed to use Health-Life-Safety funds – typically reserved for renovations – on new construction if the cost is similar to the cost of renovations.

This agreement with FGMA, then, is meant to allow them to work with ISBE to see how much Health-Life-Safety funding would be able to go toward an addition to replace the oldest section of the school.

Still another large item, the board approved a contract with Courts in Session for no more than $9,212.50 for repair work on the WJHS tennis courts.

Charron noted that this contract was established in anticipation of damage to the courts given the recent severe winter weather.

This contract, it was noted, is simply for repair work. It is not for the costly milling and replacement process of these courts that has been discussed at a previous meeting.

A similar item was approved for the Waterloo High School tennis courts at a cost of no more than $7,040.

The board also approved a graduation date and time of Sunday, May 17 at 1 p.m.

After some discussion, given conflict on this day with Columbia’s graduation at the same time, it was noted particularly by Caupert that the families for whom the graduations would conflict are an extreme minority, and the graduation would be better off staying at the usual time on the usual day to avoid other, larger conflicts.

Also approved was a resolution transferring the district’s legal counsel to F3 Law otherwise known as Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost LLP. It was noted the district’s counsel will remain the same but is now under a different name.

The board also approved the appointment of former WHS Athletic Director Mitch North as principal of WJHS.

A contested vote, Giffhorn, Burton, Caupert, Propst and Dillenberger voted in favor while Mifflin voted against.

Additionally, the board approved the student transportation bid to Robinson Transport Inc. and the WHS course selection guide for the 2026-2027 school year.

Following the bond presentation from Pinkerton, the board heard a rather lengthy presentation from the Waterloo Classroom Teacher Association as each member of the district’s music department offered a thorough rundown of their curriculum, highlighting student achievements and activity at each grade level.