09/18/2026
September 14th School Board
School Board Addresses Budget Hearing and Health Insurance
The FCCSC met on Monday, September 14th. The first meeting held was the budget hearing for the 2027 budget bus replacement plan and capital projects/capital asset plan. Superintendent Gehring states, "This is an annual process that we follow, and so we have an opportunity to have some public comment here towards the end, but we want to go through the information.
We are budgeting for the calendar year 2027 education fund at $18 million, operations fund at $9.1 million, debt service fund at $7,075,820, and then the rainy-day fund budgeted at $1 million. That's a 'just in case' fund for a total 2027 budget of $35,175,820."
That is just an enclosure and Gehring moved on to the bus replacement plan, stating," Pursuant to IC 20-40-18, the bus replacement plan contains a list of all proposed bus purchases for the 5-year period of 2027 through 2031, and that has been posted accordingly."
With that reading, Gehring next moved to the capital project/capital asset plan.
He states, "Pursuant to IC 20-40-18-6, the capital assets plan contains a list of all proposed projects that are capital in nature, and all proposed capital expenditures that will exceed $10,000 and are expected to begin to or be acquired within the next three years."
Gehring further asks that the board and audience keep in mind that the bus replacement plan and the capital project plan are very loose plans that they file with the state. With that, the board moved on to public comment. Only two were signed up to speak - Sara Duffy and Derek Kolb.
Derek Kolb addressed the board, stating, "For the budget, I see that you've got, for the debt service fund, more than $7 million there. Do you know what you're expected to be covered from the levy would be?"
Further clarification on his question had Kolb asking the board how much they're looking to get for taxpayer dollars to pay that off in the next set of levies.
"The reason why I asked is because right now, in your certified levy for 2026, you're at about $5.9 million. That's a significant increase and I just didn't know if the majority of that was going to be covered from cash or what?" Kolb further clarifies.
Gehring states in response, "As is always the case, we are keeping our tax rate the same. So, there is a geo bond on the radar that we're going to be looking at here in the fall to ensure that we are in a good place. Then the debt services, the money that we pay that we've already borrowed.
So, we already had that built into our payment plans overall."
Kaiser states later that they aren't taking money from operations to pay debt. It's two different buckets of property taxes.
Brennan states that more on this particular subject of payment will be discussed in depth later, and that concluded the public comment. Sara Duffy opted to speak during public comment in the regular board meeting. This concluded the public hearing.
The board moved to begin their regular meeting directly after. As usual, the board started with celebrations. First up to be celebrated was Miss Taylor Biddle as Support Staff of the Month. This celebration is slightly different as Biddle is currently serving the school resource officer, primarily at the elementary level.
Gehring states, "although Taylor has served as an SRO for less than a year, she's already made a tremendous impact on our students, staff, and school community. Taylor was nominated for this honor by a staff member and parent who shared 'Taylor started with us last school year and has made quite the impression on our students. She interacts with them in the hallways, cafeteria, and in their rooms. Taylor is fun and includes our students and makes them feel safe.' Taylor isn't just helpful to our students but to the staff. She's always willing to jump in and help where needed. The students, staff, and parents adore her."
Gehring next introduced Sandy Baker as Educator of the Month. Baker, 6th/8th grade math teacher at Franklin County Middle School. She was nominated by a parent, who shared, "I'd like to take a moment to recognize a teacher who's made such a difference in a few short days to my eighth-grade daughter.
When you have a child with an IEP, you see discouragement in their eyes more often than you wish you did. You watch them struggle with things that come easily to others. And as a parent, you just hope that they find a teacher who sees beyond what is written on a piece of paper, one that sees them.
For my daughter this year, that teacher has been Miss Baker. She is so meticulous in following her IEP, always discreetly checking in with my daughter to make sure she is comfortable with the content, never rushes her, and she answers every single question."
The board next moved on to statements from the public and employees. First to speak was Sara Duffy, who addressed board regarding the lot purchase.
Duffy states, "I want to ask, have you answered all of the questions about the half-acre lot that you voted to purchase for $75,000 on SR-101 and Wildcat Lane? Before you sign that check, I want to caution you that this project will likely cost a lot more than $75,000.
Maybe $175,00? $200,000 by the time you pay professionals for a site plan, excavators, developers, the electronic sign that you talked about. And it may be slow to get a right-of-way permit from the State of Indiana to get a curb cut to get onto the lot.
In the meantime, your capital project plan shows that our elementary schools need about $137,000 in plumbing, and $700,000 for electrical upgrades. My advice is don't waste money on this lot. Spend wisely on our elementary schools."
Derek Kolb took the podium again to address the board on vacancy eligibility. He states, "I know probably is going to be discussed later on in the meeting, but I just want to make sure that it gets put on the record and maybe put into the meeting minutes.
I have a question pertaining to the eligibility of a member and their participation in the votes of this meeting. The corporation has publicly announced a vacancy, and I understand the vacancy resignation might be effective as of a later date, but I'm just asking for the board for legal clarification, the basis under Indiana law for this member's participation in tonight's vote.
I know again that it might be at a later date, but if there is IC code that if they move out of the district, it is effective of when they move, not when it is designated in the letter. So, I would like to have it noted of what the IC code is in the place."
Brennan took a moment to address the board, aware of the code and having clarified it with them already. To be on the record, Brennan states that is code and they have a member with intentions to move.
So, it's a little gray for the board as this person has owned two homes, and they are eventually planning to call the other residence home. This is why the board said, "pick a date and stop." As long as the member is still an active board member, they're still representing that district that voted for them to represent them, we don't want to quiet those people and take away those votes.
This means that they are still eligible to vote until the date they leave.
Katie Holman, the pending resigning party, did speak up to explain her current situation and how she met with her lawyer to discuss any restrictions she may have as a board member. She does have a set date for her departure, and that her resignation will be discussed later in the meeting.
Kaiser spoke up to state that they didn't have to accept her resignation as it goes to the clerk, a statement he clarified was not a joke. He further continues by stating, "I'm upset because that's twice people in this room have asked her not to vote on something for no reason, publicly and privately."
Brennan halted the discussion by thanking everyone for their inputs, and to Katie as well for her words. Duffy and Kolb were the only attendees signed up for public comment, so the board moved on to the consent agenda items. These were all approved.
Next was the approval of new hires, all approved unanimously. Regarding the personnel extracurriculars, Kaiser opted to rephrase a recurring question. - "Why anyone on the board would think we should not have the evaluations of the varsity coach recommendations to review to make an informed decision. I think that is very important for us to have for those programs.'
Simonson responds, "I would voice my opinion. I would object to that because we hire an athletic director just like we hire a principal to evaluate his staff or her staff. Why would we micromanage the coaching staff and not micromanage the teaching staff, or not micromanage the administrative staff?"
Kaiser clarifies that he's not asking to micromanage. He's just asking for the reasoning behind the recommendation from the athletic director. "That not only helps us make a decision, it helps us to support his decision," he adds.
Foster asked why he doesn't go ask the athletic director before it comes up to a vote, but Simonson reiterated that it would lend itself again to micromanaging the teaching staff you did at the coaching.
Kaiser said that it's the board taking blind recommendations and approving them. However, Simonson stated that the board did just do that - they didn't look at the recommendations for the new hires. They rely on the person making those recommendations. They know what they want, the school wants.
Brennan states that she isn't speaking for everyone on the board, but as a majority of the board, she thinks the thought process has been the smart trust, relying on people they hire or have been hired in that spot.
It's important to remember that in that room together, they are the school board. Individually, they are community members.
Following each list, the board voted with first, second, and discussion. All were approved unanimously.
Next were grants and donations. These were approved unanimously. The financial reports were listed and approved unanimously as well, followed by a quick comment that none of the kids have had one bad complaint about the cafeteria thus far.
The assistant superintendent contract extension was to have Shannon New's contract to match Dustin Gehring's in term length, purely to show everyone that they are here and ready to help. There are no plans to leave at the end of those contracts. This was approved unanimously.
Next was the health insurance broker vendor, MJ, recommended by Dustin Gehring. This is based off the results of the interview and evaluation process. Kaiser jumped in to remind the board that he made a motion awhile back for the board to solicit competitive proposals for the corporation's insurance coverage.
He made a new motion to postpone the action of approving MJ in order to complete the actual competitive proposal process. With a new motion made, Brennan seconded the motion so discussion could be held. Brennan further stated that she felt the competitive process had been completed already.
Kaiser stepped in, stating, "You said you think it was the competitive proposals were done. If they are given the necessary de-identified data to one or more hopefully qualified brokers and let them develop actual proposals, then we could compare cost, benefits, networks, deductibles, out-of-pocket exposure, employee contributions, funding structure, pharmacy, administrative costs, and risk side by side.
What on that list has actually been competitively compared through the FCCSC specific proposal so far?"
Brennan clarified that Kaiser was defining the process, whereas Kaiser clarified that he was explaining his motion and the intent.
Brennan states, "We solicited those proposals. We had multiple that was interested, brokers that came and presented."
Kaiser asked that the board received proposals on all of the aspects he listed below, however Brennan stated that "again, that is your definition. That's part of the process, and pretty thorough process was carried out with our people in mind."
Furthermore, nobody on the board was specifically part of this per request. However, Gehring does state that he is satisfied with the recommendation. Further debate was held on the subject and the board eventually moved back to the initial vote on Kaiser's motion - to postpone the action.
Kaiser's motion to postpone the approval of MJ did not pass, opening the board back up to the original motion of approving MJ as the vendor. This was approved.
The board moved on to the acceptance of the land appraisals and the issuance of the payment. Per their attorney, Gehring states, "Dustin Gehring, Superintendent, is requesting the acceptance of the land appraisals as written for land purchase on State Route 101 and is also requesting permission to issue payment for the purchase of that land at $75,000."
Simonson interjects to state three basic steps toward property purchase. The second is appraisals, and states that the appraisal has to be done within 30 days. The average of the two appraisals is then put together to establish the bid amount.
"Theoretically, the purchasing of the property isn't done until after the appraisal acceptance," Simonson adds.
Additionally, Simonson states that one of the appraisals came in 45 days after 30 days, which "makes it null and void in my opinion according to the law". Furthermore, Simonson states that the land has some history and by federal law, the buyer/seller is supposed to disclose that to the appraisers.
Moving on to the motion made by Gehring, Kaiser states that, "I don't believe it requires and approval, but just for the sake of moving this forward, I'll make a motion to approve the acceptance of the appraisals."
Brennan seconded Kaiser's motion for discussion. Brennan goes on to state that yes, one of the appraisers was slow to come in, and it was above the 30 days originally asked.
"We can reappoint them at this point and say do it again, but again in the spirit of what do we want?" Brennan states.
Furthermore, Brennan states that in the past, they have expressed the majority of the board did want to purchase this, but they have to have that expressed. That was done again back in July.
Gehring, Brennan, and attorney Amber Orozco have expressed the due diligence of visiting every office around the county to vet this process in order to do what was needed to do, which is ultimately locking in that corner.
While the appraisal is two weeks past the original date, Brennan states that she finds them legitimate as far as appraisals go. Simonson states that he would like to remind the board, "When we took an oath to become board members, we said we would follow federal and state guideline statutes."
"This is a statute. It may seem simple, but it's not simple. It's just like any other deadline, just like filing your income tax. These are the prerequisites. It's required to buy a piece of property. We have not met those prerequisites," Simonson adds.
Brennan asks if the goal is reappointing and getting another appraisal. Simonson says that following the statute is his response.
Per Sara Duffy's previous addressment to the board, Foster asks, "if we purchase this and we don't get the easements or whatever we need, if we've not applied for those, then we've got a piece of property that we paid $75,000 for. What are we going to do?"
Gehring states that he went to all of the government offices, he asked all of the questions such as "where is the cemetery" and "what is the easement". He asked if there was sewage and what's in the landfill.
"If the project's intent is to create a space for a sign, which is what thus far the board has mentioned, the corner that touched and old cemetery won't impact that. That will have no impact at all. Secondly, the easement that you’re talking about leaves just the right amount of space to where we'd want to put the sign anyways.
So, even as the easement sits right now, which it's substantial, we would be fine. We'd have room for the sign," Gehring explains.
Simonson states that he contacted INDOT and that they are finicky as can be about this property. There is tile that runs under the property. If they're assigned the responsibility, each 10-foot tile is $9,000. That's if there is collapse. INDOT has not gotten back to Simonson.
Simonson further states that there are limitations on the type of sings that can be put out there because of epilepsy and whatnot. He sees the simplicity, but it's not as simple.
"We can't think about this from a perspective of this board. We have to think about this form multiple boards. What will they use that property for? That's why this decision has to be a sound decision on the property, if there is a landfill on that property, etc. This is bigger than just the sign," Simonson adds.
Brennan states, "I completely agree with that. I think we have to think about the future. This is something that has been vetted so tightly. It amazes me because it's not the hill I'm willing to die on to be quite honest with you too.
This doesn't impact children day-to-day. This impacts the overall big picture, big vision of Franklin County, our biggest inner campus, and that's been our goal this whole time. We want to change our perspective. We want to be the campus, the school of choice since Indiana allows school choice.
That's our hope. So, this isn't my fight today. This doesn't impact kids day-to-day. It's not the most important fight for me. The kids are the most important thing. It's really just the future of our school, our campus, the perspective that we give.
Unfortunately, perspective somewhat becomes reality, right? That's what way people view Franklin County and locking in our stamp on that corner, eventually being able to put in a sign and maintaining that, is my hope here,"
Brennan reiterates that Simonson was asking for a new appraisal to be within statute. Simonson again states, "I believe we have an obligation. Like I said earlier, we were sworn in and it may seem simple at times, but we have to be due diligent when it comes to our responsibility how big or how small.
So, I think we follow the law, get the appraisals within the proper timeline as the law reads, average appraisals, and then see where we are."
Kaiser asks, "if we correct this appraisal, will you then vote to approve this sale or purchase?"
Simonson opted to give no formal response to this question.
Kaiser goes on to ask if their attorney has an issue with the board accepting this or being able to fix the appraisal. He was told no. He asks if their attorney has a problem with the 4-3 vote, which is a majority of the seven board members in July approving the sale.
Gehring states, "she had this as her advice to accept the appraisals as this is and to finalize the permission. So, this is based on her advice."
Kaiser states that's not the vote to purchase but vote to accept the appraisals.
"The vote was already made in July to make this purchase contingent on these statutes," Kaiser states. "If we need to fix it, we will. If you've been to every department and we've looked at everything and nobody else in this county has an issue with us, our potential use of this land, I have one question.
Are you recommending that this board accept and approve the appraisals and issuance of payment?"
When Gehring states that he is asking that recommendation, Kaiser reminds him that he has been argued with over questioning recommendations.
"To be clear, I represent a committee. The committee is our facility committee, and so the facility committee has come forth with this project idea. It's the initiative that they had. On behalf of the facility committee, I do recommend because I've been given a directive, not directive but a charge to bring the committee work forward.
So, with that, I am recommending that we accept the two, and then also, permission to issue payment. That does still sit there. I want to be clear to answer the question you asked before. So, there's a couple of roads.
If we take the vote and it doesn't go, it's done. I can't issue payment because there's no permission to. It could be done and never brought up again because I can't do anything about it. The other choice is what Mr. Simonson had mentioned about concern around the appraisals.
We could get a motion to start the appraisal process again, which then would charge me with getting the appraisers to come in at a timely manner. We did ask them to get in at a timely manner. It's just one was late.
Essentially, that would start the process over to which then we would come back later for another vote around accepting the appraisals and finishing the payment," Gehring states.
A motion and a second had been made, followed by discussions stating this has been ongoing of a year. Gehring states that once this vote is taken care of, the board is still able to make a motion to start the appraisal process over again.
If the vote passes, the issue is done. If the vote fails, a new motion can be made to restart the appraisal process.
Brennan states that this is supported by their attorney, who they have continuously followed under the legal trust shown. Simonson states that he spoke with an attorney in Indianapolis who was adamant the board follow the federal and state guidelines.
Brennan pauses to ask, "Do you know more about this than we do and we're just now finding that out? Because that would be troubling if there's more that you know."
Simonson stated that he spoke with the attorney about the statute, and that he has contacted her about a number of things. Brennan continues to state that she will hope he shares that if he knows more while the rest of the board does not.
With it made known that there is much more clarity on the issue, and that discussion over this particular topic has been exhausted over the past few months, Brennan calls for the final vote of the original motion to accept the land appraisals for the land purchase on SR-101 and the issuance of payment. The motion did not pass.
The board moved on to the approval of the 2027-2028 school calendar. It's clarified that the calendar follows the major breaks of the Whitewater Career Center, so students don't miss double the time. This was approved unanimously.
Next were the snow removal bids for November 26th to March 26th. Gehring formally states he is requesting permission to advertise for bids for the November through March snow removal at LES and MCS, along any ancillary school bus transfer sites.
Bids will be received until 2PM on October 1st of 2026. They take care of their own center campus. The bid advertisements were approved unanimously.
Moving on to school board vacancy, this was posted on September 8th to fill the seat held by Katie Holman. Interested individuals must reside in District 3 and be registered voters. Letters of interest are due by September 25th of 2026. This is information only and no formal vote is required.
Next was appointing a technical committee. Gehring states, "Dustin Gehring, superintendent, is recommending that the board appoint the following individuals to the FCCSC technical review committee for the procurement of design build services under IC 530 for the 26 unified project: Dustin Gehring, Shannon New, Kendra Frank, William Shepler, and Daniel Rollins." The board approved the committee unanimously.
Next was the authorization to publish legal notice of RFQ and issue an RFP. This was approved unanimously.
