Save Armory Park

This summer, the Friends of Armory Park released a statement asking the Whitefish Bay School District to pursue a Middle School plan that preserves Armory Park and the Veterans Monument and Memorial Garden. We asked the district to consider renovating the existing school or building at an alternative site, rather than displacing this memorial.

The district has now put forward a new plan: Rebuilding the Middle School in place, creating a fully new and modern building without displacing students, while preserving Armory Park.

We want to answer clearly again. We, the Friends of Armory Park, support this plan.

"We want to answer clearly again. We, the Friends of Armory Park, support this plan."

This is the outcome we asked for. It modernizes our schools, and it leaves Armory Park and the Veterans Monument and Memorial Garden exactly where they belong, on the ground that has held this history since 1908. The men and women who trained here and served are honored here, where the garden, the trees, and the Red Arrow Division memorial were placed with intention. This plan means they can stay as they were meant to be.

We are grateful that the district listened, and we are grateful to every neighbor who signed our statement, showed up to meetings, and made this outcome possible for our community.

During its August 12 facilities-planning meeting, board members expressed broad support for rebuilding the middle school on its existing site rather than constructing a new school in Armory Park.

The direction expressed by the board represents a major shift from the proposal voters considered in April — and an important moment for everyone who has worked to protect the park, its green space and the Veterans Memorial.

The community was heard

Superintendent Dr. Jamie Foeckler began the discussion by reviewing feedback gathered through community focus groups, meetings with middle school neighbors, conversations with the Veterans Memorial and Armory Park work group, survey responses and emails.

One of the themes identified during the June 16 focus group was that "a significant number of participants cited the lack of trust stemming from the vague architectural plans and proposed utilization of Armory Park, which many see as a beloved historical area and green space."

Dr. Foeckler noted that similar themes appeared across several forms of community engagement. The district also heard substantial support from neighbors and focus-group participants for renovating or rebuilding the middle school in place.

That feedback was especially clear during a July 20 session involving 21 members of the Friends of Armory Park and the broader community. The district's focus-group feedback summary identified preservation of Armory Park and the Veterans Memorial as the strongest and most consistent theme.

Participants described the park as historic, sacred and irreplaceable. They rejected incorporating the Veterans Memorial into a middle school campus and urged the district to pursue a rebuild-in-place option that would leave both the memorial and the park intact.

Community members attended meetings, participated in focus groups, completed surveys, wrote emails and spoke directly with board members about why the park cannot be treated as an empty construction site. Those efforts made a difference.

School Board member Brett Christiansen said those conversations gave him what he described as a more firsthand understanding of how the community views the proposed use of Armory Park.

"We don't have the support that we thought we did for building over Armory Park," he said. "So I'm definitely not in favor of building on Armory Park right now."

"We don't have the support that we thought we did for building over Armory Park. So I'm definitely not in favor of building on Armory Park right now." — Brett Christiansen, Whitefish Bay School Board

A substantially new middle school on the existing site

The alternative presented to the board is much more extensive than a conventional renovation. Under the preliminary concept, roughly 70% of the completed middle school would be new construction — about 98,000 square feet of new space alongside 45,000 square feet of heavily renovated space.

The plan would preserve and extensively renovate the historic core of the original Henry Clay School, turning the historic interior gym into a student commons and cafeteria. New space for music, student services, special education and administration would be added, and the building's mechanical and other major systems would be replaced along with improvements to accessibility, security, restrooms and circulation.

Nicholas Kent of PRA Architects told the board that the completed project would be "functionally a new building."

The historic portion would be stripped to its structural core, restored and equipped with new systems. The current estimated cost of the middle school concept is $68.4 million.

Students could remain on campus

Concern about displacing students was one of the primary reasons the district previously moved away from renovating the existing school. The new plan addresses that through a phased construction process lasting roughly three years.

The district would build the new classroom wing first. Students would move into those permanent classrooms while the existing eastern wing came down and the new gym, specialized classrooms and administrative areas went up. Later phases would renovate the historic center of the school and finish the entrance, plaza and site work.

The new plan is designed to avoid moving students into trailers or busing them to another campus.

Preserving history while building for the future

The concept would preserve the historic heart of the original Henry Clay School while replacing much of the outdated building around it.

The former gymnasium in the oldest section of the building could become a new student commons and cafeteria. The preliminary design would bring natural light into the space, recognize its remaining architectural details and potentially restore a small platform for performances and assemblies.

Kent described the commons as one of the most exciting parts of the proposal: "This could be really quite a compelling story to tell about bringing new uses to the oldest remaining piece of infrastructure in the school district over a century later."

School Board member Lynn Raines said the approach reflects Whitefish Bay's identity while preserving the historical character of the district's first school: "This option is able to provide an intersection of a tight-knit school community campus — as the Whitefish Bay community is — while maintaining the historical character of our first building."

Raines also highlighted the possibility of opening the new gym and commons to community activities: "There's a lot of joy in getting the community around a building that's more accessible — being able to provide tournaments or things in the commons that the community would want to use the space for."

She said she was especially pleased that the phased plan would allow students to remain at the middle school: "I'm really pleased that we can keep kids in the building without putting them in trailers or having to transport kids across town. I'm also in favor of renovating in place."

Broad board support for rebuilding in place

As the discussion continued, board members were asked directly whether they favored constructing a new school in Armory Park or rebuilding the middle school on its current site.

The response was strikingly consistent.

Multiple board members supported keeping the middle school on school-owned land. They cited the ability to protect Armory Park, avoid a land exchange, preserve the historic school structure, maintain the shared middle school and high school campus, and minimize disruption to students.

One board member said the approach might be the option that is "least divisive for the community" because it could provide an excellent educational facility without affecting the Veterans Memorial or green space.

Christiansen described the rebuild-in-place proposal as "much superior" and expressed hope that protecting Armory Park would create broader community support for the other school projects the district needs to complete.

Another board member said the proposal "dramatically simplifies" what the district must explain to voters. The district would no longer need to justify what would happen to the park's green space and trees, while the phased plan would avoid putting students in temporary classrooms.

What could be included in a new referendum?

The board also discussed a possible referendum package: the $68.4 million middle school project, a full mechanical-system replacement at the high school, and fire-alarm and fire-protection improvements at the high school and elementary schools. The preliminary total is roughly $107.8 million, and the district has identified about $17.8 million in existing local funds it could contribute — bringing the borrowing request to approximately $90 million.

No final amount was selected. Some board members favored staying near $90 million, while Christiansen suggested a figure between $100 million and $115 million could let the district complete additional work and benefit from construction efficiencies.

The board also recognized that residents need to know exactly what they would receive at each potential referendum amount. Christiansen said that when tax tolerance came up during the focus groups, residents told him they could not choose a responsible dollar amount without knowing which projects would be included: "People had broad concerns about affordability. But in terms of assessing what an appropriate dollar amount was, it really came down to people wanting to know what they were getting for it."

The board is expected to take a formal vote on the referendum question at its next meeting.

Progress worth recognizing

For months, residents have argued that Whitefish Bay should not be forced to choose between supporting excellent schools and protecting Armory Park.

The August 12 discussion shows that there may be another path: a substantially new middle school that meets modern educational needs, preserves the historic heart of the original school, keeps students on campus and leaves Armory Park and the Veterans Memorial intact.

The people who attended meetings, organized, wrote letters, displayed signs, completed surveys and spoke with their neighbors helped change the conversation.

Save Armory Park appreciates the board members and district staff who listened and developed an alternative that appears capable of serving students without sacrificing this irreplaceable public space.

For now, this is a major turning point, and one the entire community helped make possible.

Dear Focus Group Participants,

Thank you again for dedicating your time and energy to our focus group session on July 20th. We are incredibly grateful to the 21 community and extended community members who came together to share their honest feedback, perspectives, and ideas.

Our team has finished thoroughly reviewing the data, notes, and individual responses from our session. Your input was clear, and three primary themes emerged as the most critical priorities for our community at the July 20th focus group:

1. Sacred Ground, History, and Preservation of Armory Park

What we heard: Participants emphasized that the Veterans Memorial and Armory Park sit on hallowed, irreplaceable ground where local soldiers historically trained. The physical location — including its mature trees and original footings — holds value, and community members feel strongly that moving, altering, or building over this space would destroy a vital piece of local history.

The consideration: Respecting the emotional and historical attachment to the existing site is paramount. Securing long-term protections for the green space, such as deed restrictions or park covenants, will be key to addressing community fears of losing this beloved space.

2. Middle School Integration and Safety Concerns

What we heard: Attendees rejected the idea of integrating the memorial into a new middle school campus or co-locating it directly adjacent to student activity. Participants noted that a memorial requires solemnity, quiet reflection, and open public access, which directly conflicts with school operations, student safety concerns, potential noise, and risks of disrespect or vandalism.

The consideration: Co-locating the memorial on a school campus is widely viewed as a non-starter. Demonstrating a preference for a "renovate in place" middle school model — or clearly illustrating how the school footprint will fully respect and remain entirely separate from the memorial space — will be important to earning community backing.

3. Civic Education, Inclusivity, and Process Transparency

What we heard: Participants value the memorial as a living, intergenerational teaching tool for local youth and feel the space is already welcoming and accessible. Rather than physical changes, participants want better integration into local history curricula, clear communication, and transparent plans. Furthermore, attendees noted that cost should not be a barrier for family plaques, as local crowdfunding and civic groups stand ready to assist.

The consideration: Future proposals need to focus on civic engagement and educational partnerships rather than physical site redesigns. Providing early architectural renderings, detailed budgets, and transparent options, alongside maintaining community-backed funding pathways for plaques, will build long-term trust.

Expanding the Conversation

The focus group you attended serves as a vital piece of this puzzle, but was just one part of our broader community listening effort. We also hosted additional discussions with neighbors of the middle school as well as local historical and community stakeholders to ensure we gathered a wide range of viewpoints. We remain in communication with the Village on any possible future plans. In partnership with these targeted conversations, we launched a community-wide survey in July to give all residents an opportunity to weigh in on these critical discussions.

What Happens Next?

Please know that this feedback and data are being delivered directly to District leadership and the School Board to guide next steps over the next few months. We are committed to using your insights to ensure our path forward remains rooted in collaboration, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.

Thank you for taking such an active part in shaping the future of our community.

Warm regards,
Dr. Jamie Foeckler

The Whitefish Bay School District has contacted the Friends of Armory Park to gather our thoughts on the Veterans Monument and Memorial Garden. We would like to answer clearly.

"We, the Friends of Armory Park, do not support a referendum that impacts the Veterans Monument and Memorial Garden at Armory Park."

The Armory Park memorial location and design are not accidental. They were chosen deliberately to honor the history and character of the site.

This land began housing National Guard units in 1908, and the Armory was used by the National Guard units until 1995. On these very grounds lived and trained national guardsmen who served and died in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The memorial architecture honors the Red Arrow Division and features a garden for reflection beneath trees that have stood for roughly a century.

We have reflected and discussed the future. When the district asks where we want the memorial to reside, our answer is simple: The Memorial should remain at Armory Park, where it is now.

We ask the district to consider and seek second architectural firm opinions for the Middle School, including renovating the existing school and construction at alternative sites.

We offer this statement in partnership. We believe the Whitefish Bay School District is capable of excellent schools, while preserving this beautiful park and this lasting memorial so that it may be enjoyed by all Whitefish Bay residents for generations to come. The district asked for our input, and this is it: Improve our schools while saving the current Veterans Monument and Memorial Garden at Armory Park.

At its June 17 meeting, the Whitefish Bay School Board took up the community facilities survey that will shape whether a referendum lands on the November 2026 ballot. The survey is the centerpiece of what the district calls its "listen" phase.

The board spent roughly 90 minutes, from the start of the agenda item just before 8 p.m. to the approval vote at 9:19, working through the survey line by line and rewriting large portions. This is the same survey the board is paying the Donovan Group $30,000 to produce. No one from the Donovan Group was in the room.

Here's how the board got here.

They debated a survey for weeks and decided against one. Then added one at the last minute.

A community survey is not a new idea for this board. It has been on the table since shortly after the April 7 defeat, and the board kept circling it without committing. Through late April and into May, members debated a survey and a community facilitator as the two main tools for understanding why the referendum failed.

In early May, after weeks of internal back-and-forth, the board moved away from the survey — some members wanted structured feedback, others raised concerns about timing and cost, and it did not move forward.

The listening question came up again in mid-May, when the board issued a request for proposals for two separate roles: a community engagement facilitator and a communications firm. Members described the facilitator as the priority, with one calling it "essential," while voicing unease about hiring someone to help "sell" a referendum.

Then, on May 27, the board hired the communications firm and no facilitator, and committed $30,000 to the Donovan Group on a timeline built around placing a question on the November ballot in early August.

The board debated a survey and declined it. It set up a process to hire a listening facilitator and then hired none. And now, having backed away from the survey twice, it has commissioned one in the middle of summer — the exact timing its own consultant warned against.

The consultant told them summer was the wrong time

The warning is on the record, from the firm the district is paying. At the May 27 meeting, board president Kristin Bencik-Boudreau asked Donovan Group partner Brian Nicol about surveys.

He advised a simple survey from his experience: how did you vote, and why? But he cautioned that surveying in Wisconsin over the summer would hurt the response rate, and he said the prospect gave him pause from his own experience running referendum campaigns.

"I would not be giving good advice if I didn't say surveying in Wisconsin in the summer will absolutely impact your response rates. I get a little heartburn over that from my own personal experience." — Brian Nicol, the Donovan Group, May 27

The window Nicol flagged as the weakest for getting a representative response is exactly the window the district chose. A survey whose results may not be representative because of when it runs is then set to become the evidence base for a $90 million-plus November referendum decision.

The Donovan Group is the Wisconsin public-relations firm the district hired in late May to run referendum communications. The contract is for $30,000.

According to the timeline the firm provided, the district works with Donovan every week on survey revisions, postcards, and deadlines, with the survey open through July, data analysis in early August, and results presented to the board on August 12.

The professional survey writing is the product. What the board did at this meeting was take the draft that product produced and substantially rebuild it.

A live rewrite of a professional draft

In introducing the survey, Bencik-Boudreau said she "didn't like how it was laid out" and invited comments from board members.

The demographic section came apart immediately. The group reworked how the children-in-school question was structured, argued over whether grandchildren should count, whether to break out residents who attended Whitefish Bay schools themselves, and whether the answers should be "select all that apply" or yes-or-no.

From there the board moved through the questions one at a time, rewording the language on the failed April referendum, debating whether to describe it as "not approved" versus "rejected." (They went with "not approved.")

They rewrote the middle school location description paragraph through multiple read-alouds, and re-litigated how to phrase the question about why residents voted no. Much of the meeting was spent on word choice, sentence structure, and tense.

Brett Christiansen, who pushed many of the edits, argued that the firm "didn't give a survey" the board could simply accept, and that without anyone from Donovan present to explain the reasoning, he was not willing to defer to the draft as written.

Dan Tyk made the same observation from the opposite angle. In the middle of a long stretch of the board rewording questions one phrase at a time, he said: "I'm okay at going through this, but I think the more we think about this, we hired a firm. When we start wordsmithing, we're taking… we should have just written the survey then. They do this professionally. There's reasons behind why they wrote it."

"When we start wordsmithing… we should have just written the survey then. They do this professionally. There's reasons behind why they wrote it." — Dan Tyk, Whitefish Bay School Board

When listening drifts into "push polling"

A survey in a genuine listening phase is built to measure what people already think. A push poll, by contrast, is a technique that attempts to shape opinion under the guise of asking for it, by putting a persuasive premise in front of the respondent and inviting agreement. The term is used broadly for legitimate surveys that lean on leading questions. The common thread is wording that "pushes" the respondent toward a predetermined response.

To be clear, this survey is not a push poll in the strict sense. The board plainly wants real data, and several members fought hard to keep the questions neutral. Yet at several points the drafting drifted toward the leading end of that spectrum, with questions that carried a premise rather than testing one. To the board's credit, members caught some of them.

The clearest example was a proposed item on deferred maintenance. The draft language argued that including the projects in a November 2026 question would "allow the district to save money on maintenance and construction costs," with the alternative framed as paying more later.

Dan Tyk put the problem plainly, saying the language amounted to telling residents that delaying "may cost more to try to drive a certain response," and that this "should be information," not a survey question. Another member said simply that the section did not fit and did not belong. The board voted to strike it.

Nate Christenson made a related point about the survey behaving like a sales pitch: a question that effectively tells a resident "spend $6,000 more and you get this" is an upsell, not a measure of what people can afford. And when the district is asking residents how much they can invest, "we just need to ask the question."

The same pattern showed up in the survey's framing language. The introduction told residents their feedback "will directly decide" the November ballot question. Christiansen objected that the phrase was too strong and pushed to soften it to "help inform," noting the ballot question itself is only potential at this stage. The board agreed and changed it.

The question about the middle school carried a version of the same problem. Before residents were asked their view, the survey described the April plan in the district's own favorable terms — a new school built "over a portion of Armory Park" that would "recreate and honor the Veterans Memorial." That is the language the district used to sell the plan, and it leaves out cutting down mature, decades-old trees and uprooting the existing Veterans Memorial, with no plan for what replaces it.

Not every edit pushed the survey toward persuasion, and voices in the room often pushed the other way. Tyk in particular kept returning the conversation to its stated purpose, saying that in the listening phase "we should not be telling anybody anything."

Where were the $30,000 consultants?

The absence of the firm hung over the exercise, and more than one member named the contradiction. The district paid $30,000 for professional survey design, then spent an evening overriding that design without the designers present.

"This is a considerable amount of money that we're spending in a short period of time, and I just, I get worried that they're not as engaged," Tyk said.

Christiansen, even while voting yes, said he wished Donovan had been present to walk the board through what happens if the response sample turns out not to be representative, so members could prepare rather than scramble to interpret the results "in real time." When a staff member offered reassurance that the firm's analyst is invested and does this work nationwide, Tyk did not let it go. "They're not here. I get concerned," he said.

"They're not here. I get concerned." — Dan Tyk, Whitefish Bay School Board

A staff member responded that the Donovan Group "would have liked to be here tonight" but had other obligations. The survey passed anyway.

What happens next

The district has built its November timeline around a "listen, learn, launch" framework that treats the survey as the objective signal that tells the board what the community will support.

The board also declined to run a survey twice before reversing course. It put the survey in the field during the summer months its own paid consultant explicitly warned would depress response rates. It then assembled the questions itself, with framing members repeatedly flagged as leading, while the professionals hired to write it were not in the room.

Results will be gathered through July, analyzed in early August, and presented on August 12. The board will then have roughly two weeks to turn those results into a potential ballot question for November.

Then the 70-to-75-day sprint will begin.

The board must decide on a November 3, 2026 referendum question by mid-August. In that compressed timeline, the district has only so far discussed how to repackage the April 7 plan that was already voted down.

The board said as much, in its own words.

During a debate over how to word the focus group questions, board president Kristin Bencik-Boudreau pushed back on language that might suggest the district was rethinking its approach: "We're not proposing anything new."

"We're not proposing anything new." — Kristin Bencik-Boudreau, Whitefish Bay School Board President

The projects themselves, by the board president's own account, are the same ones voters rejected 52–48 on April 7. The only site concept shown at the meeting was the Armory Park site. District architect Nick Kent presented memorial concepts designed around the new middle school footprint from the failed referendum.

The village is asking questions

The most consequential development of the night involved land the district doesn't own. The Village of Whitefish Bay has asked the school district for a memorandum of understanding, requested visual examples of what a relocated veterans memorial could look like, and wants the district to choose between two options: building the memorial into the new school's exterior, or placing it on reallocated green space.

Before April, the district presented the Armory Park site as the plan without any executed agreement with the village. Now the village wants commitments in writing before anything moves.

Superintendent Dr. Jamie Foeckler framed the MOU as hypothetical work if this plan were to advance: "You have to do the homework in order to have that in place, otherwise you get to the point where you're making decisions" without it. Asked when the village needs an answer, Foeckler said: "Preferably… by the end of August, we would have a question already determined."

In this timeline, the agreement enabling a school on Armory Park is being drafted in parallel with the listening sessions.

The tension between planning and listening

The central tension in the discussion was between the push to move forward with ideas for a plan that resembled April 7, without yet discussing with the community and stakeholders for the memorial.

The strongest caution came from board member Pam Woodard, who reminded her colleagues who owns the park land. The district, she said, "may or may not go back to ask for land that we do not own — the village does — in order to have it even be reconsidered."

On relocating the veterans memorial, Woodard declined to commit without hearing from the people who built it: "I guess I can't fully commit to that… without joining the group that designed it and spent time" on it, along with "key stakeholders." She emphasized that the block's history "has been a key part of how we've been able to educate students in this community for many, many years." She also pushed for the focus groups to come before any return to dollar figures — the point, she said, is "to hear from them prior to taking that next step of continued specifics and dollars."

Board member Sandy Saltzstein framed the sessions the same way, pushing back when the discussion drifted toward re-presenting the projects: the purpose "is to hear from them, not to be talking about projects" — to learn the community's perception of the district's needs and constraints, not to pitch a plan.

Christenson made the sequencing explicit, saying the idea is "we're collecting community feedback before" the board lands on a question.

And board member Brett Christiansen acknowledged what vagueness cost last time. Talking to residents before April, he recalled hearing that assurances about the memorial — "well, it will be something" — "didn't necessarily help" win over "people who had an attachment to that" space.

Board member Dan Tyk pushed in the same direction on how the focus groups themselves should be run. "I personally, I think I'm hoping it's open-ended, like what it's sort of a way of saying, like, what brought you here tonight," he said — favoring a session that lets participants set the terms rather than respond to district prompts.

That's most of the seven-member board, on the record, insisting the community gets heard before the district recommits.

The alternatives that weren't in the room

Despite only one plan being discussed, other options for middle school upgrades do exist. They were raised throughout the spring campaign, and some were studied in the district's own multi-year planning process. None of them came up at this meeting:

Renovating the existing middle school. The district's own Facilities Condition Assessment documents the building's needs — accessibility, HVAC, infrastructure. Addressing them in place, on land the district already owns, is the default alternative to demolition. It received no discussion.

Splitting the question. Roughly $88 million of the April package — ADA upgrades, safety and security improvements, HVAC and infrastructure work at Cumberland, Richards, the high school, and Lydell — had broad community support. A two-question referendum would let voters fund that work without it being tied to the contested new building in November. It received no discussion.

The board's own deliberations before April included scenarios at a range of scopes, locations and price points, meaning multiple versions of this plan have existed on paper. Yet the only concept presented at this meeting, the only land deal being negotiated, and the only project list headed to the focus groups is the one voters rejected on April 7.

Next steps

The first session runs June 16: 16 tables, 16 moderators, at least four registered participants per table, with district administrators or partner groups taking notes. Each question gets two timed minutes per participant before open discussion. Themes will be compiled, emailed to participants, and posted on the district website.

The three questions, after revision: why you voted the way you did in April; what stands out as the district's greatest needs and constraints; and thoughts on tax impact and tax tolerance, kept separate from specific projects.

A key question remains: Is the only plan being considered the one voters already rejected?

The board approved the hire at its May 27 meeting (see our full recap) without taking up a separate proposal for a community engagement facilitator. The split outcome — communications hired, listening facilitator not — has been the subject of public debate among board members, several of whom have said the district needs to listen to voters before deciding whether and when to return to the ballot.

At the May 27 meeting, board member Nate Christenson described the dynamic directly: "This is not listening, this is telling," he said, adding that "building up tools to tell" was different from the listening period the board had committed to.

The Donovan Group's proposal, dated May 20 and signed by a partner at the firm, lays out the scope of work and the proposed timeline.

What's in the $30,000 package

The contract covers what the firm labels "Scope B Only: Referendum Consulting, Planning, and Communication." That includes weekly referendum consulting meetings, up to three mailers, one video production, social media planning, copywriting and design, and travel-related expenses. The fee is a fixed $30,000 with no overages, the firm says.

A calendar built around a November referendum

The proposal's most detailed section is its proposed timeline, organized month-by-month leading up to a vote on November 3, 2026. The following is a general communications calendar for a November 2026 referendum.

The template itself is structured around the assumption of a November ballot question. In June and July, the firm would create a "communication roadmap, including key messages," build a referendum webpage with FAQs, and email parents about district needs.

The August entry begins: "Board votes to place the question on the ballot (per legal advice)." From there, the firm would distribute a news release announcing the referendum and the ballot question, create the first of three mailers, begin a social media campaign, and produce a one-page fact sheet on the tax impact of the referendum.

"Board votes to place the question on the ballot (per legal advice)." — Donovan Group proposal, August 2026 timeline entry

In September, mailer #1 would be distributed to every residential address in the district, mailer #2 would be created, the social media campaign would continue, and a guest article from the board president would be sent to local media. October would include distribution of mailer #2 and email reminders to all parents.

The timeline does not lay out an alternative track for a scenario in which the board, after gathering more community input, decides not to return to the ballot in November, or how to incorporate any feedback from listening sessions into the ballot question. The general calendar moves from a June/July roadmap to an August ballot vote without intermediate decision points.

Two scopes, one hire

The district's request for proposals had asked firms to bid on two separate categories of work: Scope A (community engagement facilitation) and Scope B (marketing and communications). The Donovan Group submitted a proposal "in response to Scope B only," according to the firm's letter of interest to Superintendent Dr. Jamie Foeckler.

The district's own RFP acknowledged that engaging the community and communicating a referendum were separate skill sets, calling for separate firms. After the May 22 interview process, the review committee recommended Donovan for Scope B. No finalist was brought forward for Scope A.

The board has committed paid resources to communications but has not, so far, hired anyone to facilitate the listening process several members described as a priority. Two community focus groups are scheduled for June 16 and July 14.

The May 27 outcome marked a reversal from the board's May 13 discussion, when board member Lynn Raines had called the facilitator role "essential" and members had advanced the RFP with the facilitator described as the priority. At that earlier meeting, multiple members had expressed unease about communications help and the perception of paying someone to "sell" a referendum.

This follows a similar pattern from earlier in May, when the board moved away from a community survey after weeks of internal debate. Some members had been in favor of a survey to gather structured feedback on why the April referendum failed; others raised concerns about timing and cost. The survey did not move forward.

What's next

At the May 27 board meeting, the firm's representative described its role as helping districts during what he called "that 70- to 75-day sprint from that board vote to election day." The proposed timeline lines up almost exactly with that sprint.

The board's next facilities planning discussion is scheduled for June 10. Members have not formally decided whether to commit to a November 2026 referendum, what dollar amount to bring forward, or whether additional steps to gather community feedback will precede that decision.

The contract the district has signed is built around a template for that November timeline — leaving open the question of whether the listening process several board members have called for will fit within it.

The full Donovan Group proposal was obtained through an open records request to the Whitefish Bay School District. Download the full proposal (PDF).

The board voted to bring on the Donovan Group, a Milwaukee-based firm whose lead partner has run dozens of school referendum campaigns, for referendum-related communication services. The firm works exclusively with public schools and districts on communications planning, surveys, crisis communications, and referendum campaign consulting.

📄 Related: Our analysis of the $30,000 Donovan Group contract, obtained through an open records request, examines the firm's month-by-month timeline and what it reveals about the path forward.

The search for a facilitator to lead community engagement sessions produced no finalist. The split outcome came during a three-hour meeting marked by a recurring disagreement among board members over whether the district is genuinely listening to voters in the wake of the failed April referendum, or preparing to tell them what it has already decided.

"This is not listening, this is telling"

The tension surfaced early, during a discussion of a proposed memorandum of understanding with the Village of Whitefish Bay regarding potential future use of Armory Park — the same village-owned land at the center of the defeated referendum.

Superintendent Dr. Jamie Foeckler explained the MOU would only take effect if the community eventually approved a project, and was intended to put prior verbal understandings in writing. To some board members, formalizing an agreement over Armory Park signaled the district was again heading down the path of the plan voters had just rejected.

Nate Christenson questioned the timing. "Proceeding with the memorandum of understanding now, like before we've gone through the process of garnering community feedback, I am not sure," he said. "I think doing it now is premature."

Board President Kristin Bencik-Boudreau disagreed, framing the document as informative rather than premature. "I think it's good to have that going into these discussions, because I think people can look at it and say, well, this is what if we go through with it, this is what would happen with the village," she said.

Dan Tyk took a middle position, saying the MOU answered a legitimate question — whether the land was even available — while urging restraint. "I also think we have to proceed with caution, right? Like, we haven't heard from the community again," Tyk said.

"I also think we have to proceed with caution, right? Like, we haven't heard from the community again." — Dan Tyk, Whitefish Bay School Board

But Tyk also pushed the board to keep its eye on the decision it ultimately has to make. The board's job, he said, was to settle on a referendum figure it believes represents the best option and can defend to the voters who elected it.

"We know 135 million was too much. We know that," Tyk said, arguing the number "is what drives this entire process" and that the board needed to decide what amount it was willing to bring to constituents.

Christenson returned to the point more pointedly as the conversation expanded to include possible renderings of the Armory Memorial and project visuals. He said he wanted to build on a concern Lynn Raines had raised.

"I thought that we had decided as a board to go through a period of listening," he said. "This is not listening, this is telling, right? Like building up these images, doing this memorandum of understanding. It's not, it's not listening, it's building up tools to tell, which is fine, right?"

"This is not listening, this is telling, right? Like building up these images, doing this memorandum of understanding. It's not, it's not listening, it's building up tools to tell, which is fine, right?" — Nate Christenson, Whitefish Bay School Board

Bencik-Boudreau interjected that "It's communicating me as a board feel is the best option."

Christenson pressed the distinction. "Yeah, but that's different," he said. "My only point is that's different than listening, and if that's what the board wants to do, that's fine. I was just trying to point out and make explicit that it is not listening."

He said he was not necessarily opposed to the approach, but wanted the board to be clear-eyed about it. "If people come to us and say … you didn't listen, you're just trying to tell us what you had already decided — that's okay, if that's what we decide to do," Christenson said. "But I just want to make it very clear that I think that's what this" process was.

A reversal on facilitator and communications

The most consequential action came late in the meeting. Foeckler reported that the district posted requests for proposals on May 14 for two services — community engagement facilitation and communication services — and received two proposals for each. A review committee conducted interviews on May 22.

The committee brought forward a Donovan Group partner as its recommended finalist for the communication services role. For the facilitator role, Foeckler said, the committee "did not have a finalist to bring to the board."

That outcome marked a shift from the board's May 13 meeting, when members had advanced the RFP with the facilitator described as the priority — Raines had called it "essential" — while expressing unease about communications help and the perception of paying someone to "sell" a referendum.

At that meeting, Tyk had asked that the word "marketing" be struck from the proposal, and Woodard had said marketing "will come from other outside groups. That's not our role."

The firm's representative, Brian Nicol, told the board he had been the lead partner on 43 referendum campaigns in Wisconsin over the past four years. He previously spent 17 years in the Howard-Suamico School District near Green Bay, nine of them as communications director.

He described the firm's role as ensuring "every voter is an informed voter."

"We really don't believe referendums fail," he said. "Referendums are just solutions that aren't supported." He added that should the board bring a question forward, the firm would help during what he called "that 70- to 75-day sprint from that board vote to election day."

Asked by Bencik-Boudreau about surveys — an option the board has repeatedly debated and not resolved — he urged caution about the timing.

"I would not be giving good advice if I didn't say surveying in Wisconsin in the summer will absolutely impact your response rates," he said. "I get a little heartburn over that from my own personal experience."

"I would not be giving good advice if I didn't say surveying in Wisconsin in the summer will absolutely impact your response rates. I get a little heartburn over that from my own personal experience." — Brian Nicol, the Donovan Group

He drew on his Howard-Suamico experience to make the case for surveying anyway. "In 2017 in Howard-Suamico, we failed our first operational referendum question," he said, noting the district put a survey in the field three days later and a second one weeks after that.

The first survey, he said, was essentially two questions: how did you vote, and why don't you think it passed. He said it helped the district move "from thinking we knew what we knew to knowing" — testing whether factors like tax impact, the project's location, or an overall dollar amount above $100 million were really what drove the result.

Throughout his remarks, the firm's framing centered on what it takes to pass a referendum — the "70- to 75-day sprint" to election day, ensuring "every voter is an informed voter," and a track record across dozens of Wisconsin campaigns. That emphasis stood in contrast to the listening-first process several board members had said must come before any decision to return to the ballot.

The board approved the Donovan Group for communication services on a motion from Saltzstein, seconded by Raines, with no opposition or abstentions. No facilitator was approved.

The absence of a facilitator left a larger question unresolved: how the board would gather resident feedback before moving toward another ballot question.

A call for systematic feedback

Lynn Raines voiced frustration with that gap, arguing the board still lacked a consistent method for gathering community input.

"There has to be a systematic way of gathering that information that all seven of us have access to," Raines said. "I think that we have to remain very committed to finding a way forward to get feedback from the community around why people voted no and what would people vote yes for."

Bencik-Boudreau cautioned that focus groups alone would not provide a representative picture. "Any focus group we do is a small percent of the population. You will not reach everyone," she said.

"Focus groups and going out in the community is a good way to spread information, but it's not a way to get a really good feel for what the community is feeling."

Brett Christiansen argued the board's near-term job was to listen, but that doing so required first grounding the conversation in facts. "We need to make sure that our communication, the goal of our communication is not to persuade," he said.

"We're not saying we think this is the best right now, and you should do it. We're saying in April we thought it was the best. This is how we arrived at that. Let us now, as a community, take it from there."

He framed the stakes in terms of residents who felt shut out of the first referendum. "There's somewhere between five and 20% of the voting public who just felt left out, and they want to talk about it, and they don't have an opportunity to talk about it," Christiansen said.

"And they're angry, and they're disillusioned with the process, and they feel like we're sitting in an ivory tower making choices and not including them."

"They're angry, and they're disillusioned with the process, and they feel like we're sitting in an ivory tower making choices and not including them." — Brett Christiansen, Whitefish Bay School Board

Timeline and next steps

The board confirmed two community focus groups, scheduled for June 16 and July 14 from 6 to 7:30 p.m. at the middle school. A flyer and postcard alerting residents and inviting them to sign up went to the printer and were expected to arrive in mailboxes within days.

Much of the discussion centered on how to present cost and project information without repeating what several members viewed as mistakes from the first referendum survey.

Christenson argued against attaching specific dollar figures to specific projects, warning it would "compound the question" and make responses harder to interpret. Christiansen countered that residents needed to understand trade-offs — that declining to fund a project now could push costs into the operating budget later, affecting staffing or programming.

A memo from Superintendent Jamie Foeckler laid out three project options for the board to consider, each built around a new middle school and described as a more targeted scope than the defeated proposal.

The options ranged from a $90.2 million net ask to $111.5 million, with safety, fire-protection, and HVAC work added in steps. All three figures are net of more than $17 million the district has already committed from its own capital funds.

The memo asked board members whether that range "accurately captures the spectrum of possibilities" they are willing to consider for a November question.

The board also declined, for now, to send members to set up tables at farmers markets and community events, with Raines, Woodard, and Bencik-Boudreau agreeing the approach would not yield systematic data and might be better suited to a later phase once a referendum question is set. The next planning discussion was scheduled for June 10.

Debt-free milestone

In a separate action, the board approved a resolution to redeem its 2013 general obligation refunding bonds and a 2010 state trust fund loan early, on June 29.

The district's business manager said paying off the debt within the current fiscal year would save just over $20,000 in interest and increase the district's projected state aid by roughly $600,000 next year — reducing the amount it would otherwise need to levy from taxpayers. The district will be debt-free after the payment, and board members paused to applaud the milestone.

What's next

The board is scheduled to resume its facilities planning discussion June 10, with the goal of finalizing materials for the June 16 and July 14 focus groups. Members have not decided whether to commission a formal survey, what dollar range to ultimately put before voters, or whether to return to the ballot in November 2026 or wait until spring 2027.

What the board did decide on May 27: it now has a communications partner with deep referendum-campaign experience, and a still-open question about who, if anyone, will facilitate the listening process several members say must come first.

The estimates came as board members debated whether to issue a request for proposals for two related but distinct services: a facilitator to lead community engagement sessions and a communications consultant to help the district explain information to residents as it considers whether to return to voters.

The wording of the final motion also reflected the board's discomfort with the term "marketing." The initial motion referred to "community engagement facilitator and marketing communication support."

During a brief exchange before the vote, board members noted that the proposal title included "community engagement facilitation and marketing communication services." Dan Tyk interjected, "But we want to get rid of marketing," and the board appeared to accept that clarification before voting.

The board ultimately approved moving forward with an RFP for community engagement facilitation and communications support, though members repeatedly emphasized that issuing the RFP does not commit the district to hiring anyone.

The discussion followed the defeat of the district's previous $135.6 million referendum, which included a new middle school at Armory Park along with other safety, security and infrastructure projects. At a May 5 meeting, board members had already begun moving away from an immediate post-referendum survey and toward a facilitated engagement process, while also discussing possible PR, marketing or communications help.

The price tag

Board President Kristin Bencik-Boudreau opened the May 13 discussion by noting that the board now had a clearer price range.

Administrators said the facilitator estimate was based on work with other districts and the district's past strategic planning process. The $20,000 to $30,000 range would cover two community engagement sessions, plus possible work between sessions during June and July.

Several board members supported seeking proposals, saying the process would help the district understand what services are available and at what cost.

Tyk cautioned that publicly discussing estimates could affect bids, but said he supported issuing the RFP. "The whole purpose behind being an RFP is really to get somebody to say, like, tell us what you have and how much it's going to cost," Tyk said. "Just because we put the RFPs out does not mean we have to go with either of them."

Nathan Christenson made a similar point, saying the RFP would be "information gathering" rather than a binding commitment. If the responses come back and do not appear worthwhile, he said, the board could decide not to proceed.

"Selling" a referendum

Bencik-Boudreau and others acknowledged the sensitivity around hiring communications help after a failed referendum. She said there is already community concern that such a hire could be viewed as paying someone to "sell" a referendum. "There's some community talk about selling a referendum that can be perceived very negatively," she said. "I think we have to tread lightly."

"There's some community talk about selling a referendum that can be perceived very negatively. I think we have to tread lightly." — Kristin Bencik-Boudreau, Whitefish Bay School Board President

Sandy Saltzstein said she was sensitive to that concern but favored asking for both skill sets in the RFP so the board could understand its options. "It isn't that we're trying to sell something as much as it is that we're trying to have a very healthy two-way communication from the community and the board," Saltzstein said.

Tyk also pushed back on the idea that communications help would mean selling the referendum. He said the district needed to better explain why it believes a new middle school is necessary rather than renovating the existing building. "For me, the sell is not selling," Tyk said. "It's like, how do we tell our story better?"

He added that some residents still say they do not understand why the district needs a new middle school. "One at a time, we can, you know, pick off those people and try to explain that story," Tyk said, "but we probably … need somebody to help us tell that story better in a way that's digestible to the community."

Lynn Raines strongly supported seeking a facilitator, calling it "essential." "We owe it to our community," Raines said. "I think this is an absolute way of trying to find as much communication from all perspectives within our community."

Pam Woodard said she could support a facilitator and saw value in learning what communications firms might offer, but warned that the district should be clear about the distinction between neutral engagement and referendum advocacy. "I don't see this as marketing," Woodard said. "I consider that trying to tell the information in a way that is understandable for all to make their decision. Marketing will come from other outside groups. That's not our role."

"I don't see this as marketing. I consider that trying to tell the information in a way that is understandable for all to make their decision." — Pam Woodard, Whitefish Bay School Board

What's next

The May 13 action builds on the May 5 discussion, when board members appeared to move away from a formal survey after questioning whether one could be designed well enough on the district's compressed timeline. At that meeting, Woodard warned against framing the decision as better PR versus public input, saying, "Survey, no survey, we need to engage the community and give them an opportunity to share with us: I voted no because…"

Raines, meanwhile, continued to raise the concern of how the district would hear from residents unlikely to attend a board meeting or public forum. "I just continue to go back to the importance of really trying to reach every household in Whitefish Bay," she said at the May 5 meeting.

By the end of the May 13 discussion, Bencik-Boudreau summarized the board's direction as clear support for a facilitator and majority support for also including communications services in the RFP.

The board then approved the RFP, keeping both pieces in play as the district prepares for community engagement this summer and weighs whether, when and how to return to voters with another facilities referendum.

The discussion followed the defeat of the district's previous $135.6 million referendum proposal, which included a new middle school at Armory Park along with other safety, security and infrastructure projects. Board members broadly agreed that the middle school remains a major priority, but they wrestled with whether the next step should be a survey, town halls, focus groups, a communications consultant, or some combination of those tools.

The conversation marked a subtle shift from the board's April 26 working session, where members repeatedly emphasized the need to gather more input before returning to the ballot. At that meeting, board members discussed surveys, focus groups and listening sessions as complementary tools, and several members warned against rushing into another referendum without better understanding why voters rejected the April proposal.

At the April meeting, Pamela Woodard said the board needed to take the result seriously, noting that some residents questioned whether the ask was "too high" or "too much." Sandy Saltzstein raised concerns that previous focus groups had occurred too early to inform decisions about specific projects, locations or siting.

Dan Tyk was especially direct at the April meeting about the risk of ignoring survey results. He noted that the board had gone above the $125 million level where the prior survey had shown majority support, saying, "if we're going to do a survey we cannot sway from what the community tells us in that survey this time, because we will erode trust." He also cautioned that the board had "stretched beyond" what the community had indicated it might support and said, "we have to be very cautious about doing that again this time."

By contrast, the latest Committee of the Whole discussion showed the board moving away from an immediate formal survey and toward a facilitated listening process and potential help with PR, marketing or "crisis communication." Board members still talked about the need to hear from residents, but the conversation increasingly focused on whether a survey could be done well on the timeline, whether a facilitator or communications consultant was needed, and how quickly the district could organize community sessions before a possible November referendum.

Survey support fades amid timeline concerns

Board members were divided over whether a survey would help clarify the path forward. Nathan Christenson said he was skeptical of the draft survey, calling it "a bit unfocused" and questioning what the board would do with the results. W. Brett Christiansen said a survey could theoretically help the board understand why residents voted no or what they might support, but he questioned whether the board had enough time to design a survey that could answer either question well.

"I don't think a survey is a good idea," Christiansen said, because the board could not do either of those two purposes well under the current constraints.

Sandy Saltzstein, who said she had initially been leaning toward supporting a survey, also expressed concern about the timeline. She pointed to the lengthy process used to create the previous survey and questioned whether the board could produce something equally thoughtful under the current time pressure.

"I am feeling challenged on the timetable that we have to be able to provide that kind of thought to it," Saltzstein said. She suggested the board might instead build on what it had already learned and focus on "the community questions that have been raised by the question not passing."

Tyk said he had also moved away from supporting an immediate survey after reading messages from residents, including one from someone with survey experience. He floated the possibility of using the survey money — cited as costing $9,600 through School Perceptions — toward someone who could help guide or facilitate community conversations.

One board member noted that "a PR person is going to be more than that," and Tyk agreed. "That would be fair," he said, "but if that's the route we're looking anyways, we could put it towards that."

Woodard cautioned against framing the choice as survey versus public relations. "I don't want the impression be that we'd rather do better PR than hear from people," Woodard said. "Survey, no survey, we need to engage the community and give them an opportunity to share with us: I voted no because…"

"I don't want the impression be that we'd rather do better PR than hear from people. Survey, no survey, we need to engage the community and give them an opportunity to share with us: I voted no because…" — Pamela Woodard, Whitefish Bay School Board

Lynn Raines continued to press the question of how the board would hear from residents who are unlikely to attend a town hall or board meeting. "I just continue to go back to the importance of really trying to reach every household in Whitefish Bay," Raines said. "And if we don't do a survey, how do we propose that we do that?"

Listening and marketing discussed

The discussion eventually turned toward a more structured listening process. Board members voiced concerns about holding open-ended town halls without a clear format. Board President Kristin Bencik-Boudreau said she did not want an unstructured format for town halls.

"I'm worried about town halls. I don't want to say an open, blank town hall. We need a lot more structure," she said. "We need to get our message out and say, What will you vote for now? Not necessarily, why did you vote for no before? It really doesn't matter at this point. Because we're moving forward with the new referendum, if we go to referendum."

"We need to get our message out and say, What will you vote for now? Not necessarily, why did you vote for no before? It really doesn't matter at this point." — Kristin Bencik-Boudreau, Whitefish Bay School Board President

"I do think we need to talk about what we want to do as far as a marketing person," Bencik-Boudreau said, "because I don't think just sitting down with community members is going to get us where we would need to be, either."

Christenson suggested the board may need a plan and someone who could help phase the process, while Christiansen emphasized the need to explain tradeoffs clearly — including whether residents would prefer a larger project now or a smaller referendum followed by additional needs later.

Woodard pushed back on the idea of presenting options too early, saying the board should listen before bringing specific packages to the community. "I don't want to have options going into, you know, like a town hall," Woodard said. "Because then we have not listened first."

The Armory Park location remained one of the unresolved tensions in the conversation. The district's earlier facilities planning process had considered multiple middle school options, including rebuilding or renovating the existing middle school in place, attaching a new middle school to the high school, building on a closed Henry Clay Street and tennis courts, and building on the tennis courts, Armory Park and Armory Memorial site.

In the August 2025 options development presentation, the Armory Memorial/Tennis Courts option was listed at $67.7 million, while other middle school options ranged from $66.9 million to $68.2 million, with infrastructure-only work at the existing middle school listed at $21.7 million. Other possibilities were also considered, including a new middle school at the Lydell site, a new middle school on the Armory lacrosse field, and a new middle school bridging over Henry Clay.

That earlier process ultimately led to the broader $135.6 million referendum package centered on the Armory Park/Tennis Courts middle school plan, which voters rejected.

The April 26 board discussion had a more cautionary tone, with members acknowledging the need to better understand whether voters objected primarily to cost, scope, timing, location, process or some combination of those factors. Tyk said at that earlier meeting that the board had gone beyond the prior survey's support level and warned that if the board surveyed residents again, it could not "sway from what the community tells us" without further eroding trust.

Tyk said he did not expect most residents would identify Armory Park as the main reason for voting no, but he acknowledged the risk if location concerns were larger than expected. Woodard said if the board learned that Armory Park was an overwhelming barrier, it might need to rethink the plan, revisit other options, or take more time. "If the reason was Armory Park and it was really overwhelming, then we have to think, are we still going to ask people to do that?" she said.

The board also discussed whether a future referendum should be smaller or phased. Woodard said the community had rejected "a pretty aggressive plan" and that, without a survey, the board would be left with anecdotal information about how much opposition was driven by Armory Park. She said the board may need to "peel it back" and focus especially on the middle school if that remains the key priority.

"The community said no to all of the things that we thought were in our 10 to 20 year long range maintenance plan," Woodard said. "So we are, I believe, going to have to peel it back." She added that "coming back with the exact same thing and marketing it better" would not be sufficient.

Raines, meanwhile, continued to support some kind of short survey before moving into focus groups. She said she wanted to know why people voted no and what their appetite was for doing the work all at once, in a condensed version, or in phases over time. "What I was saying was to find out… why people voted no," Raines said, and to understand "the appetite for spending it all now… or layering it out over the years."

What happens next

By the end of the meeting, the board appeared to settle on exploring a facilitator or consultant to help guide the next phase of public engagement. Bencik-Boudreau summarized the emerging direction by asking whether members agreed to "look into a facilitator," and several board members indicated support.

The board also discussed identifying potential dates in June and July, developing questions for community conversations, and improving public-facing information about why renovation of the existing middle school has been viewed as unworkable.

District administrators laid out a possible timeline for hiring outside help. Under one scenario, an RFP could be brought to the board in mid-May, posted soon after, applications could be gathered later in May, interviews could be conducted, and a facilitator could be brought back to the board for approval before a public engagement plan is developed for June.

Board members also discussed ways to make feedback easier to submit, including a Google Form or dedicated email address. Christiansen called for specific outreach to teachers and staff as part of the re-engagement process.

The likely next step is for the administration to determine whether to prepare an RFP for a facilitator or engagement consultant. If the board proceeds on the timeline discussed, it could consider that RFP at an upcoming meeting and potentially approve a facilitator by late May.

The Facilities Committee is also expected to continue working through possible project "buckets," priorities, and information that could be used for a public mailer, website updates, and future community conversations.

The central unresolved question remains whether the board's next referendum proposal will be a revised version of the previous Armory Park plan, a pared-down or phased version, or a broader reconsideration shaped by additional community feedback. The April 26 meeting suggested a board that wanted to listen before deciding. The latest meeting suggested a board still exploring listening, but increasingly focused on how to move quickly, whether to skip a formal survey, and whether PR and marketing needs to be a more central focus.

Board President Kristin Bencik-Boudreau, along with members Dan Tyk, Pamela Woodard, W. Brett Christiansen, Nate Christenson, and Sandy Saltzstein, weighed how to structure that input, what timing would allow for a meaningful process, and which projects from the failed referendum should remain priorities going forward.

Listening to the community

A through-line of the meeting was a stated commitment to hear directly from residents before assembling another referendum package. Board members discussed surveys, focus groups, and listening sessions as complementary tools.

Pamela Woodard emphasized that the board needs to take the April 7 result seriously and engage with the reasons voters said no. "We were told by different people — and the survey may or may not bear this out — that the ask was too high, and just too much," Woodard said. She recounted comments from previous listening sessions and tours where residents expressed confusion about the size and scope of the ask. "Some people just walked up and said 'I don't know, do they need all of this?'" she said.

Brett Christiansen stated the next survey should focus on narratives rather than line-item projects. "I think if we survey based on projects, we will end up similar to a spot where we are where we construct a narrative out of the projects that the community gives us, and then people go, 'Well wait a minute, that's not what I meant when I filled out this piece of data in the survey,'" Christiansen said. He suggested asking residents whether they preferred a single comprehensive ask or smaller, repeated requests over time.

Bencik-Boudreau countered that voters need concrete projects and dollar figures to react to. "We're asking them to spend their money, and I think you have to be more concrete than that," she said. "We have to come up at the end of this with a specific number if we're going to referendum. So we have to have specific projects associated with that specific number."

Sandy Saltzstein raised a sequencing concern in response to Bencik-Boudreau, who had noted that the district conducted listening sessions during the previous campaign. Saltzstein pointed out that the previous round of focus groups had been held too early in the process to inform decisions about specific projects or locations.

"The focus groups, while we did do them previously, they were a little bit earlier in the process, so they weren't really directed at project ideas or even locations or siting or any of that in the feedback that we were getting," Saltzstein said. "It was very much informing some of the prioritization pieces and looking for what our larger projects might be."

Nate Christenson raised concerns about the compressed timeline involved in commissioning another formal survey. The board would need to be ready to send a survey within roughly three weeks, with results not arriving until early August.

"My biggest issue with the survey is that it feels time-crunched to me, because I feel like that's an important data point for all the other work that we're talking about doing," Christenson said.

Tyk reflected on what the previous survey had told the board, and what the board chose to do with that information. "We didn't take the number that the survey gave us," Tyk said. "And yes, economic times changed, and I'm not even convinced that 125 million would have (passed), but I think if we're going to do a survey we cannot sway from what the community tells us in that survey this time, because we will erode trust."

"We didn't take the number that the survey gave us. And yes, economic times changed, and I'm not even convinced that 125 million would have (passed), but I think if we're going to do a survey we cannot sway from what the community tells us in that survey this time, because we will erode trust." — Dan Tyk, Whitefish Bay School Board

Tyk's comments were likely in reference to the referendum question going above the $125 million threshold where a survey indicated a majority of community support.

At the January 22 meeting that set the referendum amount, Tyk and Woodard expressed reservations about the size of the ask going above the majority on the survey. Tyk said: "I don't want this to pass at 50.1% and have 49.9%. I want this to be something that brings the village together behind the schools. And that number from the survey we have is at the time was known to be that $125 (million)."

Tyk compared the board's decision-making to a household weighing what it can afford against what its members might want.

"The same way you would evaluate a project at your home — you're like, 'I would love to put an addition on and add a bathroom,' but the bank will only give me or I only have this," Tyk said. "Yes, my family's telling me they want a swimming pool outside, but I don't have the money to do it. And that's what we did. We said, 'community's telling us, I have this much money potentially for a project.' We said we have this much money, and those are important — those are needs. They're things we need to do, but we didn't have the support to spend the money or the money to do it. We stretched beyond. I voted for it and I supported it. We stretched beyond, and I think we have to be very cautious about doing that again this time. That's my message."

Tyk also raised a related question — whether voters might prefer a series of smaller asks over a single comprehensive package, even if that approach costs more over time.

"I had a conversation about this, and I equated it to people who subscribe to Netflix or Hulu," Tyk said. "Do you want to subscribe for the year — it's cheaper in the long run — or do you want to go month to month and know that in the end it's going to be more expensive, but it's more palatable to do it in those little snippets? The person unequivocally looked at me and said, 'I do everything month to month because I don't like the commitment.' That got me churning. We're planning for 20 years. We're going to try to save the money, but do we need to do it in little bites, and does that make it more palatable — although knowing and transparently trying to explain, in the long run it's going to be far more expensive, especially when you're not talking $20 a month? We're talking much bigger numbers."

Board members generally agreed that a new or substantially renovated middle school should remain the top priority, though the location or scope may be reconsidered in light of sticker shock to the cost and opposition to the proposed location at Armory Park. They emphasized that infrastructure work is still needed across the district regardless of whether a new middle school is built, including boilers nearing the end of their service life, fire alarm and sprinkler systems required for code compliance, and HVAC needs — all cited as work that cannot be deferred indefinitely.

Next steps

Several board members raised concerns about the feasibility of placing a new question on the ballot for November 2026, given the time needed for surveys, focus groups or listening sessions.

Brett Christiansen offered a counterpoint to the case for delay, drawing on his experience working with the Yes for Whitefish Bay Schools advocacy group during the previous campaign.

"With better focus on not just providing a dump of information, but providing the information that people need so that they can feel confident that in November, that voting yes is the right choice, I think we could pass something in November very similar to what we have with a slightly reduced budget," he said.

Nate Christenson pushed back on that approach, saying the board had been discussing a longer timeline to address why the referendum failed. "That's not what we've been talking about," Christenson said. "I don't disagree with you, but what we've been talking about is something different… I just think it's going to be a big push for coming up with a question by the end of August."

The board's facilities advisory sub-committee is scheduled to meet Thursday, May 7.

Information the board indicated it wants before the next major decision includes updated pricing on a renovation-in-place option for the middle school, analysis of phased or split renovation approaches and the cost those carry, sample survey instruments to review before committing to another community survey, and clarification of which projects are dictated by code requirements.

Board members did not formally decide whether to target a November 2026 or April 2027 referendum.

The April 7 vote followed months of community discussion about the referendum, which would have been the most expensive per-capita school referendum on Wisconsin's April ballot. The package included a new middle school on the site of Armory Park alongside other safety, security and infrastructure projects.

Residents who opposed the referendum included veterans, longtime homeowners, young families, parents of current students, and retirees. Common themes included concerns about the cost, the loss of mature trees and green space, the relocation of the veterans memorial, and the size of the project relative to the district's enrollment trends.

Thank you to every Whitefish Bay neighbor who took the time to learn the details, talk with friends and family, and show up to vote.

The conversation continues. The school district is now planning its next steps, and we'll keep covering board meetings and opportunities for residents to share input. Stay subscribed to receive updates as new information becomes available.