[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6481100,"mediaKeyId","5671280-0aeb4cb1de437cd63f6836e66265d5c0","parentId",5671280,"title","Board approves consent agenda and a $250,000 transfer to employee benefit fund","audioSeconds",5734,"startMs",1284000,"endMs",7018000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5671280-0aeb4cb1de437cd63f6836e66265d5c0&start=1284&end=7018","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5671280-0aeb4cb1de437cd63f6836e66265d5c0/thumbnail_1284000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6481100/Nebraska/Board-approves-consent-agenda-and-a-250000-transfer-to-employee-benefit-fund","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6481100-ebd7ad4137b711edbae31684d66752e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1772958477&Signature=iXhdJt0bYrsd8CoE0qB5UEVCVEwGDP~yMYmhbjcTuhCB1WbigxA6g59jK7oy7KAsl8AnoGp3pSzMHs~HUVYczCiN1iyxY5zSoS8x92d94yj~qZDEj2jxk-vXidPI2dz3O3RE8uXx0jHlZueFfB2z5XmRaCpifMMu6KaFsxw-IG2SIZ0qJY84lkUckN9q5iCfOCmQpfYu3ZCa4~wQmO4kM7zEtul60GWCD7QXz4f-Ae378ndUp4VaaMu8Th4jPEHOPiGJYlMiui~5l6B8Fg6YeyUYepPq5iSfDgp9AiFd~25nWfmrj-awNe0ytMxeJCbpvbTjalwpOBaIu1U5TjfenA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Norfolk Public Schools, NE","date","2025-08-26T07:09:55Z","article","The Norfolk Public Schools Board of Education approved the consent agenda and unanimously passed a motion to transfer $250,000 to the employee benefit fund.

Consent agenda: A motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Tom and seconded by Patty. Board minutes and claims were listed on the consent agenda; two board members declared potential conflicts of interest and said they would abstain from voting on specific claims (claim number 220 and claim number 165) after filing written disclosures with the board secretary. The chair asked members to vote; the motion carried, “6 0,” per the recorded roll call.

Employee benefit fund transfer: Board member Steve moved to transfer $250,000 into the district’s employee benefit fund; Tom seconded. The board discussed that the employee benefit fund is the only fund that may lawfully be used to pay employee benefit costs (health and retirement) if the general fund faces a cash shortfall. Board discussion noted the transfer is an initial step toward a target equal to roughly three months of benefits and that the current balance in the employee benefit fund is small. The motion passed, recorded as 6–0.

Ending: The board adjourned after scheduling statutory budget and tax hearings for Sept. 8, 2025.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Norfolk Public Schools NE Board Meeting 8/25/2025","oneSentenceSummary","At the meeting the board approved the consent agenda and voted to transfer $250,000 into the district’s employee benefit fund to build reserves for benefits and payroll contingencies.","taxTitle","NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, School Districts, Nebraska","taxId",54457,"location","Nebraska","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6481102,"Board hears two superintendent search proposals; NASB and McPherson Jacobson present differing timelines and fees",4281,1411000,5692000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5671280-0aeb4cb1de437cd63f6836e66265d5c0&start=1411&end=5692","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5671280-0aeb4cb1de437cd63f6836e66265d5c0/thumbnail_1411000.jpg","/articles/6481102/Nebraska/Board-hears-two-superintendent-search-proposals-NASB-and-McPherson-Jacobson-present-differing-timelines-and-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6481102-a3a30c57549d046650e8ed715b3313be/orig.mp4?Expires=1772958477&Signature=IGmY3PPn5biDIpdc1TwV1zxGon3su1eKbw~UjQTYQV6lRuzg4eixSUGsR-j-IhZtg6R5Kn3nBxo1KgrUcJ5ZP0QBd6~b6fVV9tXc4R0-QVSoBJWAYJaXgR1g-eQlCYSlnMDMZysLXPU~7uQ10F0VW~gbYrsuM~FDenaIHngYcgO3Qa931FjwAC7i~xe9fEIclaqEkgcmj-wqkGU2IkcjO11frRaAdZsxaQCmtLSAc64KgmY6yZjGZ881H-1xjT5E5yCXzhWlKBl1fDqJuuQRlN3PuJi5kjJceaXHPXvLLrS9WNri-UdHBmD25FRonQ2F8rIfZfBeCecMo-UbqNUiHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Norfolk Public Schools Board of Education heard two proposals for a permanent superintendent search: the Nebraska Association of School Boards (NASB) and national search firm McPherson Jacobson.

Sherry Becker, director of NASB’s search service, outlined NASB’s process: an initial board work session to develop a leadership profile, an electronic stakeholder survey and optional in‑person forums, a comprehensive screening and reference process, assistance with interview logistics, contract negotiation guidance and a two‑year guarantee if the board completes a retreat within the early contract year. NASB’s fee for the search was listed at $9,000 with customary billing of 60% up front and 40% after contract negotiation; travel expenses would be billed separately, Becker said.

John Neal, NASB consultant, and NASB colleague Doctor Veil described NASB’s “comprehensive screening” that extends reference checks beyond candidates’ listed referees: “We reach out to numerous individuals that are either currently working with the candidate or have worked with the candidate, and talk to them about their perspective of that candidate’s work and their strengths,” Veil said.

Dave Barker, representing McPherson Jacobson, described a five‑phase search model that also emphasizes stakeholder engagement, customized criteria, layered reference checks and a leadership‑profile approach. McPherson Jacobson presented a higher fee estimate (approx. $13,500 plus travel) and said more extensive analytics and third‑party survey partners (K12 Insight, Innovate K‑12) could be used for stakeholder surveying and analysis.

Board members asked about survey content and whether students would be surveyed. Becker said NASB typically asks stakeholders about strengths, long‑term challenges, and desired superintendent attributes; she noted that student surveys often produce limited, non‑actionable results and that districts sometimes omit students from the process. Barker said his firm’s partner K12 Insight would handle larger survey administration and provide compiled analytics; he added that stakeholder meetings can be conducted in person or online and surveys can be made available in multiple languages.

On screening depth, both firms described multi‑layered reference approaches. Barker described a short video interview tool (three questions, three minutes each) to give the board an initial sense of candidates’ thinking; NASB described in‑depth phone references beyond submitted letter writers.

Board discussion focused on comparability, cost, local knowledge and reference checks. Several board members said they planned to call references provided by NASB and requested comparable references for McPherson Jacobson to evaluate both firms fairly. The board agreed it would decide on a search firm at its Sept. 8 meeting and that individual board members would check references in the interim.

Ending: No contract award was made. The board scheduled a formal selection vote for its next meeting and directed members to gather reference input beforehand.","The board heard presentations from the Nebraska Association of School Boards and McPherson Jacobson on how each firm would conduct a permanent superintendent search; board members asked about stakeholder surveys, student involvement, screening depth and cost differences and agreed to check references before a Sept. 8 vote.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6481106,"Norfolk Public Schools projects lower operating expenses, prepares levy options after state aid drop",801,377000,1178000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5671280-0aeb4cb1de437cd63f6836e66265d5c0&start=377&end=1178","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5671280-0aeb4cb1de437cd63f6836e66265d5c0/thumbnail_377000.jpg","/articles/6481106/Nebraska/Norfolk-Public-Schools-projects-lower-operating-expenses-prepares-levy-options-after-state-aid-drop","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6481106-7f348ecdc81092bc8f3c83badeb9e1c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1772958477&Signature=YWadJMJz7c-iCiPDVIY9KSs-t8Em11OsXPWX4sR7XglAvKJXw3irZoD0sJkgJsG90e6M4Lduc4fU~~d8q-zX1-Bl5kkucS9H5IStLtWMxiL6p6TaSC0EIxzVyRQROUnm26I7JRAJi9S~okl0ZgTldIt-9PlsWBy5ok7cCmoFsTV8xKWd8LSGRBT1vrJsAAFqHmdpjln5EFJXM876EDW3aGa5-wV~tq5xIj9hodm8HQ8yoKE2TXQ5GHel76XawkfVmcex3xe2ZoipSDoGaMAVXxAL9EW3hs-uK0FTIHTUZed8sLKGp0xpkG35tB5eGTObIekfxWuerJXlP46fZvrxEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Eric Wilson, Norfolk Public Schools finance staff, told the Board of Education that the district’s proposed operating budget for fiscal 2025–26 is $60,749,155 and that staffing accounts for about 84.7% of that total.

Wilson said the district’s property-tax authority would rise to about $39.3 million for 2025–26, reflecting a 13% increase in the district’s assessed valuation. “In 2526, our property tax authority is $39,322,000,” he said, adding the increase is intended to offset a drop in state aid.

The change in state funding is the principal driver of the district’s shortfall. Wilson said the district expects non-property revenue of $22,966,530 — including $7.6 million in state aid, $6.129 million in special‑education reimbursement and $2.7 million in federal grants — and that those amounts reflect certified state figures the district must use in its budget documents.

Why it matters: Norfolk faces a familiar local trade-off — balancing taxpayer burden and program staffing — after a meaningful decline in state and federal support. The board must decide how much of its increased tax authority to use and how much to draw from cash reserves.

Board members pressed staff on specifics and the assumptions that underpin the projections. Wilson said the district budgeted special‑education reimbursement at 80% of prior‑year expenses because the state’s certified figures list that percentage; he added that “I don’t anticipate them changing it now that we’ve had that certified and guaranteed dollars, but it could change in the future.”

Wilson outlined the district’s expense-reduction work dating to November — about $876,000 in targeted cuts through attrition, reductions in contracted services, and trimmed stipends and legal services. He said the district’s operating expenses for 2025–26 represent a 1.24% decrease from the prior year’s budgeted expenses.

Board members discussed levy strategy. A board member summarized the choice this way: the district could rely more on cash reserve to reduce the levy or use more of the newly available tax authority; Wilson said the district currently has authority up to roughly $39.3 million but does not recommend using the full amount and said the district could aim for a levy roughly in the $37 million range.

Wilson cautioned that unused property-tax authority can roll over now but there is no guarantee the state will continue that policy. He also noted longer-term uncertainty in state funding levels: “There’s a budget shortfall in the state right now by about $800,000,000. So there’s a potential for budget revisions… in the short legislative session,” he told board members.

On personnel: Wilson said staffing is the dominant budget driver and that about $51 million of the budget is for payroll; including contracted professional and technical services, “90% of our budget is people.” He also sought to reassure district staff that the current draft budget does not assume additional staff cuts beyond prior actions: “there is no fear that there is gonna be additional budget cuts… that any cuts will be made in staffing. We want them to be assured of that as we move forward,” a board member said in opening remarks referencing staff concerns.

Next steps and timeline: The board has a required budget hearing and a tax hearing scheduled for September 8, 2025 at the central administration offices; the board will set the levy request after considering final valuation figures and public input. Wilson recommended continued work to trim general‑fund expenditures and careful use of cash reserves so the district is not dependent on one‑time funds if valuations or state support fall in a future year.

Ending: The board did not take a final levy vote at the meeting; members said they expected to continue discussion and to present a budget and levy recommendation at a future meeting before the statutory hearings in September.","District finance staff presented a $60.7 million proposed budget for 2025–26, citing a $3.6 million drop in state aid and a 13% rise in property valuation that gives the district increased property tax authority. Board members discussed using cash reserves to limit levy increases.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves consent agenda and a $250,000 transfer to employee benefit fund

Board hears two superintendent search proposals; NASB and McPherson Jacobson present differing timelines and fees

Norfolk Public Schools projects lower operating expenses, prepares levy options after state aid drop