Eau Claire school board approves some boundary swaps, denies other detachment petitions after public hearing

The Eau Claire Area School Board heard petitions from homeowners and neighboring Durand‑Arkansaw School District officials and issued a mix of approvals and denials on multiple boundary change requests during a public hearing at its regular meeting.

The board voted to deny several homeowner petitions seeking detachment from the Eau Claire Area School District, including requests from Jennifer and Travis Smith, Margo and Bryce Perget, Matthew Malmberg, and Maureen and Scott Merrick. The board approved Sarah and Adam Boss’s petition to attach their property to the Eau Claire district. Separately, the board approved a pair of district‑initiated swaps with Durand‑Arkansaw under the statutory process the administration cited.

The hearing followed the district’s standard boundary petition timeline: petitions are due before Feb. 1 and the board must act by March 1; if the board takes no action the petition is considered denied. Doctor Mark Ellworthy, the district’s lead administrator on boundary petitions, told the board the administration recommended denial of several petitions where alternate avenues were being pursued, including 117.13 land‑swap discussions with Durand‑Arkansaw.

Officials summarized individual outcomes and next steps. Doctor Ellworthy said the district had negotiated an alternate swap path with Durand‑Arkansaw and recommended denial where the swap route was underway. For the Smiths’ petition the board denied the request and then adopted a formal resolution authorizing issuance of an order of denial. The Pergates’ petition was denied and a denial order was adopted. The board likewise denied Malmberg’s and the Merricks’ detachment requests and adopted corresponding orders of denial.

Homeowners spoke at the hearing. Margo and Bryce Perget’s representative described a proposed property swap that would let both families keep their current school alignments; petitioner Bryce Perget said, “My daughter comes here, and we plan on having all our girls come here,” and explained neighbors had agreed to an equal swap so bus service would continue past both homes. Sarah Boss, who requested attachment to Eau Claire, told the board her family’s driveway is in Eau Claire but their house parcel had been placed in Chippewa; she said the family had been open‑enrolling their children for five years, that their children’s friends attend schools in Eau Claire, and that “busing is something I’m really concerned about.” After discussion the board denied the Boss petition on the first motion, then later voted to approve the attachment and adopted an order to alter boundaries in the Bosses’ favor.

The board formalized each decision by adopting resolutions authorizing issuance of orders to detach or attach as applicable. Several approvals involving Durand‑Arkansaw were processed as district‑initiated small‑territory attachments under the administrative pathway the district described at the hearing.

Why this matters: boundary changes affect which school children attend, bus routes, and which district levies property tax revenue. Board members and administrators repeatedly noted the statutory constraints—petitions carry a one‑year waiting period after submission and district swaps require negotiation between districts.

The board’s actions at this meeting close the local stage of several petitions; some petitioners and districts retain the option to appeal to the School District Boundary Appeals Board under state law. The district clerk will issue the formal orders and record the boundary changes with the appropriate local agencies.

Votes at a glance: the meeting record shows these formal actions (motions were followed by voice or roll‑call votes and then by resolutions authorizing issuance of orders): superintendent consent agenda approved (roll call: commissioners recorded as voting yes); board consent agenda approved; motion and roll call to adjourn to closed session (under 19.851 c) approved; closed session action: approved level movement for staff (recorded in open session after reconvening); Smith petition — denied; resolution authorizing issuance of order of denial for Smith — adopted; Perget petition — denied; resolution of denial — adopted; Malmberg petition — denied; resolution of denial — adopted; Merrick petition — denied; resolution of denial — adopted; Boss petition — approved (board adopted order to alter school district boundaries); Durand‑Arkansaw / Smith detachment and Perget detachment and reciprocal attachments — approved and corresponding resolutions adopted. The formal minutes list each adopted resolution and the district will post the signed orders.

Board and staff noted process constraints. Doctor Ellworthy reminded the board that appeals to the State School District Boundary Appeals Board often hinge on educational needs and that district‑to‑district swaps under statute 117.13 provide an alternate avenue to resolve boundary issues when both districts and property owners agree. Several board members said they were sympathetic to petitioning families but constrained by statute, prior appeals, and the need to avoid fracturing contiguous neighborhood boundaries.

The district clerk will publish the adopted orders and record the boundary changes in the district’s public records.