The Elmbrook School District board on Tuesday halted immediate consideration of a $900,000 offer for the former Hillside Elementary property after residents pressed the board for more transparency and stronger protections for the neighborhood.

The board’s decision to postpone indefinitely effectively killed the motion that had been on the table to direct administration to finalize the sale. Earlier in the meeting the board had disclosed that the offer would transfer the property “as is” and that the prospective buyer had discussed starting an adult day‑care center on the site. Board materials and a prior meeting record also showed that a deed restriction barring educational use—originally drafted to run in perpetuity—had been amended to a 10‑year limit.

Why it mattered: dozens of residents who live near the site told the board they first learned of the sale only when a handout arrived in their mailboxes this week or when neighbors circulated word on social media. Speakers raised concerns that posting on the district website and routine agenda notices did not reach elderly neighbors or those who do not use email. Residents also warned that once sold the district would lose leverage over future use and traffic impacts.

Residents’ messages and requests: “I was surprised to learn from a friend that the property was up for sale,” said Wes (first referenced as Wesilla), a neighborhood resident who told the board he attended an earlier listening session and expected the district to keep the land in its portfolio. “The fact that the Hillside sale could have been approved last week without the electorate’s knowledge raises concerns,” he said. Other neighbors asked the board to require demolition timelines in any sale contract to prevent a dilapidated building from becoming a long‑term eyesore.

Board response and rationale: Board members cited two core tensions in their deliberations. Several members described a significant ongoing maintenance burden—roughly $30,000–$50,000 per year to keep the building’s envelope serviceable—and capital investments that could approach high six figures to fully rehabilitate the school. “You take those two numbers—the million dollars to spend on raising the building plus losing $900,000 in revenue—that’s where the $1.9 million figure comes from,” said one board member summarizing the district’s financial analysis.

Other trustees spoke in favor of keeping the land and demolishing the structure, citing long‑term land‑value appreciation and the possibility of preserving the parcel for future public uses. Several trustees also said they were uncomfortable with a deed restriction limited to 10 years and signaled they would prefer a longer or perpetual limitation on school use to prevent a competing school from locating there.

Outcome and next steps: The board voted on a motion to postpone indefinitely the sale action; the motion carried on a voice vote. Separately, the board approved a motion directing the administration to convene a “well‑noticed” community meeting to solicit broader input on possible futures for the property and to consider additional outreach methods (mailers, postcard notifications and surveys) beyond standard website postings. The administration indicated it would explore mailings and other non‑digital outreach and report back to the board with a meeting date and formats for collecting neighborhood feedback.

What remains unresolved: No formal sale was approved. The time sensitivity of the current offer was raised—board members acknowledged a risk that the buyer might withdraw if the district delayed—but the decision to postpone was driven by a desire for more transparent neighborhood engagement and further legal and planning review. Board members said the administrative outreach and the planned community meeting will inform next steps.

Documents and legal notes: Board discussion referenced a previously approved deed restriction limiting educational use for 10 years and parliamentary rules (Robert’s Rules) governing motions and reconsideration. The board also asked staff to check property easements and zoning constraints cited by residents.

The board did not set a final date for action and said it would rely on the results of the community meeting and follow‑up information about easements, zoning, and deed‑restriction language before taking any final vote.