Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monticello school board rejects proposal to reimburse $100 student parking fee after tie vote
Summary
The board considered a plan to reimburse the $100 annual high‑school parking fee for students who met attendance and conduct thresholds; the motion failed on a 3‑3 tie under Robert’s Rules, leaving the existing pass system unchanged.
Get email alerts on the Student Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Monticello School Board debated and rejected a proposal to reimburse the $100 annual high‑school parking fee for students who met attendance and conduct criteria.
Administrators — presenting the plan as a 2025–26 option — described a reimbursement for students who achieved a 90% daily attendance rate (or better), fewer than six tardies per trimester (or 18 or fewer across the year), no chemical violations and no parking infractions. Superintendent Olsen said the district and board had worked together on the proposal and that medical accommodations would be available for students with ongoing health conditions.
The proposal included a requirement that students claiming reimbursement complete a form and submit supporting documentation by a summer deadline; board members discussed setting the cutoff near mid‑June.
Board discussion included brief administrative endorsement of the district’s current process. One board member argued the existing parking‑pass system is functioning, saying the administration had not received critical feedback about it. After a motion to adopt the reimbursement program was seconded by Casey Root, the board proceeded to a voice roll call. The chair reported a 3‑3 split; under Robert’s Rules the motion failed on a tie and the current parking‑pass procedure remains.
Why it mattered: The change would have tied a student fee to attendance and behavior incentives and required administrative tracking and a short reimbursement window; opponents raised accounting and implementation timing concerns. The board did not adopt the change and stated the existing policy will continue for the 2024–25 school year.
The next procedural step: Board members were advised that if they wish to revisit the matter, they may bring a revised proposal to a future meeting. The meeting then moved to a work session.

