No formal authorization was required to form the original committee. It began as a group of 11 volunteers who share a deep passion for Christian education and for Mt. Olive School. Once formed, the group committed to doing the heavy lifting—focusing on the needs and opportunities identified in the Blueprint Schools report.

This committee does not set policy. Instead, through prayer, thoughtful discussion, and careful research, we provide recommendations to the Mt. Olive Church Council and the Board of Education.

Once Vision 2030 was developed, it received unanimous endorsement and approval from the Mt. Olive Church Council to support the ongoing mission of growing God’s Kingdom through the work at Mt. Olive.

The financial details of Option 2 are still being worked out, but it offers flexibility in how support could be shared—through agreements between congregations, forming a new school entity, or other approaches. Whatever approach is agreed upon, the voters will have the final approval.  The goal is to ensure that financial responsibility is shared fairly among all partners. Ideally, tuition would cover the full cost of running the school, and each congregation could then decide how to assist their member families. To help make tuition affordable, Mt. Olive families would be eligible for need-based financial aid.

Item descriptionYes, it’s possible that Peace could choose to pursue their own school building in the future. However, that decision would be entirely up to them. An agreement between the two churches would likely prohibit Peace from abandoning any financial obligations it may have with Mt. Olive.  At this time, Peace has not expressed interest in starting a separate school. Option 2 is built on the idea that working together allows both congregations to accomplish more than they could on their own to serve the immediate needs for Christian education.

Risen Savior is a great Christian education option in Mankato. If Option 1 is chosen and class sizes at Mt. Olive are capped, many Peace families may naturally choose to enroll at Risen Savior.

The “Year of Jubilee” debt reduction campaign supports Mt. Olive’s future, no matter which option is chosen. With about $1.7 million in current debt at a high interest rate, reducing that debt remains a key stewardship goal. This campaign will wrap up within the next year and is expected to lead into new fundraising efforts that align with our future plans.

At this stage, it would be premature to provide a definitive answer, as several factors will need to be carefully evaluated before decisions of this nature are made. Your concern is valid and appreciated, and I am confident that Mt. Olive will take it into serious consideration as future decisions are discussed.

Several of our voters have asked….

The Mt. Olive Church Constitution and Bylaws (Section 4.5) prohibit absentee and proxy voting under normal circumstances. While the bylaws do allow for absentee or remote voting through a special resolution on a case-by-case basis, no such resolution was passed for this vote. Leadership chose not to make an exception in this instance to avoid setting an inconsistent precedent. Therefore, only those physically present at the May 18 meeting will be eligible to vote. Accepting ballots from those not present would violate our governing rules and could render the vote invalid if challenged.

These types of concerns will certainly need to be addressed as we move forward. At this point, however, they remain variables, and our primary focus is on resolving the tier-one issues first.

Please know that we don’t mean to dismiss or minimize your question—We simply don’t have a definitive answer right now, as these details still need to be worked out.

What we do know is this: there is very little appetite for a new capital expenditure that would place a significant financial burden on Mt. Olive, such as constructing a new addition. Leasing additional classroom space off-site appears to be the most viable option currently under consideration.

I’ve heard some discussion about all middle-school students being bussed back to Mt. Olive in time for normal dismissal, but that remains speculative at this stage.

Thank you for your question. You're correct in observing that the current large 6th grade class will have graduated by the time today's preschoolers reach first grade, potentially freeing up classroom space. However, it’s important to note that while space may be available in that specific year, our planning needs to account for long-term sustainability—not just classroom availability, but also staffing, resources, and the ability to maintain balanced class sizes over time.

If Peace were to see a significant increase in kindergarten enrollment in two years, we would evaluate the situation carefully to ensure we could accommodate those students without compromising educational quality. That may include adjustments in staffing or classroom assignments, and would be part of ongoing discussions about how to manage growth responsibly under the broader strategic framework we will be developing.

You are generally correct in your understanding of Option 2. Under this option, enrollment would be temporarily capped to ensure educational quality and operational sustainability until either (1) an equitable partnership agreement is reached with Peace, or (2) sufficient space is secured to accommodate additional growth.

During this transitional period, the school would operate within the capacity limits currently in place, which does resemble the framework outlined in Option 1. If neither of the two conditions is met and enrollment declines as larger classes graduate, it is possible that faculty adjustments may be necessary. However, those decisions would be made carefully and based on actual enrollment trends, with a strong emphasis on minimizing disruption to students and staff.

It’s important to recognize that either Option 1 or Option 2 represents a meaningful step forward in the long-term vision for our school. This is a pivotal moment in the history of both our school and congregation. In alignment with the guidance of Blueprint Schools, our intent is to move this process forward one step at a time, ensuring that the congregation remains involved in each major decision along the way.

Tuition remains a central topic of discussion amongst our Mt. Olive families.  The Board of Education is actively and thoughtfully working to identify sustainable solutions to manage tuition rates, while also recognizing that the cost of educating each student continues to rise significantly each year. Currently, the Board is in the final stages of determining tuition rates for Fall 2025. The proposed 6% discount will be addressed in greater detail following the final vote on May 18, as part of broader discussions between both congregations concerning a potential long-term operating or joint-venture agreement.

The idea of a formal partnership with Peace was proposed by Blueprint Schools, who bring valuable experience in helping churches and schools navigate similar challenges. While many details will be clarified after the May 18 vote, the partnership approach is being considered because it offers more than just additional space—it brings shared vision, responsibility, and long-term sustainability.

Beyond logistics, a partnership reflects our values of Christian fellowship, mutual support, and good stewardship. It opens the door to collaboration and ministry opportunities that align with our mission and benefit both congregations.

Your concerns are valid and will be explored more fully in the next phase, depending on the direction chosen by the congregation on May 18.

As you rightly noted, much about a potential formal partnership with Peace is still “not clearly defined,” and we acknowledge that many aspects remain to be clarified.

What is certain, however, is that close collaboration with Peace—especially following the upcoming vote—will be essential to shaping our long-term future. To help guide us through this process, we are working with Blueprint Schools, an organization with significant experience in this area. They have provided a proposed framework that allows us to move forward thoughtfully, step by step.

The first major decision point in this process will take place on May 18. After that, our committees will be better equipped to explore complex questions like the one you've raised—regarding participation by other Lutheran churches and non-members, and how equity is defined in any extended partnership.

Please know that your concerns are valid and will be carefully considered in the next phase of planning, depending on the outcome of the May 18 vote. Most importantly, you—the voters—will continue to play a central role in shaping these decisions as we move forward together.

This is an important consideration, though our committee has not yet focused on enrollment or membership details for either Option 1 or Option 2. The May 18 vote represents a key milestone, after which we’ll be better positioned to address questions like this with clarity and accuracy.

Vision 2030 isn’t dismissing the concern—it’s simply a bit early to provide a definitive answer. We appreciate your thoughtful input and will continue to keep these types of questions in mind as we move forward.

Thank you for your thoughtful question—it's an important one. Faculty and staff will certainly be impacted by the outcome of the upcoming vote, and their perspectives matter deeply.

Surveys have been conducted in the past, and some faculty responses are included in the 70-page Blueprint report. Regardless of which option is chosen, faculty engagement will be an ongoing part of the process as we move forward in partnership with Blueprint Schools.

While there is currently no independent, anonymous poll planned before the May 18 vote, we recognize the value such feedback could bring. We will consider whether this type of faculty input can be gathered and shared appropriately in the future, as we work to make informed and transparent decisions.

Answer below due to a formatting issue.

This response took a bit longer than normal, as we wanted to compile the most current and accurate information.  While the cost to educate a student can vary slightly from year to year, I can share a breakdown of the key components of our current year’s school budget to provide a clear picture of the total costs.

• Salaries and Benefits – This includes compensation and benefits for faculty, aides, office staff, and associated health insurance and pension costs: approximately $1 million

• Operating Expenses – Includes items such as instructional software, substitute teachers, school books and supplies, copier expenses, bank fees, and continuing education: approximately $75,000

• Facility Expenses – Represents the school’s share of building-related costs (which are shared with the church), including utilities, janitorial services, technology, building maintenance and repairs, insurance, and mortgage payments: approximately $210,000

This brings the total estimated cost of operating the school to about $1.3 million. With approximately 235 students, this equates to an estimated cost per student of $5,530.

We have made a good-faith effort to account for all relevant costs associated with operating the school, including the items you mentioned: facility-related expenses, insurance, a portion of the mortgage, and a fair allocation of staff costs such as pastoral support where applicable.

That said, as part of our partnership with Blueprint Schools, we are taking steps to further strengthen the accuracy and transparency of our financial reporting. Blueprint will assist in reviewing and verifying our cost allocations — especially those shared with the church — and will help formalize our per-student cost calculations using consistent, widely accepted standards. This will not only affirm the integrity of our current estimates but also enhance confidence in the numbers we share going forward.

The idea of Mt. Olive supporting the development of a school at Peace — with the eventual goal of Peace having its own independent school — is a valid concept and one that was discussed at length by the Phase Growth Committee.

At the time, there wasn’t significant exploration of both Mt. Olive and Peace operating separate schools, but that remains a theoretical possibility. That said, pursuing separate schools would require a feasibility study to assess whether Peace has the financial capacity and long-term sustainability to support such a model.

Regarding your concern with Option 2, it’s important to note that it does not automatically result in Mt. Olive relinquishing ownership or decision-making authority to Peace. The specific structure of any partnership — including governance and operational control — would be determined based on the direction set after the May 18 vote.

Regardless of which option moves forward, congregational input will continue to shape the process. As a voter, your voice remains essential in guiding the next steps.

Thank you for your thoughtful follow-up and for engaging so carefully with the materials Vision 2030 has provided. Your point is well taken, and you're right to notice the apparent contradiction.

Upon reviewing the materials, several of us on the committee also noticed the inconsistency in wording. In the “cons” section, the phrase “Mt. Olive must transition from sole ownership to collaborative decision-making” was stronger than we intended. The word must should have been may. We apologize for this wording error, which unintentionally suggested a requirement rather than a possibility.

To clarify: under Option 2, it is possible—but not necessarily required—that Mt. Olive would transition to a more collaborative authority structure, especially if partnerships or shared governance models are explored. The exact nature of that structure will depend on how the plan is implemented after the vote.

We’ve tried to approach this process with great care and prayer, but we also acknowledge that we are human and that occasional miswording may occur. We're grateful for those, like you, who help us continue refining the conversation.  In any case, the specific implications of either Option 1 or Option 2 will begin to come into clearer focus once a direction is chosen. Sunday’s vote is an important step in a larger process. Whichever path is selected, there will be further opportunities for discussion, review, and additional decisions as we move forward together.

As we've worked with Blueprint Schools, it’s clear that the May 18 vote is just the beginning of a longer process. If Option 1 is approved, the plan is to initially keep enrollment within the current Mount Olive facility’s capacity. However, this does not rule out the possibility of future expansion—on- or off-site—if interest grows, particularly among Mount Olive families. Any such steps would depend on financial impact, long-term sustainability, and congregational input.

Regarding Kindergarten enrollment:

• 2026: 25 Mount Olive, 16 Peace

• 2027: 20 Mount Olive, 9 Peace

Please note that these numbers are early, informal projections and should be viewed with caution. Enrollment can vary significantly year to year based on many factors, including family decisions and demographic changes.

This specific scenario hasn’t come up in detail during our discussions, it’s certainly a possibility that could arise—particularly if enrollment caps limit access for Mount Olive families under either Option 1 or Option 2.

To our knowledge, Mount Olive has not previously provided tuition support for families attending other Christian or Lutheran schools. Vision 2030 is not aware of any established policy addressing this possibility.

Determining whether tuition support could be offered in the future would require input from the Board of Education and Church Council. Given how close we are to the May 18 vote, it’s unlikely that a formal position will be developed before then. However, Vision 2030 will bring this question forward and seek to provide clarity on this issue as next steps are taken.