I don't I don't see the point of tableling it without getting public input if we are going to provide these different options. Um and that that's that's my thought. You know, I think we should have the conversation and look at the different thing uh different, you know, maybe Mesa's calendar is better, but I I do think if we're not going to table it to talk more with members of the public, more parents, then I don't know if we should table it. Are you saying have the conversation between the two calendars tonight rather than table it or are you saying not have the conversation tonight and not table it? >> I'm you know we could table it have the conversation at the next board meeting but I do think we should do a survey um or something like that. Like if we're just going to go and adopt it you know the next meeting I just think there needs to be a longer stakeholder process for that.
I'm fine discussing it tonight, but I I don't I didn't get the idea that anyone else was was up to that. I I was tableabling it just because I I don't think we should vote for a couple years of a calendar and then decide in a couple years if we want to do a different calendar. I just think we should decide now on the calendar, whichever calendar it is. I think we should decide now what what direction that's going to be. Now meaning in these next couple months. >> Oh, sorry. >> If if if you take a vote on the calendars we have tonight and it and it goes down, okay, it it's defeated, we you can give us direction to bring back calendars that based on our conversations tonight that fit your needs. And then again, those probably wouldn't come back till June 23rd.
In my opinion, I I don't want to rush it. And if there's any data that we need to acquire, our job is to inform you and give you the best information available to us. That's why we do surveys to be able to make your decisions. And so, I would be remiss to come back on May 12th and just say, "Here you go." Um because then I wouldn't be doing my job as superintendent. >> Dr. Dr. Martin, did you have something you were going to say? >> Oh, no. I was just listening on the dates and those types of things too as well. I mean obviously on May 12th we could get public comment but that would be releasing the calendars the proposal before that which that's two weeks turnaround. I mean I can definitely do that if need be but it's fast and furious and it's busy with graduation season as well too.
So June 23rd though too we know families are also a lot of times out of town um and certain staff as well too. So >> So Dr. Dr. Robson, are you are you suggesting are you wanting to amend the motion that we adopt and and we adopt the same calendar as Mesa? No, I'm I'm the motion is to table the decision. And so I mean I I would like to look at what Miss Murray's recommending. Um, and so be I I would like to look at that before voting on the calendars before us. And so it feels like that's not going to be tonight. So rather than vote on calendars without looking at the calendar, Miss Murray's recommending, I vote that we table. I move that we table. >> Okay. So that motion's already >> that motion's again. So, that motion's already on the on the table.
Um, okay. Is there any other discussion regarding tableabling this motion tonight? Okay. Then I'll call for a vote. All those in favor of tableabling this motion for tonight say I. >> I. >> All opposed? >> Nay. >> Thank you very much. Okay. >> So, once again, sorry to be that guy. Um, so we can bring back different options for you to look at, discuss, and vote on. I won't even we again I'll go back to um we don't have to do it in June. You can do it in July. You can do it in August. I mean, again, I I think that uh it's imperative based on what we've done to this point to get here this evening. Um I think it's important that the community knows that there may be a different direction so they have that ability to um say what they need to say.
And that's that's about as transparent as you can get when it comes to something like this, which I think is important. And I know it's on the table, but I I myself would if we're going to do something like that, I think we need to give enough time that as Dr. McCord suggested, we wait till after school starts and again survey our community. Um, the calendar I I was surprised to find this out, but the calendar can be one of the most controversial things that we do. And our community has weighed in very heavily in favor of this current calendar. So, I really feel like we need to survey our community again if we're going to bring about a if we're going to change so that they can feel like their voice has been heard. I I would just again emphasize that I I agree that community input is so important and I would disagree that the public voted for this calendar.
I think the public voted for a 222. >> Okay. >> The concept of a 222. >> Okay. Thank you all for your input on that tonight. Uh moving forward to 9.04 04 purchase of supplementary inquirybased curriculum resource for K through6 gifted students. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Humphre. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Brainer.
Uh, is there any discussion? We had that presentation tonight. Is there any discussion on this supplemental uh supplementary inquiry based curriculum resource for our K through six gifted students? >> I just I appreciated the presentation and understanding more about it. I think that was very helpful. Um, I I just would um recommend that um when we have those curriculums out that the board be reminded before we when they're out for review so we can come in and see them in advance and not have to table again. >> Thank you, Miss Humphre. Any other discussion? All right, then I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the purchase of a supplementary inquirybased curriculum resource for K through six gifted students say I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> Thank you very much. 9.05 recommendation for a 2%. I'm sorry, Dr. McCord. I forgot. >> You're totally fine. >> We had that presentation and I didn't know if there was anything else you need. >> We don't need to waste words. You're good. >> All right. >> 9.05 05 recommendation for a 2% pay increase for fiscal year uh 2027. Dr. McCord. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Governing board members. Um before you we have tonight um asking for a 2% pay increase to all employees uh base pay to include all hourly staff, all teachers, all administrators and all and other exempt professional staff. uh we have before you tonight now she's in front of us instead of to our side uh Miss Bonnie Bet. She'll give you a short presentation on how we came to this uh resolve. >> Am I on? >> You're on.
>> Y All right. Awesome. So um President Thompson, Dr. McCord, governing board members, you have already seen this preliminary budget. We are focusing only on the 2% pay increase. We are still deliberating regarding the other uh the other conversation we had regarding possibly making a gradation change with um one of the employee groups. So that is not uh included or part of this discussion but I wanted to at least go through similar things that we did on the pre preliminary budget presentation so that there's again understanding of how the 2% pay increase will be funded. Okay. So, um, again, just talking about our student count projections. We're feeling very conf confident that these are the correct student count projections. Again, we're still using the governor's budget, even though we did have a um budget presented today. Um, I will give you the details of that in the board report this week.
Um again talking about classroom site fund increases in costs and expected expected savings and then the recommend recommended pay increases and then balancing the budget. There are still lots of budget risks and still some opportunities but then a a reminder that this is an action item 905 for you to approve the pay increase. So student count projections again as we've discussed 1,200 student loss anticipated 1,200 student loss 600 at elementary 600 at um high school and note again that the 1,200 ADM loss results in a 14 a45 weighted student count loss just because of the difference between the high school weights and the elementary weights. So um governor's budget again base level amount the base level amount increased by 2% the transportation support level by 2%. District additional assistance uh no increase proposition 123 is replaced with a general fund increase to the base. Um the uh the I do know that the budget presented today uh from the Republicans did not include mention of Prop 123.
So, it's still um very much a concern. The experience the teacher experience index did go up for Gilbert public schools. Um and then also just a reminder that the actual cohort movement analysis that we've received from our student accounting team indicates that we we do kind of think there'll be less of a loss at high school than at um K8. However, we're still going to go with the 600 600 to ensure that we have a um a pretty good level of conservatism in our projection. >> Miss Betts, can you go back real quick? >> Sure. >> So, this estimate of 200 kindergarten kindergarten enrollment loss where what what do we attribute that to? Is is are we Go ahead. Sorry. So, so um uh these are students that we don't know whether they exist or not, I guess, at this point in time. And um so what we're doing is we're looking at what was our and and Jason, please help me if I if I make an error, but what we're looking at is what was our kindergarten enrollment a year ago at this same time.
And today our kindergarten enrollment is 200 less than it was a year ago at this same time. So that is our judgment. Okay. So our enrollment for kindergarten was 200 more this time last year which is three months from school. Correct. >> And and a year ago, we actually had more students a year ago than we expected >> than two years ago. We kind of had a bump. >> Yeah, we had a bump last year in kindergarten. >> So, we don't know whether that bump was a normal thing that we're going to see or whether it was just a bump and we're going back to seeing some losses. >> Well, let's hope for bumps. >> I'm hoping for bumps. So, this this is a it sounds like this is probably an extremely >> um I don't think conservative is the word, but a con an extremely >> conservative is the perfect >> conservative estimate.
We're hoping for much less than a 200 student kindergarten loss. We are uh the only thing that it also assumes however is that every child that is in every single grade today is coming back in the next grade a year ago. That's a big assumption. >> So all right, thank you. >> Y so um this is the data. You can see the budgetary loss. Again, I'm ignoring the potential loss of Prop 123. It actually decreased. We're expecting it to decrease a little bit anyway because the Prop 123 add-on is based upon our student counts. So, with a loss of students, we are expecting $100,000 loss anyway. Um, with all that combined, we're looking at a $3.03 million reduction year-over-year in our budget capacity to start. classroom site fund. Again, this is just to show you how erratic the funding has been, though it has been on an upward tick since 2022, a significant one.
We just don't know how long it's going to last. So, this year we're up to $883 per student from $842 per student. And so, this is the calculation. If you take a look at the classroom site fund allocation, this line right here, in the current year, it was just under $31 million and it's projected to be just under 32 million for next year. So even with the student loss that we realized in the current year because classroom site fund is funded on prior year students, we still are expected to see an allocation that's a little bit higher than last year. However, we have already drawn down fund balance in classroom site fund. So our overall budget to include fund balance has decreased by a little bit over a million dollars. So the only reason I'm mentioning that is is that if we look at the current year when we end 2026, we're expecting that we will draw down another million and a half of fund balance at the end of this year.
So as we're using classroom site fund to fund pay increases, we're going into one-time monies already. Okay? Just want to make sure that's clear to all of you. So, operating cost increases and savings. So, medical insurance premium increase. You guys have already approved that potential loss of Prop 123. I'm just leaving it out there as a reminder, but I'm not taking it out. I'm including it. Um, estimated inflationary increases, $1 million. Again, reflective primarily of the fuel costs. And then estimated hourly minimum wage increase in January of 2027 would be $570,000. That is based upon an expected 3% inflationary increase. So if we're only going to give it 2% and we're expecting minimum wage to increase 3%, we would have a a midyear adjustment that would have to be made. That would be cost us about $570,000.
Any questions on that before I move on? Okay, great. So then the 2% raise for all employees, the total cost is $5.76 million. You can see where classroom site funds is contributing $3.8 million. Other funds, we've had this conversation before. Community ed is expected to pay for their own pay increases. Nutrition services, CED, Title One, all those a variety of funds are expected to pay for their own pay increases. So that's what that $290,000 is coming from. And then the M portion is about 1.66 million. So budgetary savings, a decrease of personnel due to fewer students, 55 FTE. I I believe in speaking to the Office of Talent Management, they're pretty pretty confident that that's probably correct. Again, achieving that through normal attrition, not having to institute a reduction in force process. um decrease of district office personnel about $250,000. Vacancy and turnover savings. I shared with you the average teacher salary.
I feel confident that we really have achieved a million dollars of vacancy turnover savings that I would consider ongoing. And then uh Pioneer Elementary, you guys have already approved the closure of Pioneer Elementary. again contributing about another million dollars of savings not operating Pioneer Elementary and all those students going to other sites. I thought that the the savings from not operating Pioneer and and the savings I thought the savings from not operating Pioneer was more in like the $2 to3 million range. And then the savings for the the decrease in staffing because of the closure of Pioneer was another like 2 or 3 million. Am I wrong? Am I remembering that incorrectly? >> Yeah. Um the most of those savings that you're um remembering is the avoided capital costs. So we had the uh we pulled out the data from asset planner and and over the next five years we would see a savings of $2.5 million of avoided capital costs because we don't have to touch uh Pioneer anymore.
>> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, so total savings are just over $7 million. So again, here's the total budgetary increase need. We look at the ongoing available budget from the governor's budget, a little bit less than um we're a little we're $3 million and $30,000 less than in the current year. Uh total non-discretionary increases are just about 4.6 million. Pay increase recommendations 5.76 million and then projected ongoing savings uh se 7.15 million. That still leaves us with a budgetary deficit of 6.22 million. So how are we going to fund that? So pay increase minimum wage increase funded by other funds. So that's at $290,000. Maintenance and operations will contribute uh ongoing monies of just over 2 million for a total of 2.41. And then classroom site fund contribution will be $3.81 million of one-time money. So now we're up to just under $5 million of classroom site fund.
We're expecting to have just over $20 million left over. So that even with a 5 million at least at least it it gives us through gets us through the next um four years of budgetary consideration with that draw down and fund balance. Please know too that in speaking with um with my with my uh fellow finance professionals uh Jackie Matin and um Amber Morgan, we're deliberating over where do we use the one-time money? Do we use it out of M? Do we use out of classroom site fund? So, we're making those we're having those conversations on a regular basis. We do have a sizable amount of classroom site fund money though that's sitting there. So our reaction at this point in time is that we should use classroom site fund monies in the future if we do have to move more salary out of classroom site fund and put it back in M.