001um in terms of the upcoming um request to the community for renewal on our capital levy, our um educational instructional levy as well as our capital bonds to support our facilities. So, where we left this off last study session was we were continuing as a board to gather data um in order to fine-tune what we would propose to bring up to an official meeting. um to process and um begin the journey to turn it into a ballot initiative. So what would I'd like to suggest today and I am open to suggestions actually there um are some new slides on the slide deck and so perhaps what we could do is um pick up the conversation at the updated information and then we can go from there. How does that sound? So, a little note, um
002I if you are watching from home, you can't always see the drop- down screen when you're watching from home, but we're having some technical difficulties getting the projection to work. So, everyone here at the table is using their digital devices to pull up the um to pull up the slide deck. I'm going to ask that we call out slide numbers when we're referencing information so everyone can follow along and folks here in the room are using their devices as well to see the PowerPoint. So that being said, anything else? Superintendent Irish. All right. So, um, Deputy Superintendent Berky, do you want to kick us off? >> Yeah, that sounds great. Thank you. So, the new slides, just to orient us, were put at the end of the previous slides in those sections. So, the new
003slides are slide 17, which really says slide 18 has new information for you. So, slide 18 has new information. This is for the tech levy. What the board asked us to do is to consider some other scenarios about what would be in or out or how would we reduce scope. So we have scenarios that start at 30 million, 35, 37 and a half and 40 million to give the board more options for consideration. So that is the tech levy part. And then on slide 34 starts the new EPNO um slides. So, I'm happy to talk about the tech levy first or we can quickly go through the other slides. Anyone have a preference? >> Maybe we stick with the tech levy. Kind of go in order. How does that sound? >> Up to slide 18.
004>> Yes. So, picking up on slide 18, uh, you will see some adjusted budget scenarios. And um yes, to follow up on what Jolyn just said, after the last board study session, I was asked to provide some adjusted scenarios for um our 26 through30 tech levy that will uh fall between that 30 million per year and uh um 40 million per year proposals to aid in the decision-m on that final combined tax rate. So with uh consideration to the technology advisory committee recommendations and the priorities that came from that work, uh Shelby and I explored uh several options and moved forward with a strategy of maintaining our baseline uh obligations for current staff, PD, core software and hardware and then aligning needs and reducing the scope and funding on lower tiered line items. uh while
005still trying to honor uh that advisory committee's identified needs for comprehensive support of both instruction and operations across the district. So, just to do a quick um refresh uh and review of the proposed budget into those four tier groupings that we uh presented on earlier in the month. Um if you look there on uh the slide 18, you'll see the projects listed um and you'll see the green section um is approximately uh 25 million uh per year for all of our steadystate core commitments. And then if you look down to the next color-coded section, that blue section, that's still baseline commitments to uh maintain district tech services. And that goes up to approximately 30 million per year. The yellow then is continued uh or increases to about 35 million and those are recommendations for fiscal
006sustainability innovation and enhanced uh student learning. And then you add in that gray section um of projects down at the bottom. That's for advanced services and modernizing system uh systems. And that gets us into the that full recommendation of approximately 40 million per year. So then if you look uh next to that uh in the second column over under original cost that then gives you um uh the original breakdown that we presented of cost uh per line item per project. And you'll see down there at the bottom uh the four-year total and then um the cost per year and the the rounded approximately 40 million per year. So then moving over to the next column, we have a a reduced scope and that has a a blue tag there at the top and bottom. That's
007our 35 37.5 million, excuse me. So um and that's again rounded. So 37.5 million. Um when we're looking at that uh first reduced scope column, um there's no adjustments to the top two tiers. So the core obligations and maintaining our current systems and staff um those are not adjusted at all but there are reductions in additional staffing software and systems in tier three and four. Um that's again referencing over to the projects area. That's the yellow and gray project section. Um and those reductions are highlighted in orange and uh so to draw attention to them you can compare the differences there. But um really there's uh a reduction to to break it down. There's a reduction in staffing for the additional instructional tech coordinators going from four to three. There's a reduction in uh the
008software licensing expansion uh and the uh commons AV the audio video systems. Um, and those the commons AV are really what we're referring to as the gymnasiums, the commons areas, the stages, uh, that sort of thing. And then there's a 75% funding on the learning analytics, the operational systems, and the, uh, staffing supports for UDL. So then moving over into the next reduced scope column that would be the uh the purple highlight and that's the 35.5 million per year roughly. Uh what I did was in these scenarios um if I made adjustments in the previous uh those are carried forward um to the next uh reduced scope adjustments and then uh new new cuts or adjustments are highlighted in orange again in that that next column. So, uh, there's, um, a greater reduced scope in
009funding, but still no, um, across the board cuts to any identified needs in its entirety. Um, so nothing has been completely cut out. So, we're still addressing all of the identified needs, just in that reduced scope, um, like a funding percentage. So there's additional reductions in tier 4 uh hardware and tier three software uh and staffing. There's tier 2 reductions uh that's the the blue highlighted project section in supports to UDL the digital learning resources. So that's our digital curriculum and then the related uh staffing and training for those services. And there's an adjustment to the tier one student devices um as well uh a little over 5% and that's where uh we identified uh we could extend the life cycle of some of our um uh uh our devices really at the the lower
010grade levels with iPads. We don't necessarily need them on a 4-year replacement. And so uh that's one area that u we're potentially targeting. And um there's also some uh a reduction in some of our uh specialized uh devices for uh for students. So um that's where that particular uh line item up in tier one comes from or how that's explained. Um you'll you'll see then looking at um in that reduced scope for 35.5 million uh in the blue section um we had our digital learning uh resources they were reduced to a 75% funding it was 75% on all the UDL supports 75% on the um district learning resources uh staffing to support that um so that's where that alignment would come in. The uh additional instructional tech coordinators uh that was reduced to two of
011the original four and um we are at uh we again uh reduced the software licensing expansion and commons AV um just to a lower amount to get to that uh reduced scope. Yes. just um I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. So on the line for instructional tech coordination coordinators, the additional in the yellow um you I'm just curious if I heard correctly how many coordinators we're talking about for that dollar amount. >> So the original um was four additional tech coordinators. Um in the 35.5 it is two. >> So 1.7 million for two employees. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> We will need to check our numbers. >> They don't each get paid $800,000 a year. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's what I thought there might >> I could bring out
012the uh documentation that breaks that down. Um, >> so we uh when we're moving on to the EPO force can try to look it up and see what >> Thank you. >> that comprises otherwise we can get back to you. I think that there's a little bit more that's involved in there. >> It's a good question. Yeah. Uh yes. So I did bring down the breakdown of every every particular line item. So I can follow up on that. Um but then then just in that last uh to move on um with the reduced scope in the last column, the the red or pink section, uh that puts us down to uh 30 million per year mark. And as you can tell, there's significant adjustments there. Um nothing new within the tier one project category. Um
013but the tier 2 drops to 50% funding on that digital learning resources, our UDL supports and our point of sales systems. A tier three uh the yellow section of projects uh reduced to 50% uh on the digital learning resourcing staffing to match the the software or the curriculum and 33% of software licensing expansion and then classroom panels. the tech coordinators and one UDL one UDL support entirely is uh eliminated from funding. And then tier 4 we um eliminates our um special education devices from the levy, all commons, audio video systems, uh the project management and web manager staffing position. Um, and then that uh reduces the learning analytics UDL supports down to 25%. >> Excuse what was that director? >> Am I correct that the number the um 2500 to,700 that's for four years? >>
0142500 to >> Oh, so it's not that. It's 1.7 million for two employees. It's two employees over four years. >> Yes. >> That would >> right. >> Taking bets. >> Anyone else want to >> No, we'll just we'll just check into it. >> I will definitely check that. >> Thank you. Any other questions about this new table with new considerations and approach? I I can add just one other um part of our thinking around some of uh the commons AVs and the classroom panel audio video systems. Um when it comes to uh infrastructure uh and that largely falls into our bond projects um it's our plan to apply for federal dollars which are certainly not guaranteed but if there's any support that we can gain from that um that would then um lend to support
015some of those infrastructure uh capital bond projects um offsetting dollars for other infrastructure like commons audio Okay, just yeah, thank you, Director Chan. This might have been in the previous slides and it's been you know a couple weeks so I'm not remembering about do we know about what percentage of updates are left for some of the audio video to get everything to about the same level across our schools. We we actually just finished uh the installations of having our Prometheium uh active panels in every classroom in the district this last year. Um so costs moving forward would be uh replacement maintaining uh life cycle on those and audio enhancement. Uh that's the classroom audio. Um those are and maybe you have something else to add on this tree, but uh Dre, but uh my understanding
016is we now have um the new audio enhancements in every classroom as well. I can double check that as well, but >> which can you remind me which grouping that's in in the tiers? >> Yes. So the um it's the yellow section for classroom panels. It's um >> there it is >> right under digital learning source of staffing. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> All right. So if we if we decided to go with the 30 million then we would not be able to continue to update. >> Yeah. What we're making um essentially we're making a decision that uh we're going to extend the life cycle of the current panels that we have. Um, so that would be something like, yep, we're skipping that in this levy. We definitely know we have to get it
017in the next levy. >> Okay. So, it's like kicking the can down the road. Okay. Thank you. >> Anything else on this slide before we move on to the other new ones? >> Um, just a a quick comment. I I appreciate that. um at least as we go down in scope, you know, trying to see what would what what the changes are between 40 and $30 million over the four over the four years. Um I appreciate trying to preserve the the top two tiers and trying to keep the systems that are really needed by our students in place as much as we can. I mean, you know, looking looking through it, there's there's no way to completely, you know, keep it away from the students because it all all touches them in one way or
018the other in including staffing. Okay. Anything else? Okay. So, let's go to the other new slides. 30 34. Slide 34 is the introduction to the new section. All right. So this is information that we had added and so on the first slide uh let's see on the first slide we have corrected this was the 8th of of um September so sorry we should go to slide 38. So there's a section that was added the last time because we've had three different meetings and so we're trying to chunk out this is what we added and then this is what we added because some of our assumptions have changed. So if we go to slide 39 here is the hot off the press updates. So several things have changed since we last reviewed these numbers. one, we've
019developed additional scenarios based on what the board had asked for um for proposals from the last study session. We do have lower interest rates. So, when the Feds cut the prime by 0.25, that meant that when we went out to sell our bonds, we were going to do a little bit better and our refunding was going to do a little bit better. So, we have lowered the bond costs and so there's some rates lowering there. We have some additional savings then from the bond refinance that lowers those by a few pennies. The big change is really the updated preliminary assessed valuation that we got in from both counties. So we have to wait for both counties. Once we put those together, it's about a 10% increase instead of a 5% increase. So you'll recall that
020as assessed valuations go up, our rate per thousand or our tax rate goes down. And so really what you're going to see is that total rate going down and stabilizing at about $2.97 where we thought it was going to be 310 after the refi. We're going down to $2.97. So if we move to that um next slide, you can see those new rates for EPO that are decreasing. Chris, do you want to go over the slide? Thanks. So I was going to put a slide in here that just kind of compares like what's changed. um uh but yeah uh the rate saw decrease for the EPO levy um because of assessed valuation. So all the changes that you're seeing on this slide are due to um the AV going up 5% more than what we
021had originally estimated. And if you wanted to compare to what we had last time, it'd be Slide two. Um, so for the 2026 for EPO just by itself went from $1.17 down to A12. So about a 5centent decrease. Uh, it's right in that five to six seven cents decrease due to the AV going up. All right, we'll move on. So, we see those rates falling uh by 5 cents or so per year for EPO. And then you can see that the tech levy rates are also falling. You can see that I believe on slide three previously. These are the updated rates. We did based on board request just kind of say every million dollars B from 35 and a half um all the way to 39. We'd given some prior numbers for a 30 million
022or 40 million. This seemed like the board was asking us to get more discreet. So we u put that in here. And then the bond rates uh are also changing. That's on slide 42. All of those again are decreasing. And the previous slide was slide, was it slide four? Yeah, slide four. Um, yep. So, um, on the 450 million, it went from being anywhere from 46 to 50 cent decrease to a 52 to 57 cent decrease. So, uh, 6 to 7 cents. for that 450. It's different for each one. >> So, we've kind of wrapped it all up in slide 43 where we're combining all components and then providing different scenarios. And this is similar to what we did last time. I think we provided additional scenarios based on what we heard from the board,
023but that rate in 2026 in the 2026 estimated tax rate column used to be $310. So you can see that it's fallen 13 cents quite a bit. Um and then in similar fashion, we've just costed out what the annual, monthly, and daily increase would be with our new rates for these various scenarios. Again, these are adjustable based on what the board would like to have next, but we felt like this gave um a starting point. It was just intended to give you a good range. If you wanted a different combination of things, I have all of that. I can probably share those if if we need to look at. >> Yep. As needed. We have details that we have with us in our spreadsheets with thousand tabs. So, we're ready to do that. President Cast,
024>> can we just quickly summarize for folks um what what happens to increase the assessed value within the Northshore boundary? So what is that um is it that home values are going up? Is it or a couple of different things? >> Yeah. So two different things really go into assess valuations increasing. One, you have more properties across which to spread the tax. So that accounts for all new builds. So any new construction from the last year or so then gets added into the inventory. And so as your inventory grows, your tax rate per thousand decreases. In addition, your house values are going up. So again, it's driving the tax rate per thousand down. Both things are happening in Northshore. Um, so so there were a little bit different changes whether you were in Snowomish County
025or in King County, but our average based on working with ESD12 was about a 10% uh rate increase across the board for assessed valuations. >> Thank you. And I I just wanted to quickly say thank you for all these different options. It really was helpful. Yes, probably a lot of work, too. So, thank you. So, we'll move on to slide 44 because this is where it gets it breaks down those total rates into different components and shows you for the option noted above in the top. Uh again, we've picked some that we heard you might have interest in, but these can be changed. And this just breaks it down to EPNO's in dark blue, then the tech levy is in the lightest blue, and then the bond is in the middle um shade of blue.
026And so it's talking about what those rates would be as we as we move forward over time um given a max EPO and then this slide is a $600 million bond and a $30 million tech levy. And so what you can see is when you start moving through the other options, slide 44, it's the same except for the tech levy has gone up to 35.5. And so you can just see that middle component changing. And then you get to slide 44, we've increased um the bond. And again on slide 45, we've increased the bond. And so you can see those incremental changes. And then finally on slide 46, uh we're modeling a max EPO, $700 million bond, $40 million tech, and that does result in a rate in 2027 of 326. And that would be
027up from the rate in 2026 which is improved by that 13 cents that 14 cents or so 13 cents that we just spoke of because of the assessed valuation because of the refinancing. Uh that rate was able to stay lower than we had ant in uh anticipated and um all of the rates are actually lower than we had anticipated by a good 10 cents. And so that's a big movement for us. Some of the slide numbers are duplicated, so that might be confusing people. >> We like those numbers. I don't know. >> Yeah, when we're referencing them. >> Oh, which ones are duplicated? >> 44. >> Oh, we have a lot of 44s and 4. Well, those are um Yes, >> we'll we'll call them 44 A and 44B. We'll call them whatever the title
028is at the top. Sorry about that. Finally, on slide 49, of which I hope there's only one, uh we had asked for other ballot measures with tax impacts. And so we have outlined those to the best of our ability of information that was available to us, what passed in August, and then what we understand to be on the ballot in 2025 in November. If we were looking at maxing everything out, we would be roughly at $326 as the rate, which is just a little above 2022. So with the decrease in interest rate and also the housing going up uh evaluation or valuation going up. How do we justify the 2027 numbers to the 2022 numbers with like widely different interest values and and housing valuation? >> So what's driving the rate up? So, in 2022,
029the rate was $3.28. That's the rate amount that we went out for in the 2022 election. So, it's I think 2 cents less than that. Um, if you use that scenario at the end, the 700 with the $40 million tech levy, >> a lot of it is driven by the EPO. So, just that legislative change by the legislature saying, uh, we're not going to raise state taxes. If districts want or need more revenue, you have to go and ask for it. So that is the bulk of it is sitting in the EPO levy. We were conservative as a district in EPO be previously because we could be. Um those times have passed and at this point we um are recommending the maximum EPNO levy simply because of the lack of state funding that's coming our
030way and there's nothing coming to us in the next session. The next legislative session is still going to be super tight. Uh and then the other increase is simply the cost of the tech levy. Bonds are actually going down. Even in the o even in the $700 million scenario, the bond rates are falling. They're falling because of the pattern of how long we have to repay those. So the tech levy because of the significant growth um of how important tech is to us, software, AI, just everyday life. Think about your life today versus what it was like in 2022. And think about all the ways you're connected and what you do on a day-to-day basis now that you didn't do before. That impacts the tech levy for school districts as well because that's what we
031bring into our classrooms. Everything is technology related and driven by those numbers. And so it is an increase because we do need to continue to expand. We're asking for a levy that runs all the way through 2030. And so another four years with the advancements and as fast as things are changing, who knows? So it's really those two components. It's not the bond that's driving the increase. It is the EPNO and the tech levy um because of increased needs in both of those areas. President Cass and and just to tag on there a little bit when I was playing around with numbers like we all were over the last couple weeks, I pulled up the um the SD12 slides that we got when we were considering the next bond purchase. And there's quite a bit
032of old debt that we are just about to pay off. So what's happened is that has created space within our bond. And that's why it's going down. It's because we have we're paying off a whole bunch of old debt. And it's it's actually it's kind of interesting how the numbers almost mirror how much the EPO can go up is how much that our bond cap uh I don't want to say capacity but amount that that we have. Right. >> Yeah. just the amount of debt and the rate per thousand that we're having to carry for the bonds >> right there. We, you know, from that building we did a couple decades ago, we're about ready to pay that off. >> That's a very helpful explanation. Yeah, I'm just comparing the now the breakdown. I was
033looking at the total before, but yeah, bonds did drop quite a bit. So, as we get ready to continue our questions, I'm going to give us a to-do as a board and that in order to keep on schedule with how we have to file and do preparations and all the things to get ready when you back up the calendar, the thought is at our next board meeting, we would have a first reading, which means it would be an information item, a discussion item, not a actual vote, but we would have something to bring to the DAS to discuss which means now it's time for us to really start whittling down to what we would like to consider for our first reading on the three valid initiatives. Okay. So, whatever information the board needs to start
034getting to that point, whatever discussion, that's kind of what we're here for now. just want my rambling thoughts is that I can kick off with that. Um and I and I think uh we kind of did a head nod and obviously we're not voting but in um for me the EPNO levy needs to be maxed out. That's my thinking. Um, what that does unfortunately is it sandwiches squishes the other two options that we we just can't max them out. I'm I'm concerned about um what our taxpayers will support. Um, so that's where I'm struggling is the other two of what the the max would then would be as a result of having to max out our EPNO levy. Um, and and Jolen, thank you. You just captured that exactly that tech levy, it really increases
035the rates. Um, even when you just add 5 million to it, it really jumps up the rate. And I worry because the taxpayers are going to see that number. Um, and we can say, "Yeah, but your taxes aren't going up cuz we asked for a fixed amount." And even though the rate is down, it doesn't mean your taxes are going down. And they're going to be like, "Well, wait a minute. How come I'm still paying this?" Right? And so that um I have concerns about and where my brain gets stuck is that these are binary. All three of these measures are binary measures and so if >> yes or no >> it's a yes no right and so it's not like they'll they can write in we will give you 30 million in tax le
036right it's yes or no so that's where I'm struggling to ask too much and so for the tech levy I would not be comfortable with more than 35 million you know 35 and a half that that's kind of where um I start to get concerned because it's just such a big jump for the rate. Um I'm trying to get into the psychology of the voter which you know is dangerous. I get it. But um and then for the bond um oh I'm totally doing an old person. When I started, our bond was $140 million for four years and then it went to 175. And so that's seven, it feels like such a huge jump. And I recognize it doesn't change the rate. And I know that we need to kind of keep um u we
037need to maintain an amount we're asking with the bond so that we can keep asking for bonds. Um, I understand the psychology of that, but ooh, that seven is a little stressful for me. I recognize that, you know, kind of thinking of the car dealership, you know, 685. So, but um anyway, that's and I want to re reiterate this. I said this last time. Nothing that was brought forward is frivolous. There's nothing in these that is not necessary. and and our students will benefit from everything that was proposed by our technology committee, our capital projects committee. And so it's hard, but I just would hate for us to put something forward and get nothing because it was just too much for um our community. And again, we're seeing lay layoffs at our big tech companies
038in the area. So, >> so we um we can hop back and forth process-wise. We can talk tax rate and then go like for example, you know, your point director Hayes about the amount of the bond ask then we can hop in and start diving into bond information. And if you all right like or I think we should open up for building off of what director Hay said trying to help us in terms of how we discuss it or >> um I think as director Hay said the these are separate um issues the bond the tech levy the EPOn levy and they all have different impacts on what the rates going going to be and what the the cost is to our our I keep wanting to say customers, our our community. Um, so I
039think it's it's important that we we separate them that way as we're discussing them. I mean, the EPO levy, I think we all agree we need to maximize that to make up for what the state isn't doing. Um, it all kind of makes up for what the state isn't doing. Um, and I agree the, you know, the tech levy is really important. Everything about it is expensive and it's just going up and going up. So, yeah, it costs more and it's going to add more to the bottom line in terms of the rate and uh the taxes that we'll all have to pay. Um, you know, I always I always hate to think of, you know, cutting anything that's going to help our students in the classroom, but I think there's a little wiggle room
040in there, you know, that we don't necessarily need to do the 40 40 million level. Um, and I' I'd like to take a harder look at, you know, what exactly would be cut in that first reduced scope column or or the second. Um, I mean that being said, I'd rather not cut any of it and, you know, have as much to play with as we can. Um, with respect to the bond, um, because of the rates, the interest rates, I I think the impact to our taxpayers is much less as we go from one level to the next. And correct me if I'm I'm wrong, but I think the difference between the 600 million and 700 million um what is it per month would be like a $4 difference for a text and you'd pay
041an extra $4 per month. So if we're going to cut back from 700 million for $4 a month, that's a whole lot that we're cutting out in terms of what we can do for >> at $50 a year. >> Yeah. is is roughly $50 a year. Um there's obviously psychology about a $699 number versus a $700 million number, but the rate differential between 600 and 700 is quite small. Quite small. And then I don't know if we had anything between the 450 and 600, but I mean that's even that's not terrible. What is it like? >> Yeah. 190 maybe $200 per year difference between those two. So we take a big leap in what what we can do for the safety and infrastructure for our students for nominal taxing. >> Yeah. To answer some of
042your questions that you'd emailed in, you'd asked what's the difference between 450 to 700 million. So it is $250 a year, $2083 a month. And if we went to 600 million, it would save around $4.17 a month. And I also keep coming back to the the seismic retrofitting that is incorporated in that 700 million where we can I mean that's such a huge safety issue for all of our aging schools that if we can we can get it to that point and get that all taken care of, I think I think that'll be a big weight off of everybody's minds. So when when looking at the bond, right, because I was trying to think about all all the things. Um, so I found myself thinking that the seismic 11 the $11 million for seismic that
043is in that band between 600 and 700 million is really critical. So then the other the only other item between the two is the cooky upgrading. So and that would address portables on the site, some site congestion as well as plan a little bit ahead for a UG move. So to me to to me you know I mean the fact of the matter is again we have to stretch out these priorities because we we just don't have the financial capacity in our community to do them all whether it's technology or we've been doing this for decades because it's the only way our community can afford it. So like Shelton View um we've put off for decades and it really really needs it. So I'm glad I'm so glad the team found a a way to
044approach it so that we can take care of it, right? And so so for me I'm worried um that you know around cook is it the right thing to do in order to we see that UG quivering right there right across the map from cook to to um to get ready for it. Um, at the same time, you know, that's that's the only thing I can see to move around between the 600 and 700s. And I' I'd appreciate what folks think about that. Just wondering, D, if you have some input with respect to the state of cook. I I mean, we all agree it it needs to be replaced. It's more does it have enough life in it to last another four years, eight years? As far as the life of the building, yes. Um,
045but the life of a lot of the portables on site, definitely not. So, it is by far our school that has not only portables on site, but classes being taught in every single one of those portables. Our maintenance crew has done everything that we can to keep that bathroom portable, which is our most expensive portables, alive, and it is not in good condition. So, we can keep the school alive for sure. It's not sized for the number of students that are there. And they passed the UG expansion last year. So, we are expecting growth um to the tune of about 350 students with what has currently been passed. They're talking about another UG expan expansion tonight at the planning commission in um Snomomish. So, I'm not sure exactly what that will do. That will incorporate
046our Wellington Hills property. But when you're talking about cook, it is one of the places where we can absorb a little bit of pressure to put seats in the right places basically for the UG expansion that's already been passed. Um that on top of that, if we only address one elementary school in a bond, um we're not catching up to the deferred maintenance that we already have. So even though Cook itself could potentially last another bond cycle, um doing a project there helps us expand that longevity as well. Putting it much further down so that next time we can do another one that has because again we had seven schools that you easily could have made an argument for any of the seven. So that would be my response about cooking. And so director H
047I hear you about about that. And um I I am I am leaning towards we'll call it 699 perhaps. >> Yeah. I did I wasn't suggesting we go all the way down to 600. I was just it's again just the uh car dealer you know the voters like wow we that's a big number and yeah that's all so yeah just but um uh director McGordy was very persuasive with her comments so I I and I definitely I understand I've done this enough that if we don't if we we're kicking it and Who knows what will you're going to need four years from now. So, >> and and again, not Marj. So, there there there were concerns from the community when the big growth happened in the early 2010s and we were caught so far behind
048that. The idea about we we have a UG move to address and and a plan to address it is is something that would be responsive to community ask that we be a bit more on the proactive side. Yeah, I was just sort of curious as you were uh describing Kokan and the potential, you know, uh impact of kicking it down the road um is given given all of the expansion projects that we've had where we're adding buildings to an existing campus in order to remove the um the portables and add capacity. Is that I mean could we is it possible to do cook in two phases like where we start with eliminating the portables and building new buildings to add capacity to try to absorb some of the the UG move and address the safety
049and other issues with portables and then in the next cycle replace everything else >> potentially. I think we can always look at phasing. It's not ideal because you're starting mobilizing construction twice and you have like all those startup costs and you have impact to the school twice. Not ideal, but certainly we we will accomplish what we can with what um we go out with. So, uh I know um William is very adept at working with his team and we will do what we can for sure. For sure. It's not looking like it's going to be fun, but um it can be done for sure. >> I wanted to switch topics and talk a little bit about our rainy day fund and what effects this might have on on it. Um does anything in the bond
050and the levies have anything to do with that >> with the EPO levy? >> Perhaps it it could it could address the rainy day fund in the general fund. So correct the tech and capital levy it has its own what do you guys call it >> fund? >> No you have your own fund of dollars that we try to maintain and not go >> unr. >> Yeah unr >> unrestricted. So there's kind of a rainy day fund that sits in capital with the bond and that's about 13 >> about $20 million. So that's sits over there and we use that whenever a project comes in under and it's or there's money that comes in um higher than expected or whatever it is. But there is a rainy day fund that sits in capital for unexpected
051projects. this would the EPO would be the only thing that could possibly help um the general fund, rainy day fund, right? And and I'll just say based on our projections, if nothing changes, it would help it at the outset and then it would we would go under again and need to cut in those out years because of the disconnect that remains between expenditure growth and revenue growth from the state. they will have to do something else in four years for districts, not just Northshore, but our projection shows us if we restore some class size, not all, but some class size and continue to do what we do today, not restoring other things, uh we will have enough money to sustain that level for another two to three years. And then we will no longer have
052enough money to sustain even that without additional influx of money from the state. want to leave space for conversation and yet help. Yeah. To so to reiterate because I think we're kind of getting very close on the bond. I I can be it's not like four years ago where I was just flipping out. I can be persuaded. I really was. It was It was fun. Um [Laughter] I I definitely think we need to be very very close to 700 if not at 700 in this bond because again I was here when we all of a sudden had growth and we did not have capacity in the bond to address it and and our community was very unhappy with us. So, um, we have to do something with Kokini. We have to address it. And anything
053we don't do now, we will, uh, burden the board and the district with four years from now. And we've already got the third phase of Inglemore in the 2030 bond. So, I I get all of that. Again, it's just the seven. It's a big number. Six is a smaller number, but I don't I in no way am suggesting that we go all the way down to 600. So that's I feel like we're very very close. I mean even you know $699.99 but >> didn't we even have an 800 option in the first time around? So 700's a decrease already. >> Well and there's 1.2 trillion of need correct like the the task force identified at 1.2 trillion of need. >> Oh okay. So, shall I check for head nods around $6.99? Ju >> just one
054correction. Billion in need, not trillion. >> Trillion. Oh my gosh. Or not. >> Oh, >> thank you very much. >> I was like >> that was I didn't even hear myself say that. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you folks at home. Yes. Billion, not trillion. >> Okay. >> Still a big number. See, I can conceive over a couple zeros. Oh, no. They they were correcting my error. That's all. I was trying to be humble. >> Okay. All right. All right. Well, thank you. >> It's there. >> Yeah. So, so thank you everyone for their input for their input. So, in terms of um do I mean what do you think? What do you think? I I look at a list of projects that have been very specifically asked for by our community in our
055conversations, in our town halls, in our surveys, in our outreach, security updates. Um, uh, we have fields that have been specifically asked for those seismic safety updates. um the continuation of the large projects I I see um and not all the playgrounds and fields that have been identified um but enough to keep the the updating process going. So we won't pause it but keep that going kind of a bare minimum. Um it's enough it's it's a a list of projects that um again addresses instructional you know supporting a good learning environment for our students while addressing things that we know is on the the horizon. am I? So, I'm seeing head nods. Okay. All right. Shall we talk about the technology levy? So, Right. 18. Okay. Yes. Going to 18. I'm going to I'm going
056to be tracking right as we go just for my own little notes here. But yeah, so 18. Any any thoughts? Does anyone want to kick us off thinking about the tech levy? I I think the comments that Vice President Sotac made in the previous study session about making sure that we're covering especially the special ed programs um special ed program devices is important. So looking at the reduced scope one and two um includes those. So I'm I'm glad they do. Um we do however lose some of the UDL if we go to the middle column of reduced scope and that's at the 35.5 million per year. So I'm hesitant to to go that low. Those are my initial thoughts. I I don't 30 the 30 million is just really difficult to uh digest because we
057lose our special program devices supporting special ed students. We lose UDL completely. It's not even minimized. So to me that I feel like that's a a no for me at least. Um so it's between the 40, the 375 and the 355. I I appreciate what you have to say there. And I was just I'm flopping back and forth between 46 and 18. So pardon me here as I as I calculate that. I I appreciate what you say about um zeroing out in the final right column. Um that is again if we're trying to maintain right and not get to the point where in four years we're we're behind and have to do catchup which could be even more expensive. I hear what you're saying. Um, you know, I I it is it is something that
058is, as Director Hayes says, it is very price sensitive just in terms of how how it works in terms of of how our tax bases for our community. So, um, I I I found myself hesitating quite a bit, too. 35.5 the reduced scope. I appreciate all the efforts at trying to think about how to continue some of some of these programs um at a reduced scope. Um I might be comfortable at 35.5. I have a hard time going higher though. I have to be honest. Any any thoughts? That that's kind of where my anxiety lets me land is right around 35.5. Again, I I I understand um and we may need to have more philosophical conversations in the years about technology and in our district because um there's nothing about AI in this in terms
059of it doesn't say that that this is how we're prepping our kids to understand how to use AI. I this is how we're preparing teachers to instruct around AI and that we know that's going to be the topic for the next four years. So kind of starting to wrap our heads around what is the technology levy? What are we doing with it? I know we all I and I again software licensing is so key. Um but it's hard for community to see that and understand how does that help my child in the classroom. So, I think there's some conversations we're going to need to have in as we go forward about the big picture of the intentionality of this. Um, also I know some of this stuff um the licensing is a great example of
060that software updates. If we don't do that, that comes out of our general fund. And so we have to use our tech levy to keep our general fund available for staffing. So I understand all that but again my anxiety ratchet is way up once I get over 35.5. >> Orus correct me if I'm wrong but is software licensing in the yellow expansion also related to curriculum? So it is in um regard to our supplemental tools. So um that that expansion there in the yellow the software licensing um is really operational and instructional to bring um all software licensing under the tech levy. Right now we're spread out uh whether it's building level, department level. So a lot of general fund uh costs on that. So that's the goal with that particular line item. And I
061I think we had some discussion um assistant director uh Shelby mentioned this related to the AI and what our uh what our integration and use of that looks like in the uh in the future and and you're right we don't specifically call it out in a line item but it is very much built into like the learning analytics and any of our uh digital learning resources I because our AI um the AI technology is being built into existing software or That's what the new releases and modifications are are lending or leaning towards. Um, and also while I have the mic, just as a point of clarification, so I can go back on the record to better answer your last question. Um, uh, the answer is still uh yes in that whole 35.5 million reduced scope
062uh for the two staffing at the 1.7, but that is the 4-year um total. So, you were correct, Director Hayes. Um, easy answer. I had to run the numbers though to make sure that, okay, what does that look like? Therefore, breaking that down of how much per staff per year and then the four-year total. So, um and and those numbers do factor in um you know, from our business services what uh the COLA adjustments uh projected benefits and other inflationary factors over the four-year period. >> Um that is great. and super helpful and that was I was trying to figure out how to formulate in a way that didn't sound totally crass but this is our opportunity to take things take weight off of the general the EPO right and so that's really helpful to
063hear that the um software licensing is stuff right now that we're paying out of our general fund and so um it would be beneficial for me if I could have just a little asterric of things in this current tech levy that we are currently paying for out of our general fund. And the idea is to pull it out and put it into the tech levy because that that's a thumbs up move there. And I just wanted to add real quick, I I appreciate um even with the reduced scope, it really focuses on supporting the instructional core, which is really, you know, really um is something as as we go through all the financial changes in our community and funding models. like it's the fact that the um the work by the task force focused on
064on supporting the instructional core is really really appreciated. Any thoughts? Well, I I think I agree with the um you know, I I hesitate again just because of some of the things that are we're decreasing the investment in if we go to that middle reduced scope, the 35.5 million, but um I think it's it's the more reasonable number and as director Tran has has said, it it keeps in a lot of the um um you know the the software expansion as well as the um the special services devices which I I think we need to do. So going all the way down to 30 million I I think is is that would be too detrimental to the the status of of our technology. I'm seeing head nods. So, does that mean is that the first
065we're on the first slide. 45, not this 45A, not 45B. Nope, it's the second. It's 45B. just to be able to look at the combined. Just to ask clarifying question, if we were preparing a first reading dock, is the first reading doc a 698 million or a 700 million? >> 698. >> Okay. Max CPNO 35.5 tech. Is that what we have some direction for staff to build resolutions for that? >> We can also build a second set. So >> that's that's why we're doing a first and a second reading, right? We're not voting the first time it's in a business meeting. that reflects um both my comfort level and my concerns >> what the this max EPO 7 a 698 and a 35.5 for tech levy >> so it it it in in addresses okay
066my you know this is what we need to do and where my anxiety And again around technology, we've gotten really clear feedback through many modes of of community engagement around the desire to keep keep um our technological supports in the classroom. I mean, we can think about our our supportive and inclusionary practices and how key technology has been for that. And um I feel comfortable we're being responsive in this as well. I mean it would I wish the math worked out different with the tech levy. You know some districts with their corporate tax base tech capital levies like the tech levy the math works out very different but just in our community this is it's just um it adds up quickly. I agree it addresses some of the similar anxieties that I have and I'm
067looking at just past years and comparing it and this actually puts us below the my own watermark of 2022. Um it puts us at three. It'll put us below this because this is 700. Wait, where? Yeah, this is 735.5, not 699 or 698 and 35.5, but we're at 319. Um, pretty steady at 319 from 2027 to 20. >> I I'm just going to prepare you that it may not change that rate. It may not be it may be a total number, but it may not change that 319 rate. I don't know that it will. It's too small and too big of a number. Yep. Okay. It does put us below the 325 that we we were at it for 2022. So, it it's actually pretty >> continues the trend. Yeah. The historical trend in the
068district. >> Yeah. Um although 2024 was at 294. So, >> yeah. I I guess 23 and 24 were those weird years. So, I don't know if I would count them. A little below 325. I think I feel like the community would be comfortable, but above it is asking for quite a bit. So, sounds like we're preparing one draft, one set of draft re resolutions. Um, do you know what would be really helpful for next board meeting too is a little bit more detail in terms of how the process unfolds. We have to help prepare language for the ballot. We have to help, you know, initiate pro and con statements and that law has just changed and so I don't feel very up to date on it. Um, that would be really helpful too because there
069is more work we have once we approve resolutions. There's still more work for us to do. That'd be helpful. Okay. Anything else? Thank you so much. I'd like to Yeah, there's been so many people who have inputed into this process. So, thank you. Um, I'm going to go ahead and adjourn the study session so we can prepare for our 7:00 board meeting.