SASD School Board Meeting 5/4/26

001Here we go. >> Call to order this meeting of the Stoen Area School District Board of Education. Miss Darmmo, will you call the role? >> Miss Mia Croyle, >> here. >> Mr. Jim Moser >> here. >> Miss Don Garcia >> here. Miss Lisa Pew here. >> Miss Allison Sorg >> here. >> Dr. Sharon Milin Bartlett >> here. >> Student rep. Lillian Burmer and Michaela Becker. >> Here. >> President Joe Patterson >> here. >> And Mr. Tim Bubon and Jeffrey Leverage are excused. >> Thank you. Um, next item on the agenda is public comment. Uh, no written public comments were received by the board prior to the meeting. So in person public comment I have signed up Rob last >> we good boys. >> Hello friends. Today we're making a colorful and delicious fruit sando. The

002context is lovely. >> All right. Hello, my name is Rob Last. I am a teacher in this uh district. I am also a resident and a parent. Um and I come to you to talk about the insurance changes, the proposal changes. Considering the changes to insurance and the shifting of the cost to employees, I have two proposals for the work. First, um I propose the district increase the HRA contribution of the family plan by $475. contributions to our FSA, which is pre-tax money that we get to use before the HRA money, is federally capped at 300 uh $3,400 this year with a contribution of $6,125 to our HR. Any family that can afford to fund the FSA fully will still be paying a chunk out of pocket. Ergo increase by $475 help cover that. if

003the district is committed to not just passing costs on to employees. This seems like a straightforward way to demonstrate that isn't just a business decision, but a human one. Second, I propose that employees who make over 125,000 a year help accommodate the loss ratio. Considering that administration makes anywhere from three to five times their typical entry wage of 40 of $40,000 and 100% of administration employees take the district insurance per data received from Miss Hart Anderly. It would make the increase more palatable to every other employee group knowing that those who are those who are paid the most also feel the proportional sting of this increase. The up to $3,000 increase is 7.5% of our entry- level wage, but only 1.6% for the top two employees of the district. Our business manager can use any

004number of creative ways to help accomplish this. In closing, myself and other members of the insurance committee, apologies, I mean insurance focus group. Since we weren't included in any part of the plan selection, we're told that this increase was a consequence of too many people using the insurance that we pay for. When you vote on this increase tonight, consider how the changes will hit families the hardest and how this is slowly weakening one of the best retainment tools we have as a district. Happy Teacher Appreciation Week. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh >> I have I have a question for him. >> No, we don't respond to public comment in the moment. >> Questions are allowed, but I mean I'll defer to you if but it's my understanding questions can be asked of the speakers,

005but if you say no, I'll say no. >> Uh we haven't done that in the past. >> I I know. >> It's our policy. We have a public comment policy, right? >> Yeah. The policy is that the board um may add the subject of p public comment to a meeting that happens after this meeting >> another meeting. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Uh yeah. All right. So we will move on then to item 2 be legislative update. Uh, I think I told you in the last meeting that the legislature has pretty much ended their business for the year, but legislators have been asked for availability to return for a floor session the week of May 11th. Rumors are that there are ongoing um discussions between the governor's office and legislative leadership on

006how to use the surplus. And in both the governor's proposal and the Republican Assembly and Senate proposals, there are good things for public schools, including in both um $200 million in additional special education aid. Uh there's also an increase in general school aids proposed in the governor's proposal and um additional money for the school levy tax credit in the governor's proposal. In the GOP proposal, there is 500 million in the school te levy tax credit. a little bit less than the governor's amount. And then I'm not sure what this is, but it's 1.4 million in a tax deduction for educators. So again, as those discussions move on, there hopefully will the end result be something for public schools. There is a new helpful resource on the um Wisconsin Association of Schoolboard website. If you haven't

007checked it out, I encourage you to do so. Um and they will continue posting additional resources. is the one that's up there right now is a mythbusting guide that really helps to um kind of debunk some of the narrative that's out there about public schools. For instance, this particular resource talks about the differences and costs and outcomes between public and voucher schools. Um whether or not public school expenditures and revenues are at an all-time high. Are schools adding more staff while students are declining? Um and other issues that you might hear out in the public. So, it's just a helpful resource to have conversations out in the community. And there will be social media posts that they um that the school boards association encourages people to share. They encourage you to share these resources and

008the um their social media posts. Um school funding and property tax relief are already heating up as big issues in the governor's race. If you're paying attention, at least on the Democratic side, there are there have already been candidate forums. Um, so it's kind of good to start paying attention to those and the positions of those candidates on public education. Um, some kind of bad news in the ref on the referendum front. We talked about the number of referendum that failed in the April election. 26 of them failed. Um, and a lot of the schools that had failed referendum are taking pretty drastic steps. In FondeLac, they're closing two schools, cutting 30 employees. Dodgeville cutting 13 staff, increasing class sizes, reducing electives. Monroe school district cutting 22 positions. Um, a failure of referendums is that

009seen as kind of potential future trend um because people are really concerned about their rising property taxes. So, the last Marquette Law School poll warned uh with a record high of 60% of registered voters saying they'd rather see their reduction in property taxes rather than increasing spending on public schools. So, again, this will be an issue um in the governor's election coming up in the fall. There's also a new fact sheet from the Office of Children's Mental Health addressing financial hardship and children's mental health. Um as a reminder about and you can correct me Dan approximately 26.6% of students in our school district are considered economically disadvantaged. This um this sheet from the office of children me mental health shares new research that childhood poverty can actually alter the brain leading to if untreated with

010early intervention um mental health risks in adulthood. And there's various recommendations for schools in that particular sheet. Um along with a lot of the things that we're fortunately doing, focus on belonging, using relationship mapping within a school so there's a trusted adult, advocating for universal free school meals, creating anti-bullying culture, and supporting families to connect to local resources. And that's all I have. >> Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Lisa Don? Um, not a question, but um, just to add on, there was a good or interesting article last week in the state journal regarding um, Portage School District having to close two of their rural elementary schools and now they only have one elementary school and just wanted to bring that add it to your list. >> Any other questions for Lisa? Seeing

011none. Okay, we are moving on to item 2 C, workg groupoup reports. No workg groupoups have met since the last meeting. So that takes us to item 2D, the student representative report. >> Um, hi everybody. Make sure you talk loudly so everyone clear cookies and cash reboot. Oh, forward a little. >> Just when you stood up. >> Yeah, you just had to stand up. Threaten the computer. >> Sorry. Wait, you're on slide seven. >> Okay. Hi, everybody. >> So, for activities, third graders from across the district took a field trip to the Mant Lodge for the 19th annual Norwegian Cultural Event, which was seen in that picture above. And then, um, high school students headed to the Justify Youth Social Justice Forum um on uh April 17th, which is um that bottom picture. The student

012council exec board attended the WC state conference on April 19th to collaborate with schools from across the state and Ava Rupo competed at DECA internationals in Atlanta as a sole representative for the high school um over that p this past week. And then more activities um 25 high school seniors represented us at the Badger Conference top scholar program and Fox Prairie held their fox draw on May 1st. And then for athletics, softball just keeps winning, going 14- one so far this season and continuing their winning streak of 11. Baseball won two games on the road um April 24th against Bigfoot and May 1st against Fort Atinson, which was their first conference win of the season. Camden Kettleston finished fourth in a conference mini meet at Yahara Hills, leading the boys golf team to a fifth

013place finish a couple weeks ago. Track held a home quad on April 21st and it was also senior night. Girls soccer won against Reedsburg on the 16th and it was also teacher appreciation. Boys tennis knocked off sock prairie six to1 on uh April 23rd on top of winning a six to1 conference duel against Fort Atinson in Cambridge at the high school on April 21st. And then in arts, the Fox Prairie spring concert was held on April 22nd. Um, 28 high school students competed in state solo and ensemble on April 25th at W Whitewater. And the high school band held their 57th variety show on May 2nd, which was their last concert of the year. >> So, bye. >> Thank you. >> Does anyone have any questions? >> Lisa, >> do do you guys know does

014does our high school participate in Badger Girls and Badger Boys State? Um, I believe so. I think last year we sent two boys and one girl to that event. I believe so. >> That must happen later in the >> It's like in this I believe it was over the summer. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Also, I think it's worth pointing out that this is Michaela's last meeting with us this evening. And so I on behalf of the board, thank you for your service on the board. It's been a pleasure having you here. Thank you. I was just saying to Dr. D, I feel like this year has gone by very quickly, but um I'm very appreciative for the experience. I really didn't know anything about with the school board before I came on as a

015schoolboard representative, but I've really appreciated the experience and kind of getting to learn more about what's happening behind the scenes. So, thank you all. >> Thank you. All right. If there are no I'm going to get up. >> If there are no other questions for our student representatives, we can move on to the district administrator's report. >> Thank you. Mine is brief. um foreshowing are first of our discussion items after consent agenda and as we get into the spring usually May, June, July are times in which the board um wants to revisit um its core beliefs around governance and again recommmit to the ideals of working towards our three goals. And part of the part of that has been exploring as a board and board superintendency what does it mean to be a board member

016and what is what is the role of the board. There are plenty of statutory requirements um written in state statute around what are um nondelleable responsibilities of the board and a whole bunch of um opportunities for the board to take up different different perspectives and scopes. For the past three years, we've been focusing in on the ideals of um belonging and literacy and mathematics and making sure that those are aligned with the beliefs and values of our community. And so tonight you'll be hearing it in a little bit from Lynn Brelo who the board has been working with over the past two years to build different skills in addition to the surveys it the board has done in the past with our community around um how it is doing. Usually those surveys have been in

017conjunction with referendums. Um but does not always have to be that way. And the board has chosen to engage the community by learning how to ask really good questions and listen intently to distill what are the themes that they are hearing that align to what the community believes which should support the goals of the board and what the community values which are become the guard rails or the lines that we should live within in trying to achieve those goals. So up on the slide I just have a little reflection from the book. I know for newer board members um you may not have um read the full book um but in chapter 17 towards the end talking about responsibility to community. It really says that the board has three critical tasks in bridging the context

018between what board members perspectives are as individuals and what the community values and believes. It's best summarized at the bottom when it really talks about that outreach and engagement does not mean you're going for consensus. It's really about getting clarity. To put it another way, board governance isn't about following the loudest voices or following or listening to only the people that show up, but it's about consistently upholding the community's beliefs and values that best serve our students. And so when you hear uh Lynn's report about listening to parents at the elementary, middle, and high school level over the past year, and for those who have been here um two years ago, listening to the the larger community conversation which kicked off um two springs ago, think about what are those things that the community believes

019should our our schools be pointed towards and under what conditions should we try to achieve those those um beliefs as it is right now that is our goals of literacy math and belonging and then the guard rails are those things by which we discuss at the board table in terms of what recommendations we put in front of the board and the board's conversations around those recommendations any questions >> questions for Dan Seeing none. All right. Thank you. >> Uh we are on to item four, the consent agenda. Uh move approval of the consent agenda as presented. >> Second amended by Croy. Is there any discussion? >> Was our question um on the billing summary? Erica, this is probably for you. There was um a thing for a new bus. Is that kind of our regular

020I know we kind of rotate out periodically. Is that what that was? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And it's all right. I understand. Thank you. >> Yes. Is the resignation of the Riverbluff learning strategist part of that the red overall reduction or is this is in addition to so we're going to have to go and be hiring again? >> Okay. Any additional questions discussion on the consent agenda? This is a small thing and I'm not sure that it's going to matter from like a documenting and meeting minutes, but the document that's linked um the sheet that had the contracts, resignations, and retirements for resignations that said none, but then it had the individuals listed. >> Know that too. >> Um so I don't know if it would be worth updating that if it matters. >> We'll

021update that before we approve minutes for next. >> Okay. export me. >> Thank you for catching that. >> Any other questions, comments? All right, the consent agenda has been moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Extensions. Consent agenda is approved. You're on to item 5A, community conversation debrief. >> All right. So, as Lyn Bridliff um makes his way to the table, um the document has been uploaded to board docs for the larger community. The board members um received this also in an email prior to board docs um agenda being posted last week. So, hopefully you've had a chance to to review it. Um and just as kind of a precursor, I want to thank Lynn for all the engagements for um with both myself and helping to prepare for the

022engagements and then with um governance to um lay out the questions and lay out the framework by which which we do this. And so just as Don said, I want to say thank you as you uh go in and provide a final report on all the all the conversations we've had this past year. >> Yeah, you're welcome. Um hello again. Seen some of you guys now a few times. Um I'm going to make this brief. Uh there might be a couple, you know, perspectives that I have as sort of an outsider, an occasional guest. Uh, I might have noticed a couple things that you guys haven't noticed, but some of these things you may have noticed. Um, of course, we all know the turnout for these conversations was lower than we hoped for, notwithstanding serious

023efforts by several people to outreach to pe to parents and encourage them and remind them of the dates, whatever. Um, I did notice the diversity of the attendees this last round was a little better than last year, which I think is a good thing. Um, I also had the impression that the people who decided to come, the people who self- selected to be part of this, uh, were pretty serious about being there and seemed like they had some really good insights. You know, when Dan and I met recently to reflect on the conversations, he made the comment, you know, looks like maybe we got quality in more than quantity. Uh, I think that's a good sort of half glasses, half full way to look at it. Um, because I think you really did get some

024pretty thoughtful people. Uh it may be that the reality is that it's going to get it's going to be hard to get parents to come to a freestanding event. You know, whether it's a week night or a Saturday or whatever. Uh parents are busy. And there also may be a little bit of a phenomenon of I'm satisfied with what's going on for my kid. I don't really need to go. I don't have any complaints, so I'll skip it. Uh it's hard to know if that's one of the things that people's thinking, but it could be. Um even though it's hard to get parents to come, I feel like it's worth the ongoing effort to try to engage parents in a dialogue. Uh and I do think there was insights from this year and last year

025that are useful. Um, but it may be worth doing some experiments. You know, one thing that came up in earlier discussions was tacking on a shorter community conversation, maybe an hour to some other event when parents are going to be coming to one of the schools anyway for something else. And maybe some of them would be willing to hang out an extra hour maybe to discuss one question. You know, maybe it's not going to be three questions. I feel like anything like that is value added. You know, any any additional number of parents that you can engage in a dialogue uh is a good thing. And it's not only that you're getting input that will be useful. I also think it's a sign on the part of the school board. We really want to hear

026what you have to say. And I think there's a certain symbolism when the school board says, "We're gonna show up and if there's three parents or 30 parents or whatever, uh, we want to hear what's on your mind." I don't think all school boards do that. And I think that when the Stoen School Board does that, it kind of says something to the community. The other thing it may be worth experimenting with some virtual conversations maybe with small groups uh you know maybe parents for this particular elementary school we're inviting you to be part of a zoom on two or three different evenings for an hour. And maybe some people that have a hard time getting child care might be able to participate in a virtual conversation but maybe wouldn't be able to drive to

027school. But and there may be other experiments but I guess under the general heading of it's worth the effort to keep trying. I think it's worth doing some experiments. I'm not going to go through the content of this. Hopefully when you read it or if you have read it, it speaks for itself. Um, I appreciate the notes that I got from all of you who were group facilitators. Uh, there's no way I would have been able to compile this just on the few things that I overheard without your notes. So, that was really important to me. Um, I will note a couple things that occurred to me as I read your notes. One thing is I think that you got some confirmation, you know, albeit maybe implicit confirmation for your strategic goals. And the reason

028I say that is I don't recall any parents saying, "You guys picked the wrong goals. These are stupid goals. Uh here here's the goals you should have picked that really would have been important to me instead of the goals you picked." I didn't hear that. And I think there are people who came who were not bashful who would have said that if that's what they felt. So I think the fact that you didn't get that sort of push back for your goals I think is a message in itself. Uh the other thing is when we ask people would you now go into your small groups and roll up your sleeves and think hard about these goals. people were willing to do that and I took that to mean these are worthy goals. These are worthy

029of my consideration. These are worthy of my participation in a brainstorming. So that's implicit but I think it's significant. Um, the other thing is, you know, and when I was talking to Dan about the slides that he was going to use, I thought it was really important for him to include some evidence that you are making progress on the goals you identified. And you know, it's incremental. You don't necessarily think about it at every board meeting, but if you look back to when you articulated these goals to where you are now, the progress is actually significant. Uh I was actually kind of surprised. I I would have thought some of these goals would have taken five or 10 years to make the progress that you're trying to make. And I think that when you report

030on that progress, even though it was a small number of parents there, I think that that sends an important message. And and the message that I would infer from that is this school board and this administration and the personnel in these schools have the capacity, which they've now demonstrated, to identify a small number of challenging goals. These are not easy goals, challenging goals that will significantly impact the students in Stoton and you're capable of developing a strategy and implementing it and focusing your energy on these goals and producing a positive impact. I mean, I feel like you're demonstrating that and I think that's really important. Um, and I think that that becomes kind of a confidence builder in the school board members that voters have elected, but also in the administration that you've hired. So,

031I wouldn't take that for granted. I think that's a really important thing. There was one um thread that I noticed in reviewing the notes, and I've mentioned it to Dan. he thought it was worth pointing out to you and that is the idea of connecting students with the larger community came up 14 times in this document uh more than some of the other themes in the document and that's interesting in itself but I also noticed maybe this is obvious but maybe worth thinking about the theme of connecting to the larger community comes up more for parents as their kids get older. You know, parents and kindergarteners may not be thinking that much. They maybe think, I want him to make good connection with the other kindergarteners and I hope he likes his teacher and I

032want him to feel safe there. But as you get to middle school and then clearly as you get to high school, this comes up more and the parents are talking about it more. Um, you know, and references to this theme included the importance of learning about your wider community, finding your place in the community, having opportunities to go out in the community and make choices about where you go and what you do, participate in community events, have access to wellness programs, apprenticeships, art, music, city government in your community. And it seemed to me like what I was getting out of that is as students get older and get closer to adulthood in that time when they're going to be out of the nest and out there having to make their way in the world. Um

033parents realize like I want my son and daughter to be able to navigate that community. I don't want them to go out there at age 18 or after college age 22 and say, "What's going on out here?" You know, this does this feels strange and foreign to me. I don't I don't feel confident out here in the community. No, I'm hoping that the STEN school system will help my son or daughters get more comfortable being part of community before they graduate. So, I thought that was an interesting thing. And there was another little theme in that was tucked in there too and that was parents saying we would appreciate any information from the school system that will help us become aware of opportunities in the community that we can help connect our kids to. So

034that was another kind of related theme. So, um, I thought most of the conversations appeared to be constructive. I mean, there was a couple complaints tucked away in there. Uh, but I thought parents were generally sharing positive ideas about these goals. I think the community conversation format created a structure that would be better than just sort of the open-ended town hall which is just come and bring up anything you want you know which is almost an invitation to come and complain um and you know some people come and celebrate something which is great but I feel like if you are thoughtful about the questions that you pose and those are questions that parents recognize guys as yeah these are valid these are worthy questions to consider that that will help to generate a productive conversation

035which I think is generally what you got um and thinking about the future I think there's three important ingredients to your future engagement with parents I think one is identifying questions that are future oriented and likely to generate constructive conversation. U and you know that could continue to be questions that are relevant to your strategic goals because I do think parents have ideas to add to the hopper that would augment for school personnel and administration the things that they could try to do to achieve the goals. Uh secondly, I think it's important that board members are present that you demonstrate that parent input is directly to you and not only you know conveyed to you through Dan uh or his team, but you want to hear it directly from parents and that when you do

036that, you're listening to them in um non-judgmental, non-argumentative way. Uh you know, there's no bad ideas today. Nobody's going to say you're stupid. Nobody's going to argue with you and try to knock your idea down. We want to hear it all. You might be thinking that'll never work or we couldn't afford it or we tried that before, it was a failure. You might be thinking that, but in the environment, your engagement with parents is like bring it on. You know, we're all ears. And having board members demonstrate that that is really good I think. Uh because of course you always have the prerogative afterwards to look at all the ideas and cherrypick them and say now this one actually could align with us. This might augment something we're already trying to do or this is

037a new idea that might be worth considering. So you always have that prerogative as a school board and as administration but in the actual moment you're just being very respectful listeners and I think that sends a message and then thirdly make a record uh you know and you guys did it by diligently taking notes as board members facilitating the groups. We of course now now know AI can do it, Google can do it. If you have virtual meetings, you can automatically record them and you can ask uh the software to synthesize a summary. So there's different ways you can do it, but I think it's important for parents to see, oh, they're making a record. This I'm not just like blowing smoke at these people. Like they're making record of what I'm saying. and maybe

038actually they will be considering ideas after this conversation you know and maybe something that we said will actually take hold as a new practice in in the district. I think those three things are really important and one of the reasons I mentioned that is I think you can engage parents whether you use the four you know the model we did separate freestanding meeting for two or three hours or one of the other experimental modes. I think you could do that and use those three principles and you can do it without me. I mean, I feel like I've enjoyed working with the district, getting to know you folks. If there's ways I can help you, I'm certainly open to do it. But you're paying me to be here. And I actually think that given the two

039years of community conversations and now the experience that board members have have had of facilitating conversations, being good listeners, being respectful, being non-judgmental, making a good record. I don't think I'm essential to that. Uh, you know, and I said to Dan, like, I'm just down the road in Pol. I can come over and help out if there's ways that I can be helpful to you. But in terms of these conversations, I don't think I'm essential to it. I think you can do it. Uh so I don't know, Dan, if you want to add anything or people have any questions, but that was about all I was going to say. >> Questions, Mia? >> So, um I appreciate both the report and your summary and highlighting things here. I did have a question about your point

040about board members being present. We were given our low numbers of registrants, we were mindful to not overwhelm them by all board members being present. >> Yep. >> What are your thoughts on various ways to navigate that? I mean, >> I think it's a good point. When I said board members president, I wasn't necessarily implying it has to be the entire board. I think if there's like a visible presence of some board members. >> Yeah, >> that's the symbol. Wow. We have a school board in Stoton who actually cares about what we think and some of them are here to listen. And if you experimented, you know, with multiple small virtual conversations, you could split up the work. Yeah. You know, it might be this conversation with 15 elementary school parents, maybe one board member

041might be enough, you know, or maybe one board member and one person from Dan's team, that might be enough. Um, I just feel like if Dan was the only one there and he said, "We're taking notes and I'll be briefing the board on this." It doesn't feel quite the same. Yeah. that >> I don't really mean, you know, it's good politics for reelection of board members. I just feel like it's it's good governance. >> Yeah. >> It's it's, you know, like we want to hear directly from the customer. How are we doing? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, sure. >> Other questions for Lynn? >> Oh, >> okay. >> All right. Thank you. Dan's got my phone number, so if you ever need any other service from me, let me know. And otherwise, good

042luck to you guys. >> Thank you. >> And as I said, I'm impressed with the progress you've already made on these goals. Uh I think it's I think it's impressive. I really do. >> Thank you, Lyn. >> Yeah, appreciate. >> All right, we are on to item 5B, world language update. All right. So, as Kate and Jessa make their way up to to the table, um wanted to provide the board with this um world language update. We know that when we were doing critical staffing, we there were several questions and we made a part of the um presentation talking about world language. We feel that it's important at this particular juncture to update the board given um some unique circumstances that have arisen and so to highlight that and to be able to answer questions.

043Um Kate and Jessa Kate will um pro provided a um summary that has been loaded into board docs and the board members received a received it um last week also as an email um that you'll talk through and then we'll open up for some questions. So Kate, >> yes, good evening everyone. I'll provide just a bulleted point summary of what you see in front of you. Our world language update for tonight pertains to a proposal for German instruction for the 26 27th year. As you know, our priority remains providing highquality world language instruction that aligns with our district values. Um and also a further element of the backdrop for our proposal tonight is that uh the board has previously approved a committee to begin towards the end of the summer uh that would review world

044language instruction with a particular focus on the current state of declining German enrollments and that committee will provide a proposal for the future of German instruction uh by December of 2026. uh since our German teachers resignation in April, we have recruited for that position for next year uh with currently no applicants for that position. Um and in the interim for our students right now, as you also know, uh we uh have we are using a virtual model as a bridge where a teacher u zooms in and we have support in person for our students um in the classroom. um that's a that's a very um uh limited option for our students when we think about our sustainability and what we really want to see from German instruction as we move forward. Um, also another part

045of the backdrop for uh the reason for our proposal to you is that our current data shows a very limited pool um in our state and certainly in our district of certified German educators uh to ensure that our students have a predictable and successful year ahead in 2627. We are proposing a proactive shift in how we deliver these courses. Um I want to first say that we've developed a proposal as I think I mentioned to you um in what we put in board documents um that has that this proposal has been developed in collaboration with our dedicated and visionary world language colleagues. Uh and we believe that what we are proposing is a learning environment that is developmentally appropriate and sets up all of our students for success. Uh we are proposing um in brief

046that our incoming seventh graders uh would be transitioned to Spanish instruction for next year or another uh elective that we would have on available for them. The reason for that is we really believe that initial language instruction is most effective in a live and an in-person format. uh we want our youngest learners when we think of of our world language learners to have that foundational face-to-face engagement. Um we would think about next our continuing students in incoming uh grades 8 through 12. Um and for those students we are proposing that they would move to a live asynchronous format through uh a virtual learning partner. uh this would be with an organization that is established and really set up for virtual learning uh for students and that would allow these students to continue on in German

047instruction in a self-paced environment. Um we would also be committed to working individually with that smaller number of students who are nearing um who are in German 3 and in German 4 uh to continue to think about options for them and potential AP for next year and beyond. Um, also working with that virtual partner, uh, we would also work with these students to explore whether or not they would want to transition into another elective that we also would have available for them um, for the remainder of their time in the district. Um, and that would be exploring other electives that would align with their interests in particular student goals. Um so our timeline and next steps are really to provide direct support to those approximately 90 students in incoming grade 7 to incoming grade 12

048who are currently enrolled in German for next school year. Uh to really walk through these options uh we would really want to emphasize for our students that might choose that virtual learning option in German the characteristics and qualities that make virtual learning successful for students. Um, among those are time management, selfm motivation, communication with instructors. So, we'd want to be sure that they understood um how how different that environment is from our very traditional uh face-to-face environments. Um, once students would make their selections, we would look to do that very soon in a number in a matter of days. Um, and we would evaluate whether or not we would need to uh come to the board again to request additional staffing for that. But again, we won't know that until we work with students. Um,

049and that additional staffing would be um projected to be in in Spanish, of course. Um, and our long-term vision, we just really want to reiterate, um, is to meet with that curriculum committee starting in late summer, um, and to work this fall to deliver that comprehensive recommendation to you by. Um, so that's a summary of our proposal and and we are really grateful for you considering it. We know it's unusual. We also really believe that this is the the right proposal for our students at this time. >> Thank you, Kate. >> Any questions for Kate regarding this proposal? >> I'm going to go with Allison and then Jim. >> Um, just I'm sure you probably thought of this and I realize there's some logistical issues. Um just thinking back to when I was in school

050and I realized that was like a long time ago. Um the only the school that I went to there was no foreign language offering at all >> and literally kids would get bus to a nearby community for for language. I know that we have talked about different things over the years as far as trying to partner with other districts >> to be able to provide some kind of in-person learning. >> And I know if we're we're already struggling to get somebody hired in, you know, looks because we're looking at them having to go between two buildings and people are thinking, "Yeah, I don't really want to do that." Mhm. >> Um that may be an issue, but is is something like that even a possibility to share in some way with another district to be

051able to provide this um in-person learning until we're able to come up with a plan based on the um committee that would meet in the fall. >> I do think that that that would be a question that the committee could entertain in the fall in terms of that being ready for for next fall. uh while it's it is a very good idea and once again I want to just really emphasize we we welcome all all ideas we want to be a look under under every sort of rock to uh for our students in any endeavor um and yet in terms of next year for German I don't see that as feasible when we think about the landscape and I think I mentioned the workforce report um for the last year for which data is available

052so that' be the 2324 school year we had five German completers in state so it does give you a sense of of the scarcity of that that particular program. Um, so it's certainly, you know, we want to encourage creative thinking. I want to underscore that. In terms of feasibility for next year, I don't think I don't think it's it's feasible at this time, but thank you for the for the question. >> Just curious. >> Thank you. >> Um, a quick question. And I think it relates to all the world languages, but just sort of a general and probably is going to be more relevant for the committee next time around of what's and it's just because I don't know uh sort of a general progression of students through languages. How many years do they take

053it and when do kids typically start and >> Oh, sure. for our district. Yeah. So, we start offering world language in seventh grade. And we do have some um data that we've shared in the past with the board over our last 10 years. Uh that does take a look at longevity and how long students tend to stay with a language and I don't have those numbers right now off the top of my head. We can certainly reshare them with you and that's exactly the kind of data that the committee will take a look at. So we have a really comprehensive understanding of of who our students are, who they've been, and what we want to provide for them in the future. >> Thanks. Mia, >> uh you mentioned that it's approximately 90 students that will

054be impacted. >> Do you have a sense of how many of those are in that 7th grade entry uh level and how many are students who've already invested some of their educational career in learning span uh German? >> I do. It's about a third that would be are entering seventh graders. >> Okay. So about 60 would be students who >> have already taken some German. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. Okay. >> And again those are approximate numbers. Okay. Yeah. >> I have another question. Can I >> let me ask Sharon first and then you um >> let Mia go first. >> Okay. >> I'm just curious the virtual option that you discussed. Is that egeneuity our current virtual provider that we would be utilizing or is it a different resource? >> Yes, it would

055be egenuity. So for example, likely Egenuity, we want to make sure that before we make that final decision that that is the best um alternative for our students. We believe that for right now it's they've been our partner. They offer German one and two. Um however, we would look to uh work with another partner for German three and four. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Yes, >> I have a couple of questions related in a way to that. Um, could we open up that self-paced format to students interested in other languages besides German? >> I think that's a great question for the committee to look at. While our focus will be on German instruction, I do think the committee, if that's an interest of the board, should and it's certainly u a question I

056think that we can take a look at. It's a committee and once again that committee will be comprised of board members as well as our colleagues here in the district. >> And in that same vein, the way that the proposal was worded, the students who've taken German already, they could continue in a self-paced format. Would they have time during the regular school day to meet with a staff member or would it be something that they would do above and beyond the typical school day? >> So it I I want to be sure I understand the question. So it it would actually be a course that they're taking, you know, so they would have third hour available, let's just say for example, to um engage in that self-paced learning and they would be in an environment

057where of course we have um adult support there. uh but it would likely not be an adult who knows German and so I think it would be just the regular support and supervision that we would provide. >> Okay. I think that in itself though is a really positive thing to be able to offer um to provide some of that structure >> even if they don't have the language experience. >> Yeah. >> Um I would just share a couple of thoughts as someone who has a PhD in a language who's been in this situation. Um, a district of our size really should be able to offer a choice. And whether that choice can be a second language that's in person at some point, great. Or maybe something with the self-paced to open it up to some

058other um other choices. But if we only offer Spanish, we're setting our graduates up for more narrow college experience. And I really hate to see that. And while they're perfectly capable of choosing another language once they get to college, the vast majority are not going to. So this is really the opportunity to broaden their horizons if possible. And relatedly, the reason that there are only a handful of German um qualified German candidates in the entire state is because of situations like this where the high school doesn't sustain it. So then there aren't enough students in college so that they have to close their programs. So then there aren't enough teachers to offer it at the high school. And not that we need to shoulder ourselves a solution for this, but if we feel very strongly

059about this language and offering choices, we need to get creative and come up with something. So >> Michaela, sorry. Um, I was just curious, um, for upper level German students, would there be an opportunity for them to pursue something similar to what's been happening with like the Spanish 5 program where they're getting college credit for that program? I was just curious since like you said that the um, Ingenuity only offers Germans 1 through two and if like more advanced students who have taken a few years would maybe have an opportunity to get some college credit like while taking a class. Thank you for the question and that is one of the reasons why I mentioned working with those students because at that point we're talking about a small number of students and we really do

060want to work with them on crafting a plan that will be really responsive to what their needs are and what you suggest is certainly within the context of what we'd want to think about if it's possible. Okay, additional questions on world language. >> Jared, >> I guess one last comment that kind of builds on what Michaela said. If we have the resources to offer four years of the language, we're setting graduates up to be in a really strong position in college where depending on where they go and the program that they're thinking of, they may not need to take a language once they get there. So, we can save them some money and some time >> or um depending upon the school and the system, if they're in a really strong position when they leave,

061they take a placement test, >> they can skip a couple of years. I did that at W River Falls. I skipped two whole years there by also saving them a considerable amount of time. So talking about giving them opportunities and being mindful about the cost of things if it's in our power to do that we're setting them up in a really strong way. >> Mia, I guess my question is just procedural. So what do you need from us? Today was really about just providing an update, making sure that you're aware, and also knowing that these steps that we're taking may in fact lead us to be back to you in short order with a possible proposal. Again, we don't know that to be true, but really it's really about an update for all of you

062and and to really answer questions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any additional questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you, Kate. >> Thank you, >> Lessa. >> Uh, we can move on to item 5C, workg groupoup assignments. >> Can I make one comment while we're transitioning? >> Sure. >> I also want to thank um Kate and Jessa for their comments. And I also wanted to thank uh thank you Mia for that last question because that is talking about what we're trying to achieve as a board in terms of we have a belief around having uh belonging. So seeing and being seen, but then also the values. One of the values that the board has articulated to me over the past four years is that the board wants to be informed when likely something

063is going to come before the board in advance when we k when it comes up. So this is the opportunity to give the board the heads up and likely if it does come back to the board, it will be with a recommendation to make some shift of of some sort. So that just for the board is a good example of what it means for what we're trying to achieve here as as a larger group in governance. So with that I'll change give back to you Jill. >> Okay. Um so workg groupoup assignments are included in board docs. Is there any discussion around that questions? You >> just one uh feedback on this chart. I think it might be a nice reminder for all of us. uh if there was another column that kind of identified

064like some of the main things that each of these work groups might be responsible for in the coming year because I think like outreach we just heard about the value of community conversations. We might be planning more of those. We always do business honor role and um oh I forget what else we do the the resolutions but I think um education opportunities has some things on their agenda for this coming year. I forget what they're doing. >> world languages in that bucket. I thought there was something else but um and then I think employee relations. Aren't we talking about some other staff staffing staff changes or some some conversations about um >> employee relations typically does um negotiations mainteners uh handbook um updates >> so anyway just a suggestion >> that's a good suggestion I

065added it to action items any other questions discussion around workg groupoups All right, seeing none, we'll move on to item six. And um hold on. All right. So the recommended action is to implement a co-pay structure and modified maximum out of pocket for our dean health plan effective July 1st, 2026 as follows. PEN co-pays apply after the deductible is met. Close PN non-preventive primary care office visit/urgent care visit $25. Specialist visit $50. Emergency room visit $250. Prescription plan $10, $35, $60, 30%. Maximum out-ofpocket 5,000 and 10,000. Implement the following changes for employees wishing to obtain the incentive to pay 10% of the premium instead of 15% effective July 1st, 2027. PN requirements will occur over the 2627 plan year to take effect in 2728 clos spouses. PN in addition to employee close PN participate in

066an annual physical wellness exam. Employees and spouses must obtain the following routine screenings when reaching the age of recommendation. mammogram, colon cancer screening, papsmear, annual lipid panel, and implement a family reimbursement account option for our employees who are currently enrolled in the district health plan and opt to switch to another plan available to them. PNEN, eg spouse or parent closed pen. Can I get a motion? >> I'll move approval. >> Moved by Moser, second. I'll second. Seconded by Pew. Discussion questions. All right. I'm going to go with Sorg. Um, I am still I I'm unclear on what it is that we want to change for like somebody going on like a a spouse or a partner's health plan. I know there's I I'm not understanding how that works. So my understanding and Al Jagger from

067USI is here and he can correct me if I miss anything but essentially what this would do would allow I'll choose an example. So if you are on a family plan and your spouse has access to insurance and you you move off of our plan and onto that plan the district will pick up the cost of deductibles, premiums, co-pays, etc. There is a little asterisk in that if they have a high deductible plan coupled with an HSA, there are IRS requirements around how much employees must pay out of pocket before we could start picking up those costs. But so once they hit that requirement, then we would we would kick in that reimbursement account. So that way if if you had say a spouse with a traditional plan where it's mostly just co-pays, co- insurance,

068um, and a smaller deductible, you would pay the premiums on the spouse's plan and then you could submit reimbursement for all of your out-of- pocket costs. >> Did does that make sense? I you know and I think it's I just have no lived experience with this because my employer doesn't offer anything for doing that and it just seems an extra expense then for the district when maybe we could put that money towards helping our staff so with some of these increased costs. >> So from a cost perspective we would not be paying the district would not be paying their premiums or their HR contributions. So paying their out-of- pocket costs of up to $10,000 for a family plan is quite a bit less than what the district would be paying for the premiums and the

069HR contribution. So the goal would be to save the employee money and then we would not be paying those costs as an employer. >> Yeah, >> that's what I said in the >> So the no the employee so if you move to your spouse's plan that spouse pays the premium. I'm sorry if I misspoke. we would pay the out-of- pocket costs, deductible, co-pays, etc. >> It's just that we as the employer would not be paying any premium cost. And right now for a family plan, that's, you know, well in excess of $20,000. >> Okay. So, and I mean I guess there's no way of predicting like who might take advantage of that, but if that is then saving us money that we're not, you know, because the premium is being paid by the other person

070in the family. I mean, I'm just trying to see if there is some way that this would somehow give us an opportunity to be able to help the other our staff that does choose to stay on our health plan to somehow mitigate some of these increased costs that they're facing if we adopt this plan. >> Yeah, I know there there have again I don't and I know my peers within the area, there have been a few districts that have gone down this path. I'll be honest, I don't necessarily anticipate we'll have a lot of people that choose this because many spouses plans still could cost the premium cost could be higher. It really just depends. And again, >> I've talked to a couple of employees that are kind of interested in it. Um, so there's

071the possibility that we'll have some people make a a shift. Um, but we we do have quite a few employees who aren't hitting their deductible. So for people that you know aren't going to feel highly impacted by this, they may not pursue it as an option. >> Okay. >> The goal was really to try to provide one way and it may not again it may not benefit everyone because a lot of employers also have high deductible plans with HSAs and with that you have to have some out-of- pocket costs as an employee. Um but for those that might have an option this could be a win-win. Okay, thank you. >> Jim, did you have a question? >> Um, yeah. Well, let me just Yeah, I mean, so many are so are so individual dependent, right?

072What does my spouse have? What's covered? What's not covered? Who's other provider? Who's all that stuff gets very complex, >> but the question just to follow up on that might be if we we might be able to track that to some degree by this time next year and say, well, here's how many people's >> Yeah. >> switched or whatever. >> Absolutely. that useful. Um the the question I had was uh and just just to confirm what I recall from last time the estimate given the uh the information we got from Dean and that plan was that we were $550,000 over budget. Um this plan is meant to reduce that to roughly 12 something%. As I recall, >> yes, the initial renewal was 19.9%. this would drop it to 12 >> is and going back to

073and I just wanted to follow up on what Mr. Lass presented in terms of because I was going to ask him but I can ask you he's talking about somehow increasing the contribution to HAS by $475. Do you have any sense of what the fiscal impact on that would be? >> I'm not going to I could figure it out. I'd have to look at how many people we have on a family plan. I mean, I don't know when you got this information as well, but >> I didn't though. I can I can certainly look at that. But it's it's and and kind of going back with what Alison is saying, I mean, we're able to sort of revisit this next year and see, you know, that may put us in a better position overall as

074we go into next year >> in terms of we may we we may be able to reduce our expenses a little bit by some of these by the things that people switching off plans and things >> potentially. Yeah, I mean we could certainly we'll have more data once we know and again we would we've already if if this is the path we go down we have um we will have an opportunity for employees to sign up for one-on-one meetings with with somebody who's walked through this and can answer you know specific questions that because like you said every situation is going to be a little bit different and um help help employees just like even answer questions to determine if it's something that would benefit them. But yes, we can track that data and have

075that available. >> Addition go ahead if somebody else has. >> Okay, I'll let Jim go. >> Um, are you okay with Jim going? Okay, go ahead. >> Just the time wise and I think as clearly we have to put a lot of effort into next goround. Just remind me of sort of a timeline of when that when you look at starting that process working with I forgot your name. I'm sorry. Al with Al. >> You we can call you Al. Yes. >> Um >> how we're all going to be singing that song. >> Um kind of when that process starts and you know how how we can be as aggressive and assertive as we can be and you know trying to get as much leverage as we can sort of timewise what what you're thinking

076ahead >> for if we were to do something different for 2027 28. >> Yes. Um, Al, you can kind of speak to that, but I think in terms of going we what I had shared with the board last time is that we would look at at bidding out to different insurance options and trying to do that sooner than later. I know some of that is based on the time frame in which those companies would look at our claims data um and in terms of when our renewal is, but can you speak to what that could look like? >> Sure. Um, we start getting data as far as the new plan changes as of July. The plan changes are effective July 1. We start getting some reasonable data September, October, November time frame as there's a

077lag in the claims information. And based on that, I'd say the first discussion point would be how is what are we seeing as far as the change of claims versus uh where they are in the process would be then to okay, what options make the most sense in the marketplace in November, where do we start looking at? And then um we as a committee or as a district um send out a a listing that we can share. And by the way, I don't know what it is, but I have this bloody nose issue. >> I'm looking up in the air. I I'm sorry. It's embarrassing. At any rate, um >> uh thank you. >> Um >> see, we make your nose bleed. We're so excited. um knowing who we want to go out to, we

078can make that decision in November. And then the the time frame usually uh would include there's a survey that oftentimes to the staff would go out with other area districts about the same time to get a sense of what's going well, what's not going well from the the provider engagement level. And then the the sending out of the RFP to the different vendors would be in January. get it back uh call it end mid to end of February so that come March uh you you can start assessing and comparing the options if that make did I hit your >> oh yeah that's kind of a sense of how how long this takes what goes into it and when when we would be looking at revisiting this again >> the other there there are two data

079points that we're ultimately collecting not only from the health plan experience but the ongoing promot motion of the clinic prevention and wellness that really helps us in the marketplace in terms of making it an attractive bid option. Um we in the marketplace based on our Clinton experience like many other area districts when they have loss of ratios like we had it it's an almost an automatic decline decline decline and we are accessing the most cost-effective unit cost currently in terms of the provider options. So the the idea would be improve the >> you know population health and uh having more aggressive options in the marketplace. >> Thanks. >> Okay, Sharon or Mia, who wants to go next? >> Go ahead, M. >> I'll go. Um I guess I'm just curious when you got that initial

080um quote back at 19 9%. Was there any discussion for going out for a full bid at that point? >> We did not just based on the timeline. Um, we got that the week of spring break. >> Okay. >> No, >> the week before spring break and then you guys went and got some additional information. It was sometime in early March. Um, we were not looking to do a full bit at that point simply because the timeline in which we would get that back, have the decision-making process and then have enough time for people to um go through the open enrollment process prior to July 1 would have been I I'm not even sure if we would have been able to accommodate that. Um, we did. So that's Yeah. So So by the time we

081got that information back, we weren't necessarily looking to do that this year. >> Okay. >> Or next year. I'm I'm still just really having a very hard time swallowing the 12% increase. I don't know anything about school districts and their insureds, but my employer had a 3% increase. They have a rate cap guarantee in place. I don't know. >> Oh, it's rate cap and loss ratio are the factors. Yeah, >> we've had some rate decreases with good loss ratios, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I mean, and the other thing that sort of still sticks in my crawl a little bit is just as an employer of this size, it it it is hard for me to understand why we only have one option >> um for health insurance for our employees. why we don't

082have, you know, even if it's just with Dean, you know, do we have an HMO and then a PO option or we do we have a point of service option that employees can buy up to if they choose. >> Okay. >> Um we used to have a dual choice option for employees. Um at the time it was physicians plus which became I don't know. >> Yeah. >> You know the UW option basically. Um, and we found, and Al, you can probably speak to this a little bit better than I can, but correct me if I'm wrong. We sort of had adverse selection going on after a point in time where we had people choosing UW option that needed specialty care, which then drove up that cost, which then kind of pushed people not needing some

083of those some of the higher cost care to Dean. and we ended up with two pretty desperate rates um to the point that that we had to to revisit and that's when we made the choice to move down to one option. Did I miss anything or did I miss at all? >> No, I think that's a very common evolution that has occurred with most every district in the area state. >> And so I guess this is a question for you. Are school districts that different than other employers in terms of their insurance behav? I mean, do you only work with school districts? You work with other employers, too. So, are school districts sort of like a different animal than um other businesses? >> Not necessarily. I mean, uh they're certainly becoming more similar. the um

084and when you say different animal, are you speaking like in terms of why they're getting different increase levels or >> Well, and just, you know, a lot of the responses are just other districts are seeing this too. other districts are doing this and I I'm just curious is it only districts that are seeing this and behaving this way or is it >> no private and public sector are having the same dynamics in this regard. What's unique about school districts certainly you have generally speaking a younger and um uh population in many regards and there's certainly a better opportunity with the clinic model to promote on the prevention side of the equation >> but beyond that the employers as a whole are experiencing the same dynamics. >> Okay. Don go ahead. I just have a comment

085um from Mia's comment is or question is that I know um school districts that are much smaller than ours that use courts um which is the UW >> um insurance. So I don't I don't think it has anything to do with um district size. Sharon, >> I was wondering if someone could clarify the requirement for the age appropriate screenings. In the document that was attached on page one, it says the employee must obtain them at the age appropriate time, but then on page and page three, it said they would need to be current on them. But then page four, there was a section where you had noted the questions that we had last time and you wanted to make it a point to address them. And that says that um can we take advantage of

086the reduction in premiums if we don't require the wellness screenings and it says yes, these seem contradictory. So yes, people need all four or so they they need it. So employees will pay 15% of the premium. If they want to pay 10%, they need to do those screening requirements based on what their doctors are saying they need based on their age. >> All four. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. the the whether or not the district would receive the reduction in total premium cost is not contingent upon us putting that incentive in in place for people to pay a lower percentage of the premium. >> Can you state that again? >> Yes. So Dean has said the the co-pay structure is what we would put in place to reduce that premium renewal cost from 19% or

08719.9 down to 12. That is separate from what we are saying. If employees want to pay 10% instead of 15, these are the screenings that are required. Okay, they don't have to do that if they but it is a requirement for them to pay the the smaller percentage. Using Mia's term stuck in my craw is that women have twice the exams that men will have in that model. um if they want that additional 5%. Which who doesn't, right? Um and it seems that we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we do nothing, then their premiums are going up 19% which is equally bad. So >> yeah, >> the feedback that we've gotten is that employees are not a fan of even this proposal but to do nothing and subject them to 19%.

088I don't love that either. >> Yeah. And there was no intention for that to be discriminatory. It's just based off of different bodies and what you know the ability to screen for certain things. Um and to be able to detect those things early has a better success rate. Um that that's really that was based off of that's the reason why those things were put put in the list. Lisa, >> the question that I had related to the screenings and I think I might have heard my answer but I want to ask it is that um we we don't have access to why are why we have what's the detail around our high loss ratio like what are the claims that are causing us to be more expensive but and so my question was is there

089any correlation between our desire to bring that loss ratio down and what we'll be requiring of people in the screenings like are these screenings intended to then result in lower um that to lower that loss ratio. And I think what I heard you say and you identified that some of these things are separate is that part of the reason for the screenings is that it will make us look more attractive when we're out to bid for a new plan. whether it's a less it's a a more a better plan with Dean or another um insure because we will appear as if we are a healthier population than we are currently is that correct >> correct >> so it's for optics kind of >> well it is for optics but it's also I mean the renewal

090is based on actuarial science and the other part of actuarial science is understanding >> the heat scores which is another fancy way of saying age gender appropriate screenings are being completed by a high percentage of our staff. And the more that we demonstrate that the actuaries and underwriters recognize there's a less likelihood for a large claimment to be a surprise. It you capture prevention capturing items earlier and more frequently. That's the intent. >> Yeah. Um, so to Sharon's point, would we be able to say, "Here's the list of the four screenings. You need to complete two out of everyone needs to complete two out of these four as a and then the males only have two choices, right? They're not going to necessarily go get a papsmear." Um, but then there's some choice in there.

091I mean, one of the things we see is that when people engage in one, I mean, this is this is my area. When people engage in one preventative health behavior, the likelihood of them engaging in way more increases. So, just getting them in for one health screening is going to likely have them complete all of them. But just for the fairness factor, if what we're requiring is that everybody complete two, here's the list of the four possible. Sort it out for yourself what your health priorities are. Um, that would feel more fair to me. >> I'm guessing that's not an option because they presented it as an all ornone decision. I mean, I I well, I guess I don't know how that would be perceived when you think about the the advantage when we go

092out to bid to to show our commitment to >> um employee well-being and then avoiding high cost claims down the road. Um, there's all I like >> I mean >> I think the rest of it's just my opinion. Like I don't I want I don't if we can help one of our employees detect breast cancer at stage one through a screening like this versus stage four. I I would have a hard time saying I'm sorry. Like I just I you know I I think that's important too. Well, they'll still have access to those preventative services. They'll always have access. Or maybe we could identify a few other USSP uh US preventive services task force grade A or B recommended preventive services that we put on the list. So, it's a bigger list and we say,

093you know, I mean, they have a list of a bunch of grade A and B recommended Just look it up. US Preventive Services Task Force. They give you all the data and all the recommendations. Um I mean a really super strong one is that everybody gets a screen for problematic alcohol use. We could add that to the list. That's a huge costsaver down the line if problematic alcohol use is identified early and addressed. You know, things like that. like people could engage in a whole host of screening activities that aren't tied to gender. Um, and we could empower our employees to make the preventative health decisions that are important to them while still showing that we care about prevention. we are um incentivizing our employees for taking preventative health measures. >> Would those like I'm

094just going to look to you. I'm would those be like if you go get a mammogram when you're 40 or 45 or whatever it is, there's no cost to the employee regardless of whether they've met their deductible. These other things, if we created this menu, would those be of would those cost employees? If it's a US SPTF uh grade A or B service, it's supposed to be free of charge. I mean, it's supposed to be at no cost to the insured. Supposed to be offered as a preventative health service at the same rate. Now, the insurance companies like to get a little tricky around that and like if you have that as part of another visit that has some nonpreventative things, then they charge you for the visit. Um, and providers don't always know that.

095So, employees need to know their rights. And I've had to say, "Hey, I'm here for a preventive visit. I know you want to talk about this. I will make another appointment to talk about this because that's not a preventative service. And I'm going to get charged for this visit if you if we continue this conversation and if you document it." So, but that's true about other things, too. I mean, >> yeah. I'm just wondering cuz by having a specific list, that would be how we would determine if employees have met those requirements based on whether or not they are listed. And so like if my doctor puts in that I need a mammogram in my chart and I don't get it done, that's how they can notify us whether I have met my requirements or

096not. If there's a I just don't know from a like >> like I I don't know. >> It would still show up in claims. We don't >> Well, how do you how will you know >> when the employees have completed those two things? >> We're working with um SSM to provide us. We don't we don't want information on these claims, but to provide us whether or not they're compliant based on certain things that we've approved. Can I ask a question about if we're getting if we're accumulating data around this um people who are electing the 10% premium, are we also accumulating data around people who are opting for the 15% but happen to be having um these uh preventative screens happening? So, is our actual data pool bigger than these 10% people? Because I would

097imagine many people might have a mammogram annually. >> Yeah. >> Um, but they might not fall into the category of the um required age to have it according to this schedule. >> So, I'm wondering if we're if we're accumulating all that data or just the data for these 10 the people who elect the 10%. So, we would we would look most people qualify for their 10% because they do the annual wellness exam and we have a process in place to make sure we know who they are because then we you know we take their their share of the premiums out through payroll. >> We would do a similar process for the screenings based off of information we would get for anyone that's on our plan that would need to meet those requirements. So we would

098get that information from Dean before July 1 to determine, you know, who's met the requirements for the following year. So that way we withhold the appropriate percentage. >> Okay. Did I answer your question? >> You did. It seems like then anybody who hasn't elected that discount um their data isn't going to be coming to us. So, we're not going to be able to use that if we shop insurance next year and say, "Well, you know, we only had five people elect this special cost savings, but actually 70% of our staff." >> No, the data is all inclusive. Everyone would be represented. >> Okay. Okay. >> And it if they are age, gender, screening compliant, they would get the lower contribution. It's not necessarily an election. It's an actual >> okay >> review of the list.

099>> And the ages that I listed, those are just like the the general requirements like for colonoscopies. If your your first one is fine, you might not need another one for 10 years. If it's not, you might need to go back after three. So that that's why we would get that information from SSM is in terms of what each individual is compliant with based on what their doctor has ordered for them. Mhm. >> Mhm. But for some people, they might start getting that uh preventative screen way earlier. Absolutely. And then have it more frequently. And so my question is, are we getting that data? And is that >> going into our portfolio? And I will just say for the group, >> um I can't believe that your company only had a 3% insurance increase. My

100company's was 22%. and um that got handed off to employees and we were happy to pay that because then we didn't have to switch health insurance and doctors. So um historically we switched to every year for about seven years and that sucked. So I really appreciate that we're trying to do what we can to allow people to continue to see the same doctor they've seen at least >> over the last year or so. Baron. >> Um, if we do nothing today, if we just stay the course, we accept the 19%. And then we plan to bid out, I forget how you've raised that. Are we in a weaker position because we opted not to take these steps or are we about in the same position either way? like is it advantageous for us in like

101a long longer term strategy? Might we be able to better negotiate rates if we do take this? >> I can let you in. >> I would say you are in a better position by evolving to the suggested changes uh for the upcoming year for two reasons. One of course is the population health. The other would be you will see area districts evolving to very similar plan design and options in the upcoming year. And I know that private sector is also evolving much more quickly and earlier, but specifically to your peers who you're competing to attract and retain staff with are all looking very very similar. And a lot of it has to do with when you look at the market, when you look at your bid process. Um, this year, even though we didn't go

102out to a formal bid, I did review with the different carriers the discussion based on this loss ratio and it would not have produced anything based on the loss ratio and the plan design. So the plan design and the effort on prevention are both designed to make a sustainable model. >> Thank you Lisa. >> I think a question there's a question for Erica. Um when you you said that um the increase at n 19.9% was about $550,000 like more than a half million than you had projected in a budget forecasting. I'm wondering so if we bring that down that there's still a gap there in terms of what we what you had projected. How do we deal with that in our budget for next year? Because I mean we're not getting the reimbursement for special

103education. we have declining enrollment, the state's not funding us at the amount that we need, and now we're going to have this additional gap. Like, where do we find the money to fill this hole? Because it's still a hole, a decent size hole. So, when um so when the the initial um when the initial response came back at 19.9, I did some I just kind of took a peek because usually we do use an 8% increase um moving forward. That used to be medical trend. We should probably talk about what that's going to be moving forward. But, um, you're right. So, then we were thinking, okay, so getting from basically 20% down to 8% is going to be really difficult. Um, and I set a target of 12, just kind of looking at where we're

104at. Um, the the known staffing reductions we made for next year. And then really, this is this isn't a perfect science, but as we have retirements or people transitioning out, you know, we do kind of look at incoming hires and if you're losing people that are on a family plan, the chances are possible that you'll bring in people on a single plan because when you look at just even those premium rates, the difference between a family and single plan, it's pretty significant. And when you multiply that by like 20 people, you know, there there can be some pretty pretty big swings in terms of budgetary impact. So, um really kind of looking at knowing who was exiting, knowing um the staffing reductions that were part of the approved plan by the board. Um that's making

105up a big chunk of it, those those three FTE that we reduced. And then and then kind of as we get into hiring season, just really taking a peek at who we're hiring, how those benefits tend to shake out. Um, and then we don't know, you know, you brought up Allison, the the family reimbursement account. Not really counting on that providing savings, um, until we we we go through to see what that's going to really actually look like. Um, that was really more offered as an option for people that might actually just benefit from that in terms of being a lower cost. So all those components, there's a lot of moving parts and it it will change from now until when you know September rolls around and we actually have all of our staff hired.

106But managing that that 8 to 12% gap was is something I feel like we can do. 20 to 8 to 20 was was a little bit more tricky when you get to that half a million dollar mark. That that's that's tricky. Allison. >> Um, kind of I guess this is kind of related to what Lisa was saying. Um, we've and then also what Jim was saying because we're I'm I'm thinking about what Mr. Lass said um about possibly offsetting this with little bit of an increase into the HSAs. And I understand money does not grow in trees, but we do talk about um being a little over in our fund balances. Is there any room there to somehow intervene for this period of time? I know it's not that simple. Just you can't just dive

107into random funds, but >> Well, you could do that, but would it just be for a year then? Well, assuming that I mean, I guess trying to be optimistic that we'll have something better if we go out to bid later and maybe some of these changes that we've make now that make us look more attractive to when we go out to bid, would that um just put us in a better position? because I mean just with all of this coming in I know we're saying that we didn't really know about this until even March but it's blindsiding for everyone and it really did put us in a funny position of not having time to try and come up with another plan. um you know, and I don't know if I'm explaining this quite right, but

108I'm just wondering if there's anywhere in some of you know, we we've talked whenever we do our audits. Um why am I forgetting what is the name of the company now? >> Riley Penner and Benton. >> Thank you. Thank you. um when they do our audits often times they say fund balances we tend to sit a little higher than they recommend. Is there anything anywhere that would help us offset some of these costs for our staff? I mean, if that's we can do that, but again, my caution would be if if we don't have the resources to do that in an ongoing way, >> we'd have to go into that knowing that this may just be a one-year thing, >> right? >> Um, but >> that I mean, typically when you use your fund balance,

109it's it's for a one-time type expense. Um >> because I know once once you put something like that in place, it gets really hard to pull back on it because it will feel like a loss. Um once you know that would be that would be my concern. Um and it certainly wouldn't be our intention to blindside people. I know when we foreshadowed this last year, we talked about the fact that this been creeping up and is a is an ongoing concern. And again, when we looked at the proposed changes, we really tried to think of a way that could minimize that cost exposure, um, understanding that when you think about a family plan, there is the potential for an additional $3,000 out of pocket. I I understand that that is real money. Um but when

110we looked really kind of dug into and that's partially why I wanted to provide some of that follow-up information when we look at um and again every person matters but like when you're just looking at the whole population um the number of people that would hit that maximum out of pocket is pretty small. Whereas if you just increase the deductible I know one of the suggestions was we'll just increase the deductible again and then put some more money into HASS. Well, that really is creating a higher exposure for probably everybody because when you're paying the deductible, you're paying 100% of costs up until you hit that threshold. With this proposal, you will pay the same 100% out of cost up until 7,000, which is what we're doing right now. Once you hit that seven, that's

111when those co-pays kick in. So, you if you go in for a surgery, you may not have any cost because it's still covered. if you go in for a, you know, your kid has an ear infection or something like that, that's when you'll pay like a $25 co-pay. So, those pieces hopefully will add up at a slower clip than if you're just paying a 100% of costs like you would towards a deductible. Um, so that was kind of the rationale behind, you know, in addition to what Al is saying in terms of what will play out well for us long term. So, that that was kind of the thinking. Um, last year, if you recall, we did put more money into HASS and increase deductibles as a strategy to reduce our premium increases. Um, >>

112but the concern long term was that, you know, continuing that strategy may not be sustainable, which is why we didn't really look at the additional H contributions. It's not to saying that we can't do it. I mean, the board can choose, >> you know, to do what they want to do. Um, as is always my caution with, you know, overspending to reduce fund balance, you know, if if that's a strategy we want to use, just thinking about how that's sustainable long term. And I guess I wasn't thinking I was thinking that if we did something like that, it would be short term because just um it is just a lot of money. And I mean I you know we're hearing from others here that their insurance went up that and more. I know I know

113mine didn't. Um I you know I'm sure it's all over the place but that would it's just a lot of money. Um and I realize we don't necessarily have it either but I just thought maybe just while we're sitting here till we go out for bid and have a few more options. I mean, I was surprised to hear that you said that there is more than one choice because I remember when we had the two, the P+ and um this one, it was my understanding that Dean said, "Hey, if you get rid of that that P+ now courts program, we'll lower your rates." And things went down for a while. And I thought that was part of the reason we got rid of that other plan was because we were going to get a deal

114on what we have now. >> We may I I'd have to go back and look >> what over 10 years ago. No, >> it was a long time ago. >> Well, it but but we also know I mean I that is possible. I just know that at that point when we made that shift and switched to one um we had >> our P plus rates had gotten quite high and we just had more and more employees selecting. So at the point in time we took on the whole population. It is possible that Dean gave us a rate break. Do you even remember that? >> Yeah. So it was I'd say when you look at peer districts they cons most all of them have consolidated because of the same dynamic. Not only because of one having

115adverse selection but the other of which if all the populations in one risk pool the consolidated carrier gave a secondyear cap a thirdyear cap. So they made it more appealing because they know what the risk is, >> but it was also a different time where those caps don't really exist much anymore. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, it just seems kind of a way to decrease competition, too, when we end up with this. And I know there's more to it. Healthcare costs are going up, but >> Okay, I'll let that go. Thank you, Mia. I know you only got the information here. Um, but I'm just curious about um the other proposal that we heard from Mr. Last of, you know, having it be a little bit having people who earn over a certain amount um

116shouldering more of an equal percentage of the increase. um which would raise the amount that that those individuals are paying. Um would that I mean there's sort of the optics of that but then there's also like the money of that. Um is your sense that that would lead to enough money that some relief could be offered to those earning the lowest. I don't I can't do that math in my head. Should I respond? >> So, we have 14 administrators. If you want to make them pay a higher percentage than the rest of the staff, the board can certainly modify administrative contracts to do that. Um, you I mean, if a premium is $25,000, 1% of that is $250, right? To I mean, so you'd have to figure out how much you were trying to gain

117by that. Um, but those are th that is actually in administrator contracts, isn't it? In terms of the percent they pay, >> I think they pay. Um, you I'd have to >> in order to to actually give you numbers, I'd have to be able to like do some math. But >> just off the top of my head, if you take 14 people for every 1%, if it's about 250 bucks, you can try to figure out what that is and then look at how much you're trying to gain from those 14 people. >> Okay? >> Right. You'd gain >> I mean over 3,000 >> total dollars. So that that's not enough to make a real dent in the impact to the other employees. >> So right, >> $3,000. >> Yeah, if it's $250, every four employees

118would be a thousand. >> I guess it again, I don't know what percentage you would be to charge them. Um, we'd have to figure that out. But >> yeah, >> if it's not going to make up 500, it's not going to make up a half a million dollars. >> Right. Don, did you have a comment? >> I do. I think that um Erica answering that question, yeah, might be a conflict of interest for her in case she's one of those people who might be affected. >> I'm on her health plan. >> Um additional questions, seeing none. Okay, we have a motion and a second and we've concluded discussion. So, I'll call the question. >> Do we want to do a roll call vote? >> Let's do it. >> Miss Croy, >> no. >> Miss Garcia,

119>> no. >> Miss Sorg, >> no. Miss Pew, >> yes. >> Mr. Moser, >> yes. >> Dr. Milin Bartlett, >> no. >> President Patterson, >> yes. >> So, that means the motion fails. >> All right. Where does that leave us now? >> Well, I mean, this Well, if it if it doesn't, Pat, right? So if if I understand what you said before, if we don't do this, we just go back to the essentially the proposal you got, >> right? Our rates will go up 19.9%. We already >> pardon >> but we already voted. >> No, I'm just saying right. So the next question would be is there any other motion on this topic that would be relevant? Is there a second you know that kind of thing? Is there a better idea? >> This was

120the only option that was uh presented to us two weeks ago. So there is no other option on the table. >> Well, that doesn't mean we couldn't put one on the table. I'm just that's why I'm suggesting if you know >> Yeah, I don't I don't think we can put another option on the table after we've already discussed the motion and no other motions were signed. >> Yeah, there's nothing on the agenda. So, can I make a motion? >> Um, I think it has to be noticed >> there. Can we take a short recess? >> Okay, >> take a five minute recess. >> Let's take a five minute recess. explain. >> Um, so >> so the next step would be if someone who voted against the original motion wanted to make a motion to reconsider

121the original motion. I would move that we reconsider the original motion. Second. >> You got that? All right. Uh discussion. >> I had a question for Erica in case this the original motion was >> this is we have to vote on the recon the resider reconsidering first. >> All right. Um let's do a roll call on that. >> Miss Sorg. >> Yes. >> Miss Croyle. Yes, >> Mr. Moser. >> Yes, >> Dr. Milin Bartlett. >> Yes, >> Miss Garcia. >> Yes, >> Miss Pew. >> Yes, >> President Patterson. >> Yes. >> Okay, now we can have a discussion. >> So, it's as if the motion, the original motion is now active and >> back on the table as y. So, since the original motion was not was not popular, I'm and if there's a way

122to make it better, and just going back to this idea of fund balance as a as a one-year option, I just talked to Jim about this, like I don't know how much we currently pay to um to reduce the premium to 10% for the people that do the wellness exam. Do you know how much like we're putting out there for the district to lower that premium for the almost 100% of people that do that? Does that have a number assigned to it? >> So you're asking me what 5% you're essentially asking for the number of employees that we have that are getting the district with the district 90% >> and what that dollar amount is. So the 5% delta for all of our employees on the plan. >> Yeah. Well, I guess not off the

123top of my head. >> Just po pause that. I guess if there would be a way to bring that 10% premium incentive down to zero for people that complied with all of those health screenings. It would create a greater incentive for people to complete those screenings and achieve the goal of making us look more more positive in a rebid in the spring, but I don't know how expensive that would be. I mean, not everybody's going to take up those four screenings um probably to the same degree as they do the one the wellness exam for the one person. So, I that I'm just wondering if that's an option. >> So for >> All right, give me two seconds. Well, >> that that's going to cost a lot. >> A lot. >> Yeah. I mean, for

124>> employees paying 10 So the the current year, I'll just use what we have in 2526. For employees paying 10% of a family plan, they're pay $219. A single is $890. And we have so 220 people on a family plan times 209 that's 444,000 and we have uh 90 time 8.90 that's about a half a million dollars. half a million out of >> employees pay nothing for their premium share >> and so if it was at 5% then it would be half of that. >> Yeah. Okay. I mean just b and that's before the increase for next year. >> So t 20% onto that. >> How much do we have in the fund balance? >> Um I don't know. It's it's I mean it's >> when our auditors talk it's usually around 30% but that

125include that's just fun 10. if we include fun 10 and 20 just say like I don't know 28ish% >> um again I'd want to look at that but >> that's fine right >> any additional discussion Mia >> what is the timeline that you absolutely need something from us to put the insurance plan in motion so Our open enrollment for employees to select insurance is intended to start on May 20th. And that was with the goal that we would get the information to the company that helps administer that tomorrow um because they need to have 10 business days to get that information compiled and then open enrollment would go through the end of the month. So that way we could update insurance uh premium deductions off of employee paychecks in June for their July and August

126premiums. So yeah, >> and we would have those FRA meetings starting on Friday if we were going to do that. So >> So we we backwards mapped it for the for a decision tonight. >> Additional discussion, Jim. Yeah, I think you know because I think that I think the issue of having a fund balance that's above our target of 20 I think our target was 25%. Did we adopt that? >> I'd have to pull up the policy. Um our goal has always been to avoid short-term borrowing, right? And we've been able to do that. Um our the policy does identify a certain threshold. I know I've sent an email to Dan probably at least once a year for the last couple of years around what I think that target needs to be in order to

127maintain the ability to avoid short-term borrowing. Um I I don't have that in the top of my head right now. I >> Yeah, I mean I think our I think our I mean I think we have a what I would describe as a healthy balance. Um, my concern and why I want would want to probably not want to dip into it is because it also then creates sort of a in my mind can create kind of an odd structural deficit for the next year. >> Um, so assuming insurance premiums go up regardless of what we do, they may not jump like they did this year, but they're going to jump. So we're then having to So we're going to patch the hole now, but come next time around. Now we we could go back and

128go from 0% to 5% or 5% to 10% and be kind of where we're at now. But I'm reluct I would person I guess I'm just reluctant to create kind of a structural deficit essentially which is I think that would do I think. >> Don, >> we can't tell what is go. We don't know for sure what our premiums are going to be next year or how much they're going to increase next year. We that's that's an unknown. So you can't base what happens right now on some you something that might or might not happen in my opinion. And also um it's not going to be a structural deficit forever. it. I mean, Erica is very very conservative when it comes to that, but I feel like this is a good place to use that.

129>> That's just my opinion. Sharon, do we have control over any of the details currently on the screen or are those more like this is what we've been handed for from SSM or Dean and we either need to accept it all or we need to reject it all. The proposal to reduce our premium increase from 19.9% down to 12% is contingent upon that that co-pay structure and that max out of pocket change. The intention of the screening piece was again to set oursel up well for a bid out next year. The FRA was truly just to give employees an option that might save them money. So is it possible for us to do something in the vein of what Mia had mentioned earlier? The organization that has identified a number of tier A and B

130health challenges. Could we like adjust the verbiage in just that section? Something like here are like eight preventative screenings. Please choose four of them. that would presumably still have meaningful data to set us up to make a good case for the the bidding in the fall, but we would keep like all of the other dollar amounts the same. >> Sure. And I um I might be speaking out of turn, but my understanding of when the question was asked it was that doing that requires some sort of collection of data and we're not going to collect data on our employees. So we rely on the but the insurance carrier to say that this Dankeer met the threshold for the deductible. If we all of a sudden make it a a variable list, there's no true false

131statement in that for the insurance company to give us the data to say that I met met the threshold or didn't. We'd have to ask >> we would have we would have to ask them and that so this was was saying here are the highest lever screeners that to to make us the most attractable to future um insurance carriers when we're bidding that out. So that's >> so we asking for data around these four in particular, but theoretically we could ask for data for five or for six if we wanted to. Like if we made it a list of a finite number, I'd want to ask I can't I don't want to commit to that here and and and somehow assure the board that we've I just want to make sure that it's doable. >>

132I understand. Thank you, >> Mia. >> I do just want to say like as a point of feedback, I think the frustration at this point is that when we had this on the agenda as a discussion item, a lot of these same points were raised. Um, a lot of these same concerns were raised and questions were raised and then it was it's just brought back to us with I mean I appreciate the clarification that you provided us, but nothing changed in the proposal based on the concerns that lots of board members expressed in our original discussion. So, we were just handed back the same thing and said, "Okay, now we're going to talk about it some more and you get to vote yes or no." there weren't options or additional considerations or any changes and

133I mean for me that is a point of frustration. I I I hear I I hear that and I also will reflect back that when the discussion it was clarification on the questions there weren't necessarily other options that board members said will this reduce this will this reduce that it was of the four is there an option for is that a a firm option or is that a flexible option There there wasn't an ask for other proposals to be brought to the board. We bought re brought the best proposal to fill the to reduce our our costs from this year to next year looking to do a full bid next year which >> perhaps this discussion prompts some additional questions. I don't know and I don't want to to kind of mirror Erica's comment. I

134don't want to commit to the board that anything discussed here is automatically going to lead to some sort of plus or minus on on a perspective. >> That's why we have the experts in the room. And one thing we did commit to after the meeting and shared with the board was to have a representative who is much more knowledgeable and has the context of having talked in other contexts and the question was asked about public and private and what what they're seeing. this proposal from my perspective and staying within the bounds of conflict of interest and Don I appreciate you elevating that that point of order to to that because I'm on the district's insurance as well. um that talking about costs and dollars is always going to have a response that is landing for

135some differently than others. As a as a board, we're bringing you the best recommendation that we have at at this particular point for the board's consideration. If the board chooses to vote uh one way or the other, we have to make a decision moving forward. We've made a decision. We've reconsidered the decision. The decision is in front of the board as if the last vote never existed. If the vote is no, the next time that this could come before the board would be the very next board meeting. But I don't necessarily know if there would be a better option that we we could explore for the board to consider. If the board accepts the recommendation, we know what the costs are going to be this year and there's no guarantee a year from now other

136than to know that we as a group are going to commit to exploring those options. And part of that is making ourselves look as attractive as we can as as L has stated, make our district look as attractive to potential in uh health insurance provider as we can. This is this is one of those big rocks that helps us build our budget for next year. And the timing of what of all of this puts us in this position. >> I don't know, >> Allison. So I guess to that with timing and I'm not sure Al Erica Jess where this would go. Um is this typical for us to find out about increases like this or decreases or rate changes or however like right around March is that usually when that falls >> for this geography?

137Yes. for other parts of the state it may be later April. So it's good news is it's for a July one effective date. >> Um yes. >> Okay. So that just sort of always puts us in the position of oh wow and now it's too late to do anything to bid for next year and I I don't know if we have any control over being able to get that information sooner next year. I mean, in I should have had we we in a perfect world in hindsight, I could have brought this to the board meeting immediately following spring break. Both Jess and I were gone that week and we just didn't have the time to pull it all together. So, >> you know, well, >> if it would have felt it would have given us

138two more weeks. I'm just wondering if there's a way in the future to not have this timeline. >> It's a great question and I'd like to expand on the realities of the positives and the negatives. Okay? >> Because >> the the positive of getting it earlier is you know your worst case scenario earlier. So you know your bid earlier. >> The negative is you're asking carriers to make a bid for July 1st through June. a commitment on claims that effectively took place from July through October or July through November. Every additional month of additional information, they have more confidence, more security or more understanding of what their risk is. The less confidence they have, the less aggressive they get. We've found the sweet spot for the carriers to be effectively at this point in time.

139Part of the reason other parts of the state or even later is they don't have any carriers competing at all. The great comment about competition, we at least have the UW fighting SSM to a degree for membership. Other parts of the state don't even have that. It's not clear. And as a result, they're they're later. So, we can submit or request the RFP to be earlier, but it it's kind of we'll we'll know our worst case scenario earlier, but we may not get the most aggressive number. And so, that's kind of the >> the challenge. Now, the last thing I'll say is when we look at the data come this upcoming October, November, December, um if things are looking good, let's get that dang RFP out right away and try to secure the most aggressive

140numbers because, you know, other things can happen in the other directions. That's all part of those. >> Okay. Thank you, Jim. >> I I think we should have this the students reflect on what they're learning about governance. They just want to go home. >> But in the interest of doing something just seeing where we go, intrigued by Lisa's thoughts, uh, sensitive to Don's point about, you know, what we don't know what's going to happen. I would propose an amendment. Would you, if you'd like me to hear? >> Go ahead. >> Say it. >> Go ahead. It's yours. uh uh we're implement the following changes for employees wishing to obtain incentive to pay 5% of the premium instead of 15%. Knowing that that's going to eat into the balance, not as deep as if we went

141all the way taking some risk about where we're at a year from now. And I'm so I'm just proposing as an amendment. >> Um >> needs to be a second. >> Needs a second. What? But to clarify, 5% instead of 10% or are you suggesting >> Are you suggesting 10 and 15 or five and 10? >> Five and five and 15. >> Okay. Um do we have a second on this amendment? Second. Seconded by Sorg. >> Do we have to >> you have to vote on the amendment? >> Yeah. or if there's any other discussion. >> There could be discussion on the amendment. >> Discussion on this amendment. Uh >> double check. We're talking about the section that says implement the following changes for employees wishing to obtain the incentive to pay 5% of the

142premium. >> Yes, that's that's the amendment. Yeah. >> 15%. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I do have a question. >> Mia, go ahead. This is I guess for Dan and Erica. Um given that we don't know like we don't have in front of us the numbers for the fund balance. Um would it be more comfortable for us to say that we recommend whatever reduction we can reasonably fund out of our fund balance without dipping too low? Or is there not concern that that 5% would dip our fund balance lower than we really want it to go and lower than the auditors? I mean, I'm just concerned, sorry. I'm just concerned that we don't go lower than our auditors will be happy with in the fund balance. um think we would soon crunching numbers.

143>> Yeah. >> While she's doing that, let me just say I I think it's a it's a I'm very sensitive sort of the the point of you don't want to we don't want to eat into the fund balance when we don't have to. So the question is does this fit that? That's why I suggested sort of a >> halfway point and to see how decisions get made. Can you imagine can anything get done at the federal level like this? I don't know. >> Don, did you have >> I have a question um for Jim and I think it's what Sha Sharon just asked, but I just want to make absolutely sure. Okay. implement the following changes for employees wishing to obtain the incentive to pay 5% of the premium instead of 15% effective July 1.

144>> Is that what your amendment is? Okay. >> So there is that chance that some employees will be paying 15%. >> Could be. Okay. >> Um that would cost about $300,000. you know, >> and and I mean, we only have I we don't I don't know. I I I don't want to throw out numbers. We don't have very many people who don't meet that 10% thresh threshold. So, I'm just assuming if everybody hit that 10% that then dropped it to five, that would be approximately what the impact would be. >> And that's assuming that they get all of those required screenings, which is a higher burden to do. >> Yeah. Mia, >> I also think you know around the issue of um you know setting up a precedent or having people expect it. I think

145we can very heavily communicate that you know the board did this in recognition that this year was a diff is a difficult raise and that we won't have the money to fund that out of our fund balance in future years. So, you know, that families should, you know, be expecting >> to pay more. And yeah, I mean, I'm just thinking like of my family. If I knew I was going to be paying a a larger amount, I would do something differently this year with savings. >> So, so the intention would be that the the 10% would go to 5% just for a year. Uh, it's a >> good question. No. >> Um, about how much would that um save a somebody on a family plan that going from 10 >> $1,130 >> $130 >> $1,130.

146>> Good question though. Um, let me think. Right. >> Oh, is it Alison? >> I don't Did you have a question, Alison? >> I'm not sure yet. I'm still just I'm just thinking through this. As the motion is stated, this this is an adjustment to our plan mo moving forward. >> Without without a different plan, this would be the plan moving moving forward. So to >> Jim to your to your amendment that would be the plan moving forward not time limited unless there was amendment to make it time limited >> it is only for the next >> which is causing me to think about whether I'd want to do that and I think I'll leave it as it is for Additional questions, >> discussion >> or context that estimated $300,000 is the next year. That

147cost >> grows year after year. Unless time limit >> last week, >> unless it's time limited or we go to a a new >> there's a different plan put in place. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Um I I would amend that motion that it would be for the following plan year only. >> You can offer It's been seconded. So you can offer a friendly amendment. Okay. >> And Jim can choose to accept it. >> I'll just say friendly. Forgot to put friendly in there. Jim, my my new neighbor. >> Um, that that's fine with me. Yeah, I don't I don't object to that. >> So, the qu the mot the amended amendment on the table is 5% for neck for the next school year. Okay. >> Did you catch that? >> Any further discussion? >>

148Can I just make one point? >> What so what that will essentially do is drop employee contribution shares compared to the current year. Um so just so instead right this right now a family plan is $ 2019. with the increase it would go up to 2261 with that 5% decrease that then drops by over $1,000. So just understanding that in the the next year they'll employees will see their their the amount coming out of their checks jump by a thou over $1,000 >> and I think that's >> like if if we that I just want I just want that to be understood. Well, I I think that Oh, I'm sorry, >> Mia. >> I was just going to say just to clarify, but their deductible is still a little higher and their co-pays are still

149higher. >> So, the deductible is not changing. >> Okay. >> What what's what's the recommended proposal is that the deductible stays the same. >> Okay. Once an employee has hit their deductible, then certain so services would incur a co-pay. A generic drug would cost $10. An office visit would be $25. Um the I mean you see them up >> and is that a change from our current year >> change is that co-pay structure and then the maximum out-of- pocket cost. So right now the the most you'll pay is $7,000. Once you get your deductible, you're done. >> Oh wow. This creates the potential exposure for an additional $3,000 for those co-pays. >> Right now, only about 38% of our employees as of this point in time have have hit their deductibles. Um many don't. Um

150for those that do, you'll have that additional potential exposure up to for a family plan up to $3,000. Um in the follow-up information, again, everyone every situation is unique. So, I don't want to presume that this isn't going to happen to a lot of people, >> but if you are someone that I'll My husband tore his ACL, got his surgery, we hit a deductible. After that, we don't have a lot going on. Couple ear infections and a couple antibiotics. That's probably going to cost me an extra $100. My biggest concern was that top tier drug that was that 30% amount, which is why we asked some addition some additional information. if you have that potential $3,000 exposure and you're on a $10,000 drug that hits that 30%. Well, right there you've hit that extra $3,000.

151So, that's why when gathering some additional information, we learned um because as I was I was looking at the drug list, I'm like, I don't even see anything on this list. So, for employees that are in that category, there's we have 13 individuals um not 13 employees, but 13 covered individuals that fall into that category. Of those 13, six of them will not be impacted because there are coupons. And I'm I'm I'm just reading I'm just telling you what I wrote. But um one of the people we aren't sure because the manufacturer doesn't tell us whether those coupons expire or not, but there are probably six people that fall into that tier that might maximize that that additional $3,000 exposure. Um it doesn't mean that other co-pays couldn't get you there. Um, for some perspective,

152as I've talked to different employees, I just said, you know, $3,000 when you're incurring like a $25 co-pay, that's 120 office visits. So, it it it doesn't mean that it's not an all or nothing. It's not $0 or 3,000. I mean, there's a whole spectrum in there. Um, so that that's the change. Right now, the deductible is $7,000. The contribution into a family HR is 6,150. Um, so employees, they're on top of the premiums that they're paying, their 10 or 15%, they're looking at an $850 gap between that HR and that deductible that they're responsible for. Um, this would be the potential for up to an additional $3,000 in co-pays >> and the other stuff that we've talked about with the screenings and whatever. >> Um, Allison. >> Yeah, >> sorry. Um, so sorry I

153kept saying HSA because that was what I have. Your HASS, um, let's say this passes with this new amendment and they've got this little bit over $1,000 savings in premiums. If an employee wanted to take that money and didn't spend it, can they put that into their HR? >> No, >> you can't. They are different. an HSA is a little bit different, but we offer a flex spending plan. >> Um, so employees that choose to have money withheld from their their checks through their flex plan do so on a pre-tax basis. It's not subject to like a Medicare, state or federal taxes. >> So they can have both at the same time. >> Yes. That's part of why we have an HA and an HA doesn't have those same employee spend requirements that an HSA

154has. >> Okay. And our plan is set up so that FSA dollars are used first because those are use it or lose it and then the Gary dollars are used last because those are rollover. >> Yeah. And that's why when we've talked about employees if they we have some employees that have used that as a strategy. So they will max out how much they have available in their flex plan which means they use their flex dollars to pay for their deductible. They don't spend their HR that carries over with them. So if they're still employed as of June 30th whatever is in that carryover account goes with them. So, we have some employees who have accumulated some balances year after year as a strategy to use for future health care costs. It kind of goes

155back to Well, you've been here, Alison, like you um when we moved to a high deductible plan that the the thinking at that point in time was we'd rather pay our employees than the insurance company, which is why for employees that didn't hit their deductible, they didn't necessarily use those HR funds and they've been able to accumulate those. And um I think in my first presentation that I did here and then sent out to employees. I mean we have some employees. I mean I think our highest is over $40,000 in that in that account. So it's been a nice strategy for some people. >> All right. Thank you for that explanation. >> Yeah, no problem. Lisa, I feel like we're kind of editing on the fly here and maybe not coming up with the very

156best idea, but I wonder if I know this would put you off your timeline, but I wonder if knowing the board's kind of strong desire to have a one-year fix time limited, knowing that we would be communicating to staff that there might be a change in the next year, but that we're doing this to set us up as best as possible um to to bid out for the best possible options. If you went back knowing that, could you come to the next board meeting with a couple of options to consider that are better than what this current amendment is in terms of implications that you've been sharing? I mean, I know you believe this is the best plan, but if there's not agreement on that and we're saying we want something different and we're willing

157to, you know, ask the district to pay for something else, do you think there are better ideas than this one? Um, I my intent with this was to be the least impactful to the most to the largest number of employees um and still meet a bud a budget target. If you would like a different alternative, it would be helpful if I had some budgetary parameters to work within. Jim, do you have another >> just a comment really or it's just in light of where we're at. I think um you know clearly since I voted for the original motion I think that's the plan we should do. But in the interest of moving something forward that might pass. That's my amendment. I'm not suggesting that what I've amended it to be is is a great plan.

158I'm just suggesting it's a plan that we can compromise >> make a decision on and move forward in a timely way. >> Um could is there a possibility that given more time there's some other things out there I given the complexity I skeptical of that. >> Don Jim can you um uh repeat your amendment so we all know what we're voting on? >> Sure. So amend the section that starts with the phrase implement the following changes for employees. Okay, for that section implement to implement the following changes for employees wishing to obtain incentive to pay 5% of the premium for the next what what how do we describe the next school year? 2627 >> for the 2627 school year instead of 15% effect of July 1st 2027 >> is that is that I think >>

159well so >> the yeah I don't know why I didn't trigger in on this sooner so the intention would be that those screens would be in place in 2627 for employees to hit their premium reduction >> in 2728 because to to try to have everyone do that quick before the end of June is >> should have caught that. >> Thank you. We should have >> um No, that's so we have right now to meet that incentive to pay 10% instead of 15% for employees. They do that by having the um the plan holder completes a wellness screen like an annual physical. Mhm. >> So that's already in place >> for next year. So if we're saying that employees that meet that requirement for next year would have the reduction, we would have a mechanism in

160place based on what we've currently been doing. But the recommendation of the new requirements would be occurring in 2627 to affect that incentive for 2728. >> And is is it feasible to that that could be done? I mean, is there any thing on our end there or anything that would prohibit that from happening? >> Are you referencing just the >> additional screenings? >> Um, >> if if we wanted this to be effective in 26 in 26 27 to get the 5% is that doable >> if if we I think so. >> Yeah. I I mean I don't know what short answer is yes. The longer answer is in large part individuals would the biggest concern on the timing for this year is the open enrollment that's occurring for this upcoming July. >> Sure. >> Everything

161we're talking about effectively impacts July of 2017. So as a result um if you were to make amendments but meanwhile the rest of the plan design and contribution for the 2627 is not impacted which none of your amendments would impact. We could begin the open enrollment process with the rest of the um plan pieces on the table. Does that make sense what I just stated? >> I'm not clear. >> May I ask a clarifying question? So is the amendment so so people who have already done their wellness exams this last year for 26 27 to get their 10%. Are we asking to amend those people down to 5% for this coming school year? No, we're asking to amend for 2728. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. >> Is that what we're asking? Um well absent any other

162language any language other than what has been suggested in the amendment it sounds to me like we would be saying anybody that has met this already could go down to 5% for the 26 27 and that in theory then other people can get on at 20 you know for 2728 am I read am I understanding your question correct >> so I So absent absent any other change, I I guess I would say I would read it to be that anybody who has completed those this past year would be eligible. >> The new screenings >> well those same screenings, >> right? But not just the wellness exam. >> Correct. >> But this states effective July 1st, 2027. So you would have to amend it further than you already have >> if we want it to be.

163So is it so so the current current thing is for the wellness exam which is different than these things. >> So right the if you employees have had this year to complete a wellness exam to be eligible for that premium incentive for 2627 >> the new changes would happen during 2627 to impact 2728. But if the goal is to reduce impact to employees in 2627 due to the proposed change in plan design, um >> I see >> waiting until 2728 to shrink that premium incentive is not going to reach that goal. >> Correct. >> I see. >> And and and we've made it for one year, so it might go back anyway. I think you should run for office. >> Um, yeah. Okay. All right. I mean, it's I'm glad you I'm glad we just

164sort of revisited that because I think that >> I'm sorry that sooner. >> Well, we I'm reading it through same thing. So, >> a lot going >> um a lot. So it would it would ren it would essentially say so I guess one option would be um that anybody who's completed the current incentive >> could be eligible >> yes >> any potential down the road is more likely to include these other things these other things would come into effect um in the future but not necessarily for this year's plan >> right trying to >> so somebody who did the wellness exam um didn't do any of these other things would still be eligible for 5%. >> Yes. >> Under the current way it's currently worded >> if the goal is to lessen the impact in

165the upcoming school year. >> Correct. >> Okay, I understand it. Thank you. Good discussion. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Are we past the threshold where someone could get that annual wellness exam um if they wanted to have the greater impact this year, but they haven't yet? had there. Well, I think it's it's pretty close. It's we're past it. Okay. >> I don't know if we're past or we're right at but yeah, we've but that's >> Well, yeah. Whether it's been >> Yeah. >> the the understanding would have been for 10%, but they have they have known about that. That's not a new thing. >> Right. Right. Right. So, >> if I'm so I'm an employee that said I wasn't going to get that much out of it. I'm do wellness exam. I'm still at 10%.

166>> I mean, excuse me. You're still at 15. >> Yeah, I'd be I'd be >> Yeah, 15, excuse me. Um, so they're no worse off than they are now, >> but they're not too they don't have a chance to do better, >> right? And I would say that again that that 5% I mean it is thousand dollars. I' say that many people find that to be >> meaningful, which is why most people do it. >> I think I think the way it's worded would would say let's let's deal with it as as it amended. Um, knowing that we want to get this more into our plan going forward as well. Um and people can start to prepare for that maybe one way or another but we'll be admitting a whole new plan anyway or not

167sorry a whole new plan but all right so that's so no other changes are needed I don't think what the amendment is >> so so I want to make sure I understand so we can do this right the the amendment is that for those who have met the incentive u requirements for 26 27 the employer would pay 95% % and the employee would pay 5% instead of 8515 >> um >> For one year >> yes is that how do you want the motion to is that is that language the best language I think it's better than this other stuff. It's it's really just changing really the premium incentive becomes yif. >> Yeah. The premium incentive instead of 5% becomes 10%. >> So, so let me So, who has the motion as it currently stands? >>

168Rachel. is as what I've hit what I said >> your amendment was to go from 10% to 5% for the 26 27th school year >> and then there was a time limitation >> the time yeah the time limitation was just for >> one year >> the next year okay >> and who made the time that was Allison made the friendly amendment to Jim's >> um amendment >> all right Lisa >> but are are we removing the part that says to take effect in 2728. That's where I'm a little confused. >> Would you it if if the intent is to keep in the new requirements for 2728, it's as if we need a sec we need to add an additional component. So you'd be approving the recommendation for if this is the intent the you'd be

169approving the recommendations for the new requirements to happen in 2627 to take effect in 2728 to have employees pay 10% instead of 15% because this is a one-year thing. >> Correct. >> For the 2627 school year only, those employees who have met the the premium reduction incentive requirements would pay 5% instead of 10%. Yeah. >> Okay. Lisa, did you have a comment yet or a question? >> I'm just not sure I'm understanding. I I I'm sorry. So, >> if I have I get a wellness exam in the next year >> in 26 through July 1st, 27. Just I only get a wellness exam. >> Nope. But I but if I would I pay 10%. >> No. With what's on the table, you'd pay 15. >> I'd pay 15. >> If you got If you got

170a wellness exam this last school year, you would pay 5% now. >> Yes. >> Oh, so I So we're those folks are getting the 5% premium just for a wellness exam. >> Yes. This current year they had to do a just a wellness exam to get 10% for 26 27. We're changing it from 10 to five. >> Okay. So, so the school district is paying down to a 5% premium for these people over the past year. >> Yes, that's the amendment. >> Uh Allison. >> So then does that get us does that get us to our our hope our encouragement? the carrot. I guess we're dangling to get people to get the screenings if they've already gotten a wellness exam this year and we're they're getting the 5%. >> Is there still going to want

171to do those screenings for 2728? Yes. Because that ain't in place in that amendment. >> Okay. >> It depends on what your goal is. I it seems as if the intent with the amended motion was to reduce the impact the reduce the potential cost implies. >> I just want to make sure there's not a disincentive for the >> I'm sorry. >> Additional questions. >> Go ahead. >> I hate to do this but what I think the numbers would be the same. What if instead of 5% this year and then back up to 10 next year, we do 7 and a half this year and 7 and a half next year just because we want to encourage them to take this expanded panel of preventative services. And if it looks like the incentive is less next

172year, but they're having to do more, that's concerning. Well, the reality is the premiums could increase far beyond seven% next year, right? >> If our loss ratio doesn't improve. Yes. >> And I'm I am not comfortable um with any kind of emotion that would put us in a position where we're using additional funds we don't have and haven't budgeted for um beyond one year. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable using fund balance for this as it is because we don't know what's going to happen. We could have all sorts of things go ary that we would need that fund balance for. So, um that's why it's there. It's like rainy day fund. So, we spend this money now and we have no rainy day fund is kind of alarming to me. I don't know the numbers because we

173don't know the numbers, but how much we have over what the auditors would recommend that we spend um I'm guessing is going to be far less than what we're proposing to spend tonight. >> I I I'm just can't answer that on the spot. I would really need to look at that. Um, I'm sorry. >> No, we won't want to misspeak when we're >> talking about that. >> Um, I'll just pass me a note. And I think I I just want to be fully transparent. I I the the $300,000 number is assuming that we maintain the same number of people on our plan. if the employer share because when we have as we've had these wellness incentives in place for years um if you are a new enrolly to the plan we start you at that

17410%. So then you have a year to get your exam done. We don't want to you know penalize people that are new to the plan when they haven't even had a chance to meet those requirements. So, there is the potential with a 95% employer payment that we could have additional people jumping onto our plan because that that's a pretty high premium share. And that's that's that's just a reality. I mean, we that's we run the risk of people coming on and getting off of our plan every year anyway through the open enrollment process. But I think it is a fair um it's fair to acknowledge that. So, I don't want to like commit like this is the only like these aren't firm numbers because people do come on and get off of plans at any

175given point in time. >> No, Eric, I appreciate that. >> Additional questions, Mia? I think at at its heart, what the no votes and the amendments are reflecting is the board's desire to in some way cushion the blow for the educators um of this increase. Um I don't you know other people feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Um, so I guess in my mind there is another thought and I don't know how out of left field this is, but we leave the proposal exactly as it is. We vote to approve it and we give Dan and Erica the directive of look at the fund balance. How much in excess of what the auditors are recommending do we have? And is there a way that we could, you know, not change the percentage that

176they're paying or something, but offer some other type of incentive to our employees as a one-time, you know, lump sum payment or something like that. you could do that. >> I I mean I'm I'm just, you know, trying like it's gotten really messy and um I know that a lot of work went into this proposal even though, you know, it's not reflecting exactly what I would like. I appreciate how much work happened to get it to this point. Um, and so it feels like maybe it would be cleaner to do something like that that would still get at the value that the board is trying to promote, which is, you know, taking care of our people. >> Allison. Yeah. Um, and I Mia, thank you for saying that. And by voting no that I don't

177think any of us wanted everybody's premiums to go up by almost 20%. Um, I also agree that if we can find some way to do some kind of like a small like increase into the HR or whatever, we might be legally able to do to help offset this cost. and stick with this because truly the now the more we talk about the percentages it is getting more concerning um because again we don't know what's going to happen next year next year it might go up 50%. Heaven forbid. >> Okay, Don, >> I move we table discussion and vote on the amendment. >> Very good. Anyone want to second that? >> Second. Seconded by a few pew. >> Got to vote on Wait a minute. Wait a minute. >> Vote on the amendment. The amendment's on

178the table, right? >> No, first we have to vote on closing the >> closing discussing discussion. >> Discussion. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> All right. All in favor of closing discussion. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Abstensions? Discussion is closed. So now we are voting on the amendment >> as um amended through the friendly. >> All right. And I would like a roll call vote on this. >> Miss Garcia. >> Yes. >> Miss Pew. >> Yes. >> Dr. Milin Bartlett. No. >> Mr. Moserification, >> can we do a clarification when we're already called the question? No, we have to just vote. >> Okay. >> Mr. Moser, >> yes. >> Miss Croy, >> no. >> Miss President Patterson, >> no. >> Allison didn't vote. Alison didn't vote. >> Sorry, Miss Sorg. >> Right. Um, no.

179>> Amendment fails. >> All right. >> Okay. >> So, >> we're back to the original language. >> Okay. >> That is how this works, guys. It's >> Yep. >> Okay. So, now we're back to the original motion. Does someone want to move? >> Well, it's already on the table. >> It's already been moved and seconded. >> Oh, so we just brought it back. The question would be is >> Any other discussion? Amendments. >> Sharon, procedural question building on what Mia said a moment ago. If we pass this tonight and we ask Erica and Dan to um see if there's anything else that we can do with the fund balance up to that amount that the auditor recommends, does that need a formal motion baked into this or is that more like a >> separate board

180information to the board president? The board president can add it on to the agenda and direct. Thank you. All right. Motion has been moved and seconded. >> Discussion. >> Any other discussion? Seeing none, can you roll call vote this now again? >> Miss Sorg, >> yes. >> Mr. Moser, >> yes. >> Miss Pew, >> yes. >> Miss Croy, >> yes. >> Dr. Milin Bartlett, >> yes. >> Miss Garcia, >> no. >> President Patterson, >> yes. Okay, motion passes. Uh we are on to meeting closing. >> Excuse me. >> I just was thanking them for all their work to get this to the stage. >> Thank you. >> Meeting closing uh recap of action items. >> Um I have that we're going to update the consent agenda notes regarding resignation numbers. uh community relations committee is

181going to discuss cadence and format for community engagement in 2627 year um around identifying future uh questions future oriented questions. Um we want to hear from parents and make sure that these conversations have no judgments or arguments and we keep a record. So that'll in a committee meeting. Um Kate is going to get us data on longevity for world language like students and um related to like who what our numbers are for four and five year students for world language. >> Um we're going to modify the work group um form to include general topics upcoming for the year. And then Dan and Erica are going to look into how much dollars available in fund balance beyond what is recommended typically by our auditor and options for um usage of that amount. And that's all I

182have for action items. Anybody have anything else? All right. Uh we have another board meeting on May 18th at 6:30 and on June 2nd at 6:30. Uh this Wednesday is scholarship awards night. So looking forward to that. And if there are no other topics, uh I would entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. >> Wait a minute. I was just going to say the new teacher dinner is next week, the 13th. FYI >> and I >> I'd just like to say happy teacher and staff appreciation week. >> Yes. >> Very good. Um all right. Uh now if anyone would like to make a motion for adjournment. >> Okay. So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Pew and seconded by Croyle. Any discussion? >> All in favor? I >> I >> any opposed abstensions meeting is

183adjourned >> so it's the 13 what time it was >> um