001anticipate what some proposed legislation may mean for the Larmy one budget as we start planning for next year and just that time of year where we start thinking about next year. So um with that Jeff I will turn it over to you. Great. >> Well um Madam Chair to your point earlier about um there's a lot of information please by all means if the board members have questions and want a little bit more detail stop me as I go through this. Um there's a lot to cover in um a little less than an hour and a half. So I'll do my best to try to hit the high points, but uh probably add that um a little bit of a disclaimer. Um everything as far as the cost assumptions and estimates are just that. They're
002estimates at this point in time. Um we still have a lot of detail to work through. Um, inevitably we'll have some changes as we work through the session and as we start to budget model as we get closer to the um kind of ramp up for budget session um I'm certain there'll be some changes but that I'll jump right in. Um for me um I think it's important to maybe conceptualize the different funding mechanisms that we're talking about as a whole. Um so for me when we're talking about school finance this year we're really talking about three different um starting on the left this is um the evidence based model as we've talked about um this is where a national consultant comes in and provides a recommendation on what it would cost to fully fund
003education in Wyoming um based on best practice of research. Um you'll see here that that recommendation um and that certainly has a few caveats as well is just shy of $1.9 million. Now the next model you see kind of portrayed here on the the slide is current law. Um and that's what would be in statute now and would remain if the legislature did nothing. Um we would continue on with the funding structure as it is um currently. And so if you compare that evidence based model to current law um the current law is providing just shy of hund00 million less what that evidence-based recommendation is. Now the third piece of this is the select committee model and that's where the select committee of recalibration has taken um in large part the evidence-based model recommendations and
004further modified those recommendations um whether within the funding model as it was presented um or what I'm kind of calling off model adjustments and we'll get to those here in a little bit. Um up until Friday, um that difference was about $88 billion difference between the evidence-based model. Um there were some uh revisions and amendments made through the recalibration committee uh this past week that um did alter that um to about $51.6 million under the evidence-based model, but that's going to have um varying impact on different districts. I'll tell you there's only one component to those those amendments that really directly impacts our district as a whole, and we'll touch on those here. um in a bit. So um here's kind of the big picture. Um some big takeaways if uh I was asking you
005to really just think about four big things that are going to impact our district uh going forward. First is changes to our student count methodology. As we talked about in the past, um student enrollment as measured by a family membership is the primary factor in interpreting what resources we get as a school district. Um and there's been some pretty significant changes in the way that calculation is conducted. um adjusted class size and staffing assumptions is is another key component. Um we're talking class size ratios primarily here uh but not exclusively. There's been changes to central office allocations and other areas of our funding mechanism whether it's impacting uh our clerical staff or pair professionals and we'll get into some of those figures here as well. Um revised salary and benefit modeling um a complete different
006um way of approaching market salaries than what our funding model is providing. Um, and these are all going to have um kind of uh tentacles into different areas and they have interplay with uh class license, those type of things when it comes to resources and we'll talk a little bit about that. And then additional restrictions on the use of funds um how we as a board can deploy those resources um will also be impacted by some of these changes going forward. Um so let me just start with um where I always um begin our budgetary conversations is if nothing changes if it's status quo um what are the impacts that we can identify at this point in time. So absent either the evidence-based model or the recalibration committee's model what would happen if nothing changes
007going forward. Um the first is declining enrollment and this has been a conversation piece with the board for a while now. Um we have roughly about a $3 million impact just in the natural n attrition and our enrollment counts as we move forward. Um we know that will impact us um in the upcoming year. Um decrease in routine maintenance. Uh this is a result of um our gross square footage calculation with the school facilities division. Um we had one year um where that allowable gross square footage was multiplied by 135%. And this is to address um I'll call it excess capacity, but if you think about a school district that's losing enrollment, this isn't exclusive to us, they still have facilities to maintain. Um whether they have 16 kids in that classroom or eight kids
008in that classroom, they still have to maintain that facility. That calculation was used to account for those those changes on allow. Um the there's a mandatory increase in Wyoming retirement um pension contributions. You'll notice that I have a zero dollar impact for the district. There is no impact. We will be required to uh provide a little more than a quarter percent of an employee salary addition to the Wyoming retirement system, but it'll be fully reimbursed by the state. So from our perspective, it's a zero cost impact. But um hold that thought till we talk about the employee side of um some of these funding model impacts. Um secondly, um with Miller coming offline, we do not have uh the routine maintenance money um next year to maintain um the building. So that will be uh
009removed from the calculations. And then the state health insurance proxy, you'll notice this is a little bit different of a number. And hopefully I've um depicted this um in a way that's easy to track is with the up arrow. Um if nothing changes with our health insurance, um there's a lot of potential changes and we'll get to those. um the state's proxy for how we're funded will provide about $1.8 million additional to our district this upcoming year. So the net effect of all these um ironically is uh about a $1.8 million decrease. Um now there are other factors. There's um education and experience adjustments for teachers. There's transportation. There's special education. I can't quantify those quite yet. Um but the one the few data points that we do have at this point in time we're
010right at about that $1.8 $8 million decrease um on a debt debt type of um explanation. Um you'll notice I put a little bit of a footnote here. Uh this is purely revenue. Um I haven't talked about um increasing utility costs. Um the actual cost to the district for health insurance plans, curricular costs, all those things um will impact the other side of our budgetary ledger, if you will. Um so focusing a little bit on our salaries and benefit updates in our model. Um so I had mentioned this earlier. There's a pretty significant shift in um how salaries are calculated um in our uh funding mechanism. And you'll recall that um we're operating off of a a funding model that was originally based off of 2005 salaries and that's been um adjusted um in some
011years for an ECA since then and some some years not and it's basically been the same set calculation um every year since then. Um there's a completely different approach to this. Um there's also a different um analysis um and indicy that's used to provide a regional cost adjustment. And um we have a group talked about this. We always like to throw Teton County out there because they're the easiest one to to describe, but the cost of education in Teton County is going to be very different. But that's no different than the other counties in Wyoming. There's always variations in the cost of um labor and those type of things. So there's a new methodology for that. um compensation um caps tied to average teacher pay pay will impact some areas. Um benefit costs standardized and
012mostly reimbured outside of the block grant. By benefit costs um I'm talking about the health insurance and we'll drill into that. Uh but I'm also talking about that Wyoming retirement system reimbursement. That process has been kind of pulled from the model and set aside um through a different mechanism. Um and we'll we'll get into a little bit of that here. So this this is the salary model as it's identified in the recalibration bill. >> Correct. Correct. >> Yep. >> Exactly. >> So um I think it's easiest to start from the teacher salary standpoint u when we're explaining some of these these changes. Um not that they don't impact our administrative and our classified staff, but it's it's a good starting point. And to to give us a little bit of a a background and history
013on this, um, for many years, um, Wyoming teacher salaries were, uh, above the mo, excuse me, the market when I'm talking about the labor within the funding model. So, we have a model salary. That's what the state uses in their calculation of price provides to our district. Um, since then, our salaries have lagged inflation in other labor markets in our contiguous states. So um by 2024-25 our model salaries again not what we pay but what were provided um was below the regional states I think all but South Dakota maybe um at the most recent analysis. So um as part of the recalibration work um the state's labor market economists took a look at um the surrounding states for comparison purposes but really based uh the recommendation off of other Wyoming professional occupations. So um if
014the question is what should um the average teacher salary be in Wyoming and then further into the school districts um they start with a comparison to professional and technical occupations. So kind of think of that as the category. So this was um and I this is not an all-inclusive list by the way but it's management, architecture, engineering, legal, uh media, those type of professional categories. Um the labor market economist said there's some very closely comparable positions that are based on educational attainment, technical um and rigor of the work. Um and they identified things like accountants, registered nurses, um OT and PT outside of the um school district context, architects, journalists, programmers, those type of things. So those were kind of the the the job categories outside of education that they started looking at. And so
015as the labor market's being examined, um the kind of the principle that's being applied here is that as these positions command a higher salary, so should teach. Um and so they use that as kind of the benchmarking. Um but it's further adjusted for shorter teacher work years. And I'll talk a little bit about how that calculation is applied and those regional cost adjustments that um have also been developed into a new methodology that will change those calculations. So, um, kind of cutting right to the, um, the end of that analysis, uh, the state consultant said, "Hey, we recommended recommend a statewide average teacher salary of $7,560." Um, and this is primarily based on that um that that comparable wage index that the state's economist um is is examining. And I mentioned that those were based
016on those professional wages. Um now when you look at those um those figures what the consultant did was adjust for teacher contract days. So they said that a teacher is going to work 185 days compared to another comparable occupation that would be 234 days after adjusting for things like vacation and things. Um so they came up with that 79% adjustment. So, um, the easiest way to put that is they're saying that a teacher should make 79% of a comparable professional, um, in their analysis. >> Jeff, can I ask question and you may not have the answer, but what is our average teacher salary in their district right now? Do you know? >> I do. Um, it's just shy of about $67,000 a year. Um, which is significantly more than what the funding model is providing
017right now. Um, and Madam Chair, I think that's an important point, too. Most of the time when you hear me talking about um salary adjustments and budgets and payroll, um, we talk about a base salary, right? Um, the funding model's base salary is about $44,000 a year, but we've completely taken a different approach to how that calcul starting at the average. We're not starting at base and building up for things like education, experience, and regional costs. we're starting at the average and we're working down. Um and so completely different um approach to how our funding is is explained. Um so with that in mind, um the funding model is going to use a weighted average salary. Um so being that it's weighted, um based on model generated teaching positions, um districts like Larry One and
018Trill are going to have the heaviest weight when it comes to calculating um how that $70,560 is derived. Um, now it's important to note that this does not dictate our local pay schedules. It's not saying that we have flattened our salary schedule and we're only paying $70,560. Um, but it's going to heavily influence um, how we manage a salary schedule within our district. Um, and I'll talk about that here in a moment, but a lot of it has to do with this last bullet point you hear you see here is that we no longer receive an adjustment for local education experience and scope of responsibility for certain positions. Um but second maybe maybe that's probably the second most important factor when it when I'm talking about an offset to those changes is that um the
019higher class size ratio is going to mean fewer model generating position. So uh we'll get into kind of the the weeds of what that looks like for our district but keep that in mind. There's a significant offset with salary increases and fewer model positions. So J am I understanding correctly in order to get the funding they basically because there's no job you know basically they say you have based on these ratios 100 teachers you get $70,560 for each teacher and then we divide that out your salary schedule up and down. Um correct. Um with a few a few clarifying points um is first is this being the statewide average our actual district calculated average salary would be 71,760 and that's because we do receive um an adjustment for our regional costs. >> Um so a
020slightly higher than that that statewide average. Um, but you're right in the sense that now the the funding model is going to look at our student counts and through those recommendations say you need X amount of teachers and then that is the multiplier to determine what are the resources we get as a district. >> That's precisely. And Jud, aren't our especially K4, aren't those numbers dictated by the Wyoming Department of Education as or is does it always those numbers come through this re this education funding? >> Um those numbers come through the the review of our our funding. I think so. Um and to give us those exact numbers, um current law um for grades K through six, we're funded at 16 to one. So, um we have one teacher for every 16 students. Um
021for our grades, um 7 through 12 were funded at 21. And there's some there's some uh I guess footnotes on that as well. Alternative schools are different. I'll talk about that here in a moment. Um the recommendation by the state's consultant was uh grades K through three would be 15 to one and then grades 4 through 12 would be 25 to one. Um and that's what's a part of that evidence-based model that I showed you earlier. So K 3 to what? >> Um K3 would be 15 to1 >> and then grades 4 through 12 25 to one. >> Are buildings built for that? >> Um there are some some legitimate concerns over uh restricted capacity and unrestricted capacity in our district. So um no the state has been building schools for 16 to1 ratio of
022elementary 21 to1 for secondary for many years. So, this does create some some facility related issues that we'll have to navigate as well. Um, but here's here's kind of the the most recent adjustment. So, there was a motion to amend those recommendations as you probably are aware. Um, so that would be grades um K through three being um 16 to1, excuse me, K through four, uh 4 through 8, 21 to one, excuse me, 22 to one. Sorry, I got to pull my notes here and I didn't bring my glasses. And then um grades 9 through 12 remain at 25 to one. So we picked up some some middle school teacher allocations and some of the upper grade bands in the elementary and where our next slide we're going to kind of get into what what
023does that look like at least at this point in time those changes. some Jed too with the um no longer adjusted for local education experience and responsibility. You just wouldn't even consider that when you hire new teachers or >> um it would be up to the district to decide how we recognize education and experience. Um I would tell you that there's some conflict in different provisions. We have a statute that requires us to recognize teaching experience from another Wyoming district whenever a teacher is hired in our district. So it's very explicit. You must recognize prior district teaching experience, but we won't be adjusted for the funding. So it's up to us to use that law grant to figure out how we administer that. >> So um Madam Chair, here's here's where we start to kind
024of break it down and peel back the onion if you if you will. Um, and it's easiest to describe this in three different buckets. So, the funding model, um, has district resources, school resources, and non-personnel. Um, there's a couple of shifts and categories where things have traditionally been, I guess, categorized, and I'll kind of call those out. You'll notice here right at the bottom, we have central office non-personnel, and I just explained that there's a non-personnel category. Well, this one is more appropriately kind of tracked in that central office allocation. So um what I've done here is um provided a um a comparison of where our FTE of what the model would allocate under current law and what would happen with the select committee's uh proposed funding model. So we have an FTE and a
025funding change. Um the first thing I would tell you is that you'll probably notice some things that might not be very intuitive. Um and it ties back to our salary adjustments. So, here's an example. Um, we would lose two custodial FTE, but we would pick up $13,000. Well, that has to do with that market adjustment that the legislaturator is applying to not only teachers, but other categories as well. Um, one that might be an exception to that explanation and um we were talking about this with Miss Chatfield and Mr. Lewis and Dr. doing earlier today was um you look at groundskeepers um and we lose point4 FTE but we lose $321,000 and at first I thought I had an error in my calculations but I went back and reviewed it. Well, the change as a
026result is a result of um our groundskeepers used to be calculated in the funding model alongside our maintenance workers um full 12 month contracts resources provided. Um the newest recommendation is to move those into custodial which is a lower grade pay band um in the state funding model. So we lose money because they've been reclassified out of a kind of a facilities maintenance category into a custodial. Um but you'll notice um and maybe working backwards from the total um about a $4.3 million impact for us in a number of categories. You'll you'll see here um we would lose four funded central office professional positions. So administrators u about $2.3 million for us. Um we pick up computer technician positions and that's because it's a new category in central office. Um keep in mind our funding
027model um is primarily built on information received by the state in 2005. So technology was certainly evolving over the last 20 years. Most of our technology positions were contemplated at the school level as librarian media aids. So the library media aids would be the ones providing technical support to teaching staff to administrators. Um this modernizes that but there's there's an offset of the school though right so those positions were moved to the central office they contemplate um network engineers and data security people but we also move all lose all those kind of school level FT as well. Okay. So, am I understanding that we've pulled this the block grant apart and we're now dictating each category? >> Not necessarily. Um, but there are some areas that are restricted. Um, so right now, um, I would
028tell you that everything that you see on the screen here is part of the block granting the case when we get to some of the school level allocations. Um, a couple of other points to make here is you'll see we lose about 15.3 central office classified positions. Um, I already talked about the custodians and groundskeepers and you can kind of see the fiscal impact of those changes. Um, utilities $965,000. Uh, the reason for that change is the recommendation is to rebase our utilities based on last year's actual expenditures. Um, I think you heard me a couple of times during the preliminary preliminary budget and the final budget say, "Hey, we had a really good year. Um, it was warm. We didn't have the same use in electricity and natural gas that we typically do." Um,
029so we will fill the pinch on it because that will set resources for the next five years. Um, so it's just a matter of um poor timing I guess um especially in light of we know we have increased costs coming um through the uh storm water assessment. >> What are central office classified staff? employment. >> Sure. That would be secretarial. Um that would be some of our purchasing staff. Uh those type of positions. Um the second thing I'd like to point out here um probably the last on this particular slide is is health insurance. Now this has usually been um embodied into the this the position level compensation. So we'd have salaries and we'd have benefits that includes health insurance and um associated payroll FICA those type of things. and it was all kind of
030line item there. That's been pulled out and provided separately. Um, and we're going to talk about a lot of changes to health insurance, but um, the consultant's recommendation was to continue the same process where we use the states EGI as a proxy. Um, so the calculations for state employees is um, weighted based on district participation and we get X amount of dollars for each model generated employee. That's roughly $18,000. um we would see a decrease of about 2.8 million as a result of fewer model generated positions. So overall um central office school level resources we have fewer positions mostly because of those class size ratios that we talked about. So that means that the health insurance for those fewer positions is represented as a decrease in our health insurance. Now that's assuming that it stays
031within local control. Um and that um is going to have a whole different impact when we start talking about some of the select committee recommendations. So um my slide here, this is a little bit of a a crowded slide here, but um bear with me for a second. This is where the school level resources um are examined. And the first thing you'll notice is uh the first few lines here um we have a little bit of a a lock icon. This represents um trusty aspar um areas that the funding would be restricted. Um the current draft says these positions, these instructional level positions um would be um identified as um only able to be used within that context. They couldn't be transferred out. Um but we're working for cl clarification and we heard a little
032bit of this at the recalibration committee um that we may have ability to adjust where the resources are within these boxes but until we see the final draft and how that's interpreted by the state department of education um I'm not um but here's the big standouts when you see things like regular core classroom teachers elective specialist teachers we talked about the class size adjustments um we saw changes in our elective and specialist teachers. So you have your core teacher calculation on those class size ratios that we talked about. At the elementary you get an additional 20%. At the middle and high school we used to get 33%. Now we only get 20 at the middle school and we get 33 and a third. Important distinction there. That third wasn't there before at the high school
033level. Um so you see a commenurate decrease in our specialist teachers. Um again you'll see the kind of the financial impact additional CTE teachers and um madam chair certainly if um I don't know that we'll be have a chance to drill into every one of these but I do want to hit on a few high points. Uh additional CTE teachers uh for many years we had 29% waiting on our CTE or approved CTE courses which got our class sizes smaller. Um the consultant um recommended maintaining that 29%. the legislature moved that to 35% which really gets us back to where we were before the class size reductions. So it's not necessarily an increase and you can kind of see that here. Um the sideways arrow just represents more or less a break even. Um so
034that waiting although it looks like it's more of a percentage it's really just a break even of what we have today. J, can I ask you a question? If you said it and I missed it, I'm sorry. But on the regular classroom for teachers, we got to FTE changes 78.3, but the funding change is pretty small compared to those other lines, >> right? >> Why is that? >> Um, it's because of that market salary adjustment. >> Okay. Because that's higher >> precisely. So, um, the the funding model is providing us roughly 62 63,000 on average. So now we're providing >> about 70,000, right? So So that's where you're seeing um kind of those variances and numbers. >> Thank you. >> Um a couple of other points that I' I'd like to make here is just
035alternative school teachers. U alternative schools were funded with a a different kind of staffing methodology. We would receive one assistant principal position and then one teacher for every seven students for alternative schools. Um now alternative schools are funded as if they were any other high school or if there was an alternative elementary school it would be funded as a as a alternative or a traditional school. So um where you see a reduction of 24 teaching um FTE and $1,800 or excuse me $1.8 million there would be some increases in these regular classroom embedded in those calculations. Um, so that's just a category that's no longer updated. Um, the total impact you'll notice of these is about 143 FTE decrease. Um, up until Friday with that amendment to those um, middle grade band um, class size
036ratios, we were closer to 157. So um, uft, um, to the district as a result of that change. Um, but I think it's it's important to point out what's a significant change. Um and I might pause there and say this is not just with regards to teaching FT. This is a significant um shuffling of the deck if you will. Um it completely changes how resources are allocated to us. Um the decrease of 1438 FTE would mean that um as of um the effective date of this bill, we would be 50 to 60 teachers heavy compared to what the model provides. um we would be overstaffed in those categories because of the complete change in those class size ratios um which you can imagine you can't make salary side of the equation balanced if you're heavy
037on the FTE positions um >> yes >> but aren't we also looking because our ADM is so low aren't we also looking to or is that a different number take out or or look for um even more salary or even more positions to go away because of the ADM funding. >> That's correct. Interest. And so what I've done is um accounted for those interaction differences. So these FT decrease decreases are on top of the ADM decrease more. I've already modeled the ADM decrease and then this is the next next impact. Um a couple of um areas that are worth noting here is when we move into these other categories that show as restricted um I would tell you that the the state's consultants considers these as categorical grants instructional facilitators, summer school and extended day
038teachers. Um and you'll notice that there's a pretty big increase in the model generated FTE. Um and this has a lot to do with policy over the years. Uh these positions were originally recommended by the state's consultants. Um and the state chose initially to fund about half of that recommendation uh and then about the 2015 recalibration that was further reduced um and then pulled into the block rate. So this increase represents a return to the original consultant's recommendation. Um but I think you can see kind of the juxtaposition of a decrease of 143 FTE to the increase of um nearly 140 FTE in student support. Uh and that's where we're very hyperfocused on how is the school board going to be able to deploy those resources. Um I I again I'm not an educator but
039um I think there's a lot of conversations and justifiably so that the best impact of our student achievement is going to be in the classroom. So, um, what does that mean if we feel that those resources are better used in the classroom? Those are things that we still have to to work through. Um, a couple of other high points here. Um, I I'd point out um, a couple of things that might seem a little again counterintuitive. Substitute teachers. We do receive an FTE basis. It's based on uh, 10 teacher, excuse me, 10 contract days per teacher. um it equivalates that equival creates an equivalence of an FTE position. Um you'll see an overall decrease again because we have fewer core teachers because these are tied together but an increase in the overall resources. Um the
040state legislature also move forward recommendation to increase those substitute daily rates but not to the level of the consultants recommendation. Um other areas you'll see um which I'll talk about here in a moment um are other our mental health supports whether it's counselors pupil support staff um you'll see those have been left virtually unchanged. Uh the consultant did recommend additional out additional allocations of resources for those positions but the committee chose to defer those um those changes until they can further study. So those will be um addressed uh in the interim. Um I'd mentioned librarians and librarian aids. Um this all ties into that re that shift from technology becoming a central office allocation. Uh but you'll see other areas that we're impacted supervisory age which are our federal funded care professionals. We lose about
04117 FTE. We lose just shy of three FTE for principles. Uh picked up some assistant principal allocations because those alternative school calculations I talked about. Um and then our secretary and clerical staff. Again this is at the school level. um we lose about 18 FTD. So virtually um half of our um schools would be losing or reduced by 18 um bottle generated um FTE. Now the net effect of this is a $12.6 million increase in overall resources. And that's kind of step two and I'll jump us to step three here in a sec, but that includes the $3.6 million reduction for classroom teachers. And the main driver of the increase, as you can see here, is going to be on our our classroom support, not in our classroom. So, the the last bucket, um, if
042you will, is the non-personnel resources. Um, and these might seem, um, kind of, uh, minor in comparison, but, they have some some important policy considerations for for us as a district and you as a board. um a reduction of about $465,000 for our gifted and talented programs. Um as a whole, um professional development is more or less a wash. Um we receive a modest increase in our educational supplies and materials mostly through um inflation adjustments. Um short cycle and informative assessments is uh has its own little story. Um this particular component used to be embedded in our funding models. Um and then when the state developed YTOP uh there were short cycle formative assessments built into YTOP that were a part of the suite of offerings from the state department of education. And so then
043in turn the legislature said well you have this tool um available to you there's no need to fund it. And so that was stripped out of our funding a few years ago. Um the consultant's recommendation to bring that back is is in line. As you can imagine, districts use different types of form assessment, whether it's fast bridge, GBC's, um there are other areas that are outside of that white house suite of offerings that um this would generate resources that we haven't had before. Um technology and equipment. Um you'll see that's more or less of a wash. Um there was a recommendation by the state's consultant to um fund educational um computers and technology at a 1:1 ratio. actually higher than a 1:1 ratio to address staff and um student support positions and those type of
044things so that there were additional technology resources available. Um the select committee deferred that to this to the interim before a decisions made on if they'll recognize that consultants recommendation. Um, a couple of other big ones you'll notice here. Um, student athletics, a $475,000 decrease um in our overall allocation of student athletics. And as the board knows, we are already de um directing additional resources into student athletics and activities. Um so this uh will further restrict that revenue stream. And then additional CTE equipment and materials uh that does have a cost adjustment, but we have fluctuations year-toear on our CTE classes and enrollment. That's mostly what you're seeing as that adjustment, but um overall a $587,000 decrease. Um if it weren't for that short cycle formative assessments, it would be closer to adjustment there. >>
045J. Yes. >> For the gifted and talented programs that does that address the AP classes in high schools? >> Um it does not. Um so what the consultant built that recommendation on was an online virtual learning platform called Red Zoom. um which would be available to class and excuse me to to to districts. Um but further acknowledge that there are other resources within a district that would be non-financial things like curriculum advancement grades those type of things. So um this was an adjustment and down to about $25 per student based on that that online. >> So it wouldn't address like our our programmatic costs around staffing and those type of things for trailblazer program. I was curious. >> So, um, with that in mind, I I'll I'll summarize kind of the cost impacts overall, um,
046as we move to, um, kind of the summary side of the, uh, presentation. But before I do, I wanted to hit on the state employee health insurance mandate, which has been a big point of conversation around districts and employees and, um, the insurance industry. So, um there is a select committee directive that would require school districts to participate in the state employee group health insurance plan um as of July 1st of 2027. So, um about you know 15 months give or take from now um before that would go into effect. Um now this would materially impact our ability um to negotiate benefit structures um as it would be replaced by state plan. there's not really a health insurance component part as part of our negotiated agreements in our bargaining process. Now, um there are a
047lot of ramifications um that go along with this. Um employee premiums and out-of- pocket costs are certainly something that we're trying to get our heads around. Um networks and co-pays, plan is the coverage um levels. Um, one thing I did put on here was the impact to retirees, what that might look like, um, for our roughly 150 retirees that are currently on our health plan. Um, other than pointing this out, we don't have those answers. U, there was a, um, motion uh, made at the recalibration committee to further study the impacts of moving school districts to the state. Um, that work will continue, but the effective date of the transition um, is still in the current draft bill. um that would be effective again on that July 1st, 2027 date. I'll have a little bit
048of a cost um factor when it comes to that, but there's a lot of pieces and a lot of moving parts when it comes to discussion on that. Um and that's right here as a matter of fact. So, um keep in mind that this would not be a financial impact for this upcoming year. It would be for fiscal year 28. Um, and it's difficult to pinpoint an exact number on this since um, the legislation would be effective 7127 and it doesn't include cost reductions um, to our district um, if there are any savings realized as moving employees, all state employees to the to the state plan. And to give you an idea and put that in perspective, um the state EGI department said there's roughly 30,000 um state employees, including their spouses and their children.
049Um if all 47 school districts who aren't on the state plan, join, uh we'd be about 35, if not 40,000 additional members. So um school districts would outnumber the state insured lives on that plan. So there there are some huge actuarial um uh calculations that would need to be done to get an idea. Um but with that in mind, if if I look just at today um what the state would fund on a reimbursement basis for the employers portion uh versus what we receive as a funding mechanism, it'd be about an $ 8.6 million decrease just on the revenue side. And that would be offset with some cost savings potentially on the expenditure side. Um in addition to that um I mentioned um some other off model changes if you will um and on model
050but um the first would be removing the three-year rolling average for ADM and uh to take us back a little our current funding mechanism is based on prior year ADM the greater of either the actual or a three-year rolling average and as you know we've had um a sustained period of decreasing in bold Um what it does is it softens the land, right? So we're averaging over three years. It kind of brings the school district down so that they can um plan for those staffing changes um and address those without having to face like a funding clip and immediate funding. >> Um >> Jess, is there something on Friday where they were trying to remove that from what happened? Did they not remove it? It's still in the bill. A madam chair is still in
051the bill with one um one change would be that it'd be prior year uh ADM only but not to exceed a 5% decrease in student counts. So there's a hold harmless if you will. Um you'll notice that I have a $2.9 million impact to us, but that's because our decrease in enrollment ADM has been around 3% per year. So we wouldn't hit we would not have hit that whole Arnold provision. we would have been below that amount before it kinks in. So, um that adjustment would not financially benefit our district, at least in the current trends that we're seeing. >> Um the next piece is the Wyoming Retirement System employer pension outside of the block grant. Uh this one gets a little bit um difficult to explain, but um right now um school district employees
052contribute to the state p state pension plan the same manner as state employees. Um part of our funding for that comes through our block grant model. So it's model positions um times 12.69% which was what was in law of maybe eight or 10. Um and then every change that's happened since then the state has handled off the model. So um in a district like ours, now I'm going back to current state of how we how we um operationalize our funding is that we hire fewer teachers but we pay them more so we can try to get to that market salary. So that means um you have these model positions um where it's generating that contribution but we're using it and directing it into market salaries. Um by pulling that and putting it into a reimbursement
053only, we would lose about $1.2 million. um and that might be um even less with the new model calculations if there's fewer FTE. >> So that's um another area that we would see a decrease in funding again off model. Um the next line um is a little bit of a surprise for a lot of school districts um was a um a penalty for local investment earnings. Um it initially was that um any investment earnings um that school district um earns over the course of the year would be count as a local resource and that has the effect of reducing our state. Um as you know that's been a very important piece and we put a lot of effort into treasury service investments of the district and um we've had a few very beneficial years to
054the district. Um, I'd like to say it's all because of our day trading skills, but it really has to do with just the federal interest rate, right? Um, the most recent amendment would be that it would be a 5050 with this split with the state, but we've used those, we've directed those investment earnings into the educational program. Um, as the district earns money in the general fund, this year we budgeted about two and a half million, so I've cut it in half. Um, that money goes right back into our general fund. It supports our salary adjustments. supports model funded positions, supports non-model funded positions. It all goes back to the general fund. So that does create a budgetary. Um and I think um there are some ongoing conversations um how that might impact even um
055our depositories. Um I anticipate for those of us who are kind of tuned in with um how the the public resources are managed at a local depository, it's going to be more pledging, more collateralizations makes. So, um, we're trying to figure out where that impacts, um, even our business partners, um, that, uh, hold our resources for the district. Um, another, uh, recommendation that came out of last week's meeting was that ECAS would only be applied bianually. Um, so, uh, this is a big topic of our conversations as we correct for the budget session is was an ECA a what was recommended by states consultants? So, we're going through the recalibration process, but in years between recalibration, uh, they do a block grant monitoring process where those same state or excuse me, labor market economists examine
056those cost pressures to say this is the external cost adjustment you need for professional staff, non-professional staff, supplies, materials, and utilities. Um, this would move it to be only applied um by annually and it would um potentially change how we have resources out. I mean, um, one way of looking at it is we wouldn't have the possibility of a raise except for every other week for staff. Um, it sounds like it's intended to be a look back to cover those two years, but um, it's going to change if passed into law how we approach um, steps and lane movement, all the other different aspects um that we work through, negotiating agreements as well. Um, but how that's applied um, just can't um, it's it's terminal blow at this point in time. So when you say
057the it would impact there would be no raises every year or would only be every other year and that it could impact how we deal with steps and lanes. People could make about steps and lanes every other year. >> Okay. There's a lot of different potential areas that we're looking at. Um and not just on how ECAS are applied. The education experience adjustments we talked about earlier. Um if those happen without ACA adjustments where we try to move those calculations in together so we can see what we can and can't do with those additional funds. Um we'll have to figure out if we maintain those steps and lines how do we pay for those in years between those ECA adjustments. Um a couple of additional changes that aren't necessarily revenue stream driven um but I
058thought were important enough to point out. Um, we already talked about instructional resources not being transferred, expended for other purposes. Those were the the locked icons on the the school owner allocation, school level allocations. We looked at um school district cash flow and reimbursements. Um, this is a great adjustment um to our funding process. Um, taking our state entitlement and adding one additional payment, kind of spreading it out over the year. Um, you guys have heard me talk about the lean periods and why we need cash reserves. Uh what this does is um it adds an additional payment to the year. It spreads it out a little bit more. Um we still get the same level of resources. It's just that cash flow timing from the state. Um there are some huge changes with um
059respect to cash reserves. Um you guys will remember when we went through the cash reserve presentation a few months back. Um for many years since 1997 there was a 15% limit. when our schools found out in foundation dollars, it was temporarily moved to 30%. Um, and now it's proposed to move down to 20%. But this has its own caveats. Um, when we start restricting funding model block grant resources, it's outside of that calculation. So, um, you might remember a few years ago when I talked about special education was pulled out of our block grants and and funded as a separate categorical funding stream. So that means that that 20% limit test did not apply to considerable portion of our resources. So that lowered our reserves. Um same with um the health insurance that would be
060outside of the block grant. Same with um the retirement reimbursement that would be outside of the block grant. So it has the effect even though that that is higher than 15% what used to be under old lot um would reduce our reserve capacity by about $2,100. So, those are other things that um we're having to navigate and think about along with just the change in resources. Um there's a pre97 reserves exclusion that um I think I walked through with the board a while back. Um those are funds that the district had within their general fund before the the Campbell cases in 1997. That's always been kind of those are district resources that are excluded from this resource. Um they would now be counted. So potentially that $4.2 $2 million um could mean that they could
061be recaptured um by the state. >> Would that be in that first year? >> Um that amount. Would they just not give us that amount? So you're sure your your reserve >> if if we exceed the cap at that point in time, either the full amount or some some lesser amount depending on how far over that cap when it goes into effect potentially be um recaptured. Um the other thing too is that um there's a prohibition on the expenditure of transfer of school foundation dollars on capital construction um or major m excuse me major maintenance. Um there was a technical correction to address our major maintenance funding being used on enhancements. It's no longer um in an issue but um any money that was derived from school foundation dollars um is being prohibited. Um where
062I think it really um comes into consideration for us is things like the ad farm. Um not only just enhancements um in in our school buildings, but um our ability to make sure that um our five six school is configured in a way that we can do middle school athletics. Um we would not be allowed to use any money that came from the block model for those purposes. So that is a significant change that um we're we're working to understand the full implications on. Um the other piece I want to to to really commend the committee on is um very important um resource allocations for things like residential placements. We've talked about that you as a board have approved those residential placement contracts. They can be very significant. Um if we were a small district
063even more so but um the proposal is that um if we have outlay for those residential placements we don't have to wait a full year for reimbursement. Those could be done within the same year. Um the other one would be the change from school buses being um funded in two ways which currently we can buy a bus outright and the state takes five years to pay us back or we can lease a bus um where we pay additional leasing fees um and then we just ask every year for the state to reimburse us that principal interest on those leases. Um our district has not done leasing for for many decades. We pay for buses outright. We've kind of de developed the cash flow for that. Um, but what this change does, it says only purchase
064buses, but they'll be reimbursed within the same year, which is a great advantage. Um, and there would be a one-time uh true up, I guess you'd call it. We have about $2.8 million in receivables that, um, we're waiting on the state for over the course of the next four years. Um, there's a true up provision in the bill that would say, okay, make that make Larry School District one whole, which would mean $2.8 8 million to to take care of what used to be an advertised reimbursement over the next four years. Um I alluded to this earlier, Madam Chair. There's um these these five major components that um will continue to be reviewed um as the select committee continues their work into the 2026 development. Those include those mental health, excuse me, mental health staffing
065positions, things like elementary school counselors, nurses, pupil support positions. uh I talked about the technology ratios and the one to one uh school res resource officers um was not a recommendation in the evidence-based model the the um consultant didn't get to the point of providing that recommendation that's going to be deferred through the interim same with nutrition nutrition programs um that'll be an ongoing discussion um and then the impact of the state health insurance mandate that we talked about. So these are all continued areas of study um over the course of the next year. Now, um if I can maybe boil this down to some overall, um impacts, um from the the district's lens, um we have areas that are likely to be affected. Um the first is the funding model changes. Um about a
066$7.7 million increase as a whole. So, if you look straight at the funding model, about 7.7 with that note that a lot of those resources are restricted. Now, the off model changes. Um, and I'll I'll point out that the health insurance mandate is deferred a year, but I've included in this calculation is a decrease of just shy of $14 million. So, we'd be at a net decrease of about $6.2 million um if you factor both of those in together. So, um we were towards that budget um hearing this this summer. Um there would be some version of a budget that accounts for a decrease, an overall decrease in our funding and our resources. A couple of areas that we have to really look at is um our staffing model or our funding model and our
067resources versus what um our local needs and priorities. Um how do we align the resources with the way we want to deploy those resources as a district? Um certainly the local control over the flexibility of the use of funds, staff benefits um really isn't part of the equation. Um the retirement is restricted outside of the model. Health insurance would be outside of the model. We're working to find out how much that impacts things like dental coverage, long-term disability, um life insurance. Those are all pieces that we as as we understand today mean are pulled back into the state. Um cash flow timing is certainly something that um will be an ongoing discussion with you and the the rest of the board. And our long-term reserve strategy um what can we use resources for, what can
068we not, what what do those caps mean for us going forward? All those will be factored into our ongoing discussion. Um, I think it's important to even look at this from an employes point of view, but there's so many pieces that we just don't have yet. Um, and so this this next slide might mean be a little silly in the sense that there's a lot of unknowns to be determined, but um, our staffing is going to be heavily dependent on what resources we just got explained that will be 50 to 60 um, core teachers heavy um, on what the funding model will contemplate. um salaries. Um what will those market adjustments look like in coordination with those changes in our staffing levels? Um education and experience to your questions earlier. Um how does the district
069fund those if we choose to continue with that um salary um schedule structure when there are no specific resources allocated for that bienial ECAS um again an area of unknown for us. Uh but an employee is going to um see some certainties uh for this upcoming July 1st cut over things like the the pension contribution increase I got done explaining from the district side there's zero impact the state will reimburse us for those costs um but the employee and I know this is a silly number but um it just has to do with the way um that final bill was passed but um a little less than a quarter% um increase in their pension contributions which means about a quarter% of a decrease in their overall salaries um when it comes to things like the
070health insurance um and I'm speaking at it from really that that state transition um if you look at it from today's um employee LCSD1 plan versus the state an employee would paying anywhere from 66 to $149 more dollars a month for the state health insurance >> per person or just over >> um per person I'm sorry per premium so um >> so for a family >> right right um they have uh an 84 16% split compared to the district's current 928 um which is a big factor of that and then the the additional impacts of the co-ay the network's deductibles those type of things um a good comparison is the the lowest end state has is $900 ours currently is 500 um the other thing too that I would probably add is um I've had
071a lot of conversations with the board that we've been taking steps over the last four to five years to try to become selfunded um this this will I mean depending on the outcome of this bill I think it could potentially uh have ramifications for even an for our district as a whole. Um I think um I think most insurance providers are tracking this um and it I think it could be reflected in the way proposals are presented the district not knowing what might happen on July 1 if we only have one year of a contract. So, um, we do have some things just from the procurement side that we're we're tracking and trying to, uh, figure out how that fits in the the grand scheme of things. >> Did did the did Blue Cross Blue
072Shield of Wyoming testify on that? >> Trust. Yeah, they did. Um, they had their legal counsel present their concerns. So, they they did have some testimony. >> That's that's a big chunk of their business. >> Sure. Certainly is. Um, and we're not the only school district as we know. the state is in Sigma. >> Um that's correct. >> So for our district and when we talked about RFP um with the our health insurance plan that we have, are we going to stay on that for another year if we end up having to switch to the state health insurance? We're working um right now with Blue Cross Blue Shield on the potential of a one-year renewal. >> Um that would potentially, and I keep saying potentially, bridge that gap. Um but we aren't real clear on
073what that means if you have existing contracts in place. Our dental plan um doesn't renew at the exact same plan at the exact same time. So if we have a contract that goes past that July 1 date, um we're not real clear on what that does or what that perspective. Um, Madam Chair, I think I got through quite a bit. Um, great. More than happy to address some questions. I think we probably have a little bit of time. If there's some areas that you'd like a little clarification on detail, >> thank you. >> Well, and this is maybe has nothing to do with recalibration, but have they released funds to take down? >> M I'll defer to Mr. Nap still here. No. >> Have they said about any about the funds to take care of
074them? >> No. No. That'll come through the session. So, when we get to the end, there's if they approve that in the budget, then we'll have it. And they had I mean, or whether they would strip it out as we went along, but it's in there right now. >> Okay. >> And I think I don't see any reason it would come. >> They take it out. Okay. Thank you. >> Any questions on what to share today? >> Quick question. the whatever version is passed, will it go into effect at the end of the session or will it be like a lot of other bills that go into effect like one July? Like trying to adjust teacher salaries in the middle of a school year just sounds like a train wreck to me. >> Um so
075Trusty Burton, um most of the bill goes into effect July 1st of of this summer with the exception of the health health insurance one that's delayed until the following July. Um but we're still um as far as a timeline is concerned um really kind of backed into a corner of um making a lot of decisions. As you know, we have April 15th deadlines. We have contracts that um we have to make those staffing decisions now or at least have plans in place depending on the outcome of this session. So um like most years um we're going to have to have contingencies depending on uh where the draft bill goes. And what is the date of um teacher contracts like start? Is that like August 1 to July 31st or like >> Yeah. Um so trusty
076B um a normal teacher contract um starts September 1st as far as the payment is concerned. They come to work on the fir August 20ome um but the actual payment contract term is September 1st through um July 30th. >> Okay. >> Excuse me, August 31st. Sorry. in our negotiations process with the different units is typically done March >> right after. So we'll hopefully certain resolution items from the legislative session and then start negotiating. Um hopefully, Madam Chair, um you'll probably recall a few years back when we had some pretty um drastic budget reductions. Um we had to go back and renegotiate um more for the better. We we had moved forward with what were potentially going to be 10 12% cuts. We didn't realize that level of reduction. So we were able to to renegotiate,
077but um this is such a condensed timeline. I we're not quite sure what that process is. >> Some of those um continued areas of study were things that were in the lawsuit that the judge said you have to do this. Um is there is that any kind of leverage to say, you know, being told we have to do this and you're going to push it off. Will that matter for the legislature? Um at this point in time, Trusty Hingle, with this the stay on the district court ruling, um there's nothing that would compel any actionable desires. >> And when you mentioned SRO's um you are going to stay more, does that mean at this point there's no funding for the SRO, >> Madam Chair? And that's correct. That's where um those off model reductions um
078as you know we don't line item every revenue source to a specific expenditure. We we calculate our level of resources and we deploy those um but it will directly impact our ability to fund things like nutrition services um uh offsets school resource officers continuing. So there is a material impact on losing half of our investment earnings and losing um the the model components for the reimbursement and health insurance. >> And and keep in mind because some of these bins are now locked up categorically, our ability to pull from a band to fund those things is severely limited as well. Go ahead. >> Um, if I'm, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought on Friday they tried to do an amendment that would say, "Oh, let's not do the state health insurance." And that failed.
079>> It didn't get a second. >> Oh, that's right. Didn't get a second. That's correct. And so now, um, I think the, um, Chris Roth said, "Let's continue to study it." That was another amendment. >> Correct. So that's um I guess I would characterize it was added to the ongoing evaluation of additional topics. So um that will continue to be part of the interim work in the recaliation committee >> but it was left on the bill. So it'll it could happen and still be studied >> and it it's your understanding that they're going to go I mean it's a real possibility that this will go >> um voted on or is that a >> um it's hard to speculate on what pieces will move forward and which ones won't um I've learned that I'm probably
080wrong more than I'm right so um I I'd hesitate to to say for sure but I think it's incumbent on us to plan for these components to to be enacted in the law so that we have a plan on what um what we will how we'll respond to the district. >> Very informative. Thank you. >> Thank you, Judge. Anybody else? >> Yeah, thank you for doing that. I know that was a heading left. I noticed this is so I know you've run numbers in general for us. I noticed that the um WA has mentioned that they were waiting for numbers from LSO. Um do we have any idea of when those will come out from the statewide perspective? >> Um uh Trusty Ashby, I would tell you that um ELSO staff indicated that they were
081working to to get updated model projections out um for stakeholders. Uh I think they're working on it as we speak. Um and adjusting for these these amendments that came through the the recent committee meeting. Um where it gets a little difficult is um the granular detail of where all the model generated changes were. Um really takes some specific level of programming and we're hoping that is available sooner than later. Um to the extent I can there's always going to be a margin of error. Um, so there's 40 other seven other districts that are trying to model these these same calculations. Um, and they're within what's what's the saying? It's kind of like horseshoes. Um, they're trying to get close enough. Um, and so everybody's waiting on those. Um, and for me it's to um do
082sanity checks. But I'm hoping in the coming weeks um before session rings up that those figures at least at a high level. And can you do you know or Steve just can you clarify for us what is the the process for this bill to get through? It needs a needs a vote to even hit the floor, right? And to be >> for introduction. >> Yeah. To vote to be introduced. >> And then at that point, it would just take the normal resp. >> That's our understanding. And um so it would have have to pass um disrespect house and then if changes possibly reconciliation and then of course to the governor for his consideration. So it could be potentially one of the last things we see or potentially one of the first. It's kind of hard
083to say. >> If it is not passed, then we just stay status quo with what things have been done. >> Um Madam Chair, that with the caveat that um at least at this point in time, I'm already profiling about a 1.8 reduction >> due to students >> students decreases and um increases in the health insurance and offsets for um other areas a decrease in routine. >> Um >> do you know what committee it will be assigned to? Sometimes that's not real. >> Yeah, this goes to education. >> Yeah, for sure. Yeah, at some point it'll have to hit appropriations since there is financial impact. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> And we have a little extra start. So I will call out of our