001You're live. Okay. >> All right. Please rise for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Next book. Will you please take role? >> Mr. Ravenhor is absent. Everybody else is present. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any new business to bring before the board? Hearing none. I would seek a motion for approval of the agenda. So move. >> Second. >> I have a motion by Mr. G and a second by Mr. Welch. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Both. Same sign. Motion carries. 6. Next item on the agenda is consent agenda items 6 A through C. Is there any item any board
002member would like removed and discussed separately? >> Okay. Hearing none, I would seek a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion by Mr. G and a second by Miss Kefir. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Same sign. Motion carries 6. Next item on the agenda would be 71. We don't have anything tonight. Also, item eight, aim two, we don't have anything. So, we'll go down to item nine. Aim three, effective and efficient operations. Item A would be our negotiation settlement costing summary. So, I just put this together. Um, it includes all the groups that have either a ratified agreement or a tenative agreement. The new group would be the principles at the bottom. principles are off cycle and so their um agreement for 2526 was in the
003last round. So this round was for 2627 and and they decided that um they wanted to have more of a frontload approach with the percentages and the costing of their agreement. So it's 5.1252% in year one. And then in year two, it's a much smaller amount of 1.38 838%. The total is 6.990% for the 2-year agreement. Um, and so this is just a summary. There's no action needed on this. I just wanted it for your awareness to know where all the groups have settled thus far and if you had any questions. Was the bulk of that within salary or was there? >> Um there was um the bulk of it in salary. There was an increase in their 403b that is costed into year one. >> Sure. >> So anything that has a cost to
004it is put into the costing model and so um not all of this 5% salary. A portion of it is for contribution and that was their decision. I want to thank um Christy Cook and uh Troy Gist and um Nicole Maker for being on the board team as we came to a tenative agreement with the principles. They have ratified it themselves. So, it's up to the board tonight on our next agenda item. >> Any other questions on the costing model? Okay, then we'll go to B, which is to consider and approve the principal's master agreement, which um Miss Sulur's just, excuse me, summarized for you. Um I just want to say one thing. Um we accomplished meeting with the principles in two meetings. It was very um cordial and respective and very easy to come
005to an agreement. And Troy and Christie can attest to that or add to it if they'd like. >> Yeah. No, that would fine. >> Yeah, it was agreed. >> Yeah. Yeah. They understood the um budget constraints that the district is in and came forward with a fair offer. So, >> so if there aren't any questions on that, I would seek a motion to approve their master agreement. Second. >> I have a motion by Miss Kefir and a second by Mr. Gist. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Post. Same sign. Motion carry. 6. Next item on the agenda is 9C, the budget forecast for fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 31, which is crazy to think about that far. Yeah. >> But understandable. >> So, um, I'm going to walk through this.
006you have a copy in front of you. So if you have questions, you can take some notes if you'd like as we go through this. Um we do like to go out five years so that we get a sense of where we're at and where we're going. So I'll just walk through this. Um we've done this um for a couple of years so you they have a pretty good understanding of what the purpose is. But the reason we want to forecast is we want to anticipate prepare for the financial trends and changes so that we can reduce the likelihood of unexpected gains and losses. Long-term forecasting supports our efforts to sustain financial stability. It's important that we sustain that financial stability for our own fiscal health and for our future as a school district. Um
007there at some point may be a district initiative in which we are going to go out for a bond. And when you do that, the bond the ones that issue the bonds will establish a credit rating for the school district. And if the school district does not maintain its fund balance according to the policy, then you uh would the district would appear to be at a higher risk of not being able to manage their finances, just like your personal credit score. The lower your credit score, the higher the interest you pay on any loan that you take. And the same thing applies to school districts. So if we want to have the lowest rate possible, we need to make sure that we are demonstrating we can be fiscally responsible and have our financial health in
008good order. This entire process is based on assumptions and so that includes projected enrollment, revenues and expenditures. So there this is as good a data as we could get but it's assumptions and projections. So it's important to keep that in mind. um things can change within a year but this is what the best that we know right now. So some of those assumptions beginning in FY26 which is this current budget year an inflation increase on the basic form formula was guaranteed to be between 2 and 3%. This percentage is recalculated every February for the following year. For FY27, we anticipated based on the information from the legislature that it was going to be 3%. But when they came out in February, they said it's going to be 2.69. So, we are anticipating less than what
009we thought. For FY28 through FY31, the assumptions are based on an increase of 2%. We're not going to assume that we're getting three because then we'll be overestimating our revenue projections. We're assuming that we're going to get the lowest amount possible, which is 2%. So, if you remember when we did this last year, FY26, they allocated 2.75 with an estimation that we would get three for FY27, which is 5.75. We're not going to get that. We're getting 275 for this year and 269 for next year. So about.3% below what we are anticipating for the revenue for next year which makes our picture a little bit darker than what we anticipated. Does everybody follow me on that? Okay. Our enrollment assumptions enrollment is the basis for determining our largest revenue source which is the state aid
010formula and our operating levy. When enrollment goes up we get more state aid and our operating levy generates more funds. When enrollment goes down, our state aid decreases and so does our operating levy. The operating levy is based on enrollment. And so when we have decreasing enrollment, we have two places that our revenue will go down. The state aid and the operating levy. Enrollment and child count child counts are tracked multiple times every year. For income and kindergarten, we base it on preschool screening, verified records of eligible children in the district, and open enrollment applications. So, we collect all that data and we know typically how many resident kindergarteners we have and then we've also been getting applications for open enrollment already into kindergarten. Um, we have preschool students who are open enrolled from other
011school districts. They typically stay with us. If they come in preschool, they stay with us. So, we feel pretty good about the number that we have coming in for kindergarten. Um it could give or take 10 uh on either side, 10 more or 10 less, but uh we feel pretty good about the child count process that we have. Here's our enrollment assumptions. And as you go through the years, um you're going to see that these bigger classes of the 160s, the 150s are going to dwindle. And we're getting more into the 130s and the 140s. As that happens, that's declining enrollment. And there's um a couple of pieces with that. One, we have fewer and fewer resident children living in the school district and we can't depend on open enrollment to fill all those spots.
012So, we're expecting that our enrollment will decline between now and FY31. And the next page shows you what that looks like. >> Yes. Can I just ask is is that a typo or is there really only 118 seniors next year? We're anticipating that we'll have five that may choose other options. Okay. So, there's 123 right now. >> 123. >> Oh, I see. I followed it this year. >> I apologize for that. >> So, it's a diagonal progression. >> I didn't realize that. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the 11th grade class was that low, I guess, >> because it's consistent the 150s and then that class just seems oddly low. >> Yeah. >> What's the bump of 12? Oh, >> what's the bump up in 12 of 12 28? Um we are going to have
013um we lose that 118 here. Oh >> okay. Got it. The juniors that you're >> the juniors. Yeah. >> Got it. So our enrollment assumptions we use FY26 as our base at 1927. Um we're anticipating that we'll have under 1900 next year. So there'll be a drop of about 35 kids. Um there is a bump in FY28 because we lose that small senior class. Um but then FY 2930 and 31 are pretty dramatic drops and it's just because those larger classes are going to be aging and we're replacing them with much smaller kindergarten classes. >> And that and that um 1900 was what Mr. Sharter used last week right when we did the budget >> the 19 Y. So you planned in the projection of five seniors or five current juniors not coming for next
014year but then didn't carry that through the rest of them. >> No, because they'll be graduated. >> No, but like the juniors next year have 168, but then the seniors they had 168. So you didn't >> no plan. >> You just did it for that one year, but you didn't plan it. That's not how you planned out the >> Okay. Right. Um, we just don't know what they're going to because they're already they're going to be juniors next year and you don't know what their senior plans will be. >> Yeah. >> So, it's really >> you just because you kind of know what those what they're looking at for next year. You can plan it for them. >> Okay. And that includes students that when you say five less that includes a student that might
015go 100% PS. Okay. That's what I'm guessing you're thinking. Okay. All right. So we recalibrate it each year to prepare the preliminary budget, which we have to adopt our preliminary budget by June 30th, which is really a challenge because we don't know how many kids are going to show up on September 1st. >> So we're going to it's all based on assumptions and we try to do our best guess. I'm going to give kudos to Dan. He's been doing this long enough. He understands the trends and he does a really good job of trying to pigeon hole what those numbers will be. Um just knowing that they are assumptions and projections. So the projections for future year gives us a landscape of anticipated revenues which is used for our long-term plan. So here's our assumptions.
016Um we started with FY23 um and that's when we were getting at 6863 per student and then you can see that that's our base year. The next year we had a 4% increase from the legislature. It's a nice year. um we went up to $548,000 as revenue coming in for our students. In FY25, you can see what happened. And that's FY24. We made cuts that spring because our revenue was almost cut in half down to 27792. And that was because we got 2% from the state and our enrollment went down. But when you go from $275 increase per student down to 143, that's pretty dramatic. Um FY26 it went up to 200 so we're back up to 385 but we're still not at the revenue we were getting in FY24. Um next year they're going
017to have a 2.69% increase which is really close to what we're at this year. Instead of 200 we'll get $22 but we have a lower enrollment so we'll collect about 382. And then each year after that we are projecting 2%. We just don't know what inflation's going to do. So we went with the lowest bottom that we could get from the state and you can see we never break 300 if we get 2% each of those years. So the forecast data would indicate that our increases in state aid are likely going to be offset by declining enrollment. Any questions on this? Here's some assumptions that we're making about our expenditures. Um, salaries and wages, we're anticipating about 3% a year. All other expenses, just utilities, supplies, transportation, all those things, 3% a year. Extracurricular, this
018would probably be um coaching salaries, supplies, some of the busing that we have to do, 2%. We're not looking at any increase in supply budgets. So with the declining enrollment, we should not need as many supplies as we have had for a larger number of kids. So if we keep it stable and don't cut the supply budgets, they should be able with inflation still be able to cover their needs. Media center, we're not looking at an increase. The unfunded mandates, these are estimates, but we're thinking that unemployment and the paid family medical leave will cost the district $120,000. And there's no state aid for that. Those are unfunded mandates that we're required to provide for the employees and there's no reimbursement that comes out of our general fund. So when you complicate all of this,
019the increase in the anticipated increases that we're going to get from the state and our increase is going to be more than that and then we also have the unfunded mandates that we have to pay for that are not funded by the state coupled with declining enrollment creates this picture of concern. There any questions so far? Okay. >> Does that pay the pay family back to So is that is that 120 is that the increase in the employment taxes or is that in the salary wages increase? >> No, it's the employment tax that we pay. >> It's the employment taxes >> and that's based on the current rate. Okay. >> Um as that fund gets used and the state has to increase the amount paid by the employer and the employee 120 would go up.
020>> Oh. So does that 120 include the additional cost of having cover positions for people on leave? >> No. Like so >> like >> No, it does not include the sub. >> In reality, it's higher than that. >> Yes. This is only the tax that we have to pay. >> That's I just want to know if that was that those numbers are just >> No, the substitute cost would be on top of that 120. >> Do you have a number? We have 13 employees right now that have um will indicate that they're taking family medical leave and they range from all of the different various employment positions that we have. Um hourly employees all the way up to teachers. Um sub costs are we just looked at this Dan where were we for the first
021semester? It was a couple hundred thousand. I don't have the exact number but >> on top of the 120. >> Yes. So that's an unknown but we've taken into effect. It's not part of the assumptions in this way. >> That was a couple hundred thousand for people who also took PTO regular subbing. It's not necessarily an increase due to this but this will >> some kind of increase. We just don't know. >> Yeah. >> What >> it's hard to quantify. We don't know how many people are going to need to leave. But just trying to point out that that's an unknown that's not >> a lot of those leads would have happened anyway. >> They could have >> maybe the length may have been different >> um >> because you can think of double dip.
022>> So >> yeah. >> So um legislative proposals that we know are in the hopper right now. The budget for FY27 this was already passed in the last legislative session. So, we know this is going to happen. The special education will have a reduction of 95% to 90% for FY27 in transportation. That's going to increase our expenses by 35,000. So, we used to get 100% of our special ed transportation reimbured. This current year, FY26, they went down to 95% reimbursement. Next year, it's going to go down to 90% reimbursement. So, that'll cost an additional 35,000. Literacy aid is going to be reduced from 54 to 53. It's just $1,000, but it still adds into the bucket. For FY28, it's anticipated that access and transportation for special populations will be discontinued. The entire ADS program and
023special transportation for homeless, 504 students, and care and treatment will no longer be reimbursed at all. That would be $325,000 of an reduction from FY27 into FY28. So, we just know that that's on the horizon. It's not impacting what we're going to be looking at recommending for next year, but just knowing as you plan, FY28, if that goes through, we'll have a loss of revenue of $325,000. And the the district at that time will have to decide, do we continue the ads program? How will it be paid for? The transportation will be mandated and it will be unfunded if this goes through. If this doesn't go through, the reductions will likely come from the cost subsidy, probably in the same amount. So either way, they're looking at reducing our special ed reimbursement around $300,000 for
024FY28 >> one way or another. >> Any questions on that? >> You skipped over the compensatory >> compensatory Oh, compensatory aid. I'm sorry, that was under literacy. I was getting a little excited about FY28. um compensatory aid reductions are anticipated to be 100,000 for next year and so we're calculating that into our assumptions. Um we'll have to have a discussion at the administrative level on do we continue with those compensatory positions and programs or do we let those go because we don't have the money in the general fund to pay for them. So that's a it's a push and a shove that we have to determine what we're going what we're going to do there. questions on this page. >> So the stuff at the bottom for 28, >> you kind I think you said
025this, but so you're not using those since they're projections for 28, right? And I mean, we have it in our budget projections for right now, but as you're planning for reductions for next year, we're not using that because that's a just making sure >> this will have to be something that the board address in March. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Yeah. >> So, you know that they're having a conversation in a roundabout way about this >> how it affects us right now. >> Could awareness that amount? Okay. >> Just for awareness. >> Awareness. >> Yeah. A bug in the ear is always a good thing. >> Okay. Here are other assumptions. The unassigned fund balance is a percentage of the essential measure for assessing our fiscal health. The unassigned fund is the most flexible portion of
026the budget. It's necessary to address unexpected expenses and financial shortfalls. And the balance is a key indicator of the district's financial stability. So there are districts around us who let their fund balance through whatever decision-making process that they used or unanticipated expenses or unrealized revenues, whatever the situation was in which they could not make payroll and pay utilities. And so those districts had to borrow the money to make payroll and pay utilities. And then when they repay that money, it's a loan. You have to pay interest on it. The interest has to come out of your general fund. There's no state aid for interest on a loan because you couldn't pay your bills. So, it becomes a death spiral. You go further and further in debt because you have the interest that you have to
027pay and you don't have the money to pay the interest. So, you borrow more money. We don't want that to happen. And so, your the board's fund balance policy here is 8%. Um and uh just for your credit rating as a district and the financial health of the district, staying at or above 8% is essential. Um having 8% ensures that the district has a financial cushion to manage unforeseen circumstances and maintain operations and forecasting provides us with a picture of the future of the fund balance under various scenarios. Okay, I'll pause here. Any questions or clarifications? Just as a reminder, how long does 8% last? >> One month. >> Most businesses will have 24 to 25% for three months. At school district, as a school district, we have one month. I did a chart for
028the enrollment um projections. So, you can see um in FY26, we have 1927 and our trends as we get out to FY31. And that data comes from the table that I shared earlier. >> Here's our basic aid coming from the state. This does not include our property tax um operating levy, just the state aid. And you can see FY23, FY24 is when we got that 4% from the state had a nice bump over $500,000 coming in. Um the next year it went down to 2% so we were under 300. Um FY26 and 27 are almost the same. 26 this year was 2.75. Next year is 2.69. 69 and then these years we're projecting out to be 2%. Okay, here's the secret. What we've done is we've gone through and we put in the fund balances
029from FY25 from the audit and FY26 what we're anticipating will be at the end of this year. And if we make no alignments, what happens to our fund balance? So FY25, we just had um just over 2.5 million. FY26 through the budgeting that we did last year and ensuring that we remain fiscally healthy, we're anticipating we're going to end at just over 2.6 million in our fund balance. If we do nothing for next year, it dips down to 2 million. The following year, 1.15 and then we go negative. In FY29, it's a negative 450. FY30 is -2.8 million and FY31 is a negative6 million. So it's geometric. It's not linear. It multiplies on itself and becomes geometric as you go out. So that's not desirable. Um here's our fund balance projections for percents. We're um
030last year in FY25 we ended at 9.12. This we're anticipating 9.36. If we do nothing, we're anticipating next year's fund balance for FY27 to be 7.58, which puts us below that 8%. And then you can see as it projects out um 4% for FY28. We're not in SOD in FY29, but definitely fall into SOD and FY30. And crawling out of a negative 9.5% bucket is very, very challenging. So that's if we do nothing >> and these are using the 2% going forward >> 2% going forward and the enrollment projections >> and enrollment projections but not the other things that are decided. So, we did this we did this last year when we had to make alignments >> and and maybe I can say it after you go through the next two slides, but >> yeah,
031I'll just wait with my I'll wait with my question, >> okay? >> Cuz somebody will remember the number. >> So, this one is 300,000 in alignments for next year. You can see FY25 and FY26 are the same amounts. FY27 gets us to 2 almost 2.4 million. So we'll have a decrease of just over 400,000. FY28 goes down to one almost 1.8. FY29 is still above um in the green or in the black the 475,000 and then it dips into the red in FY30 FY31. What do those fund balances look like? If we do 3% or uh 300,000 FY27 does get us above 8 if we did 300,000 8.77 but knowing what's going to happen in FY28 the 325 is not included in this and we're pretty sure they're going to do something with that special
032ed access and transportation or the cross subsidy it goes down to 6.28. So in the spring of next year you'll be trying to make up that ground. So, do you want to ease some of the pain from the spring of next year now or you wait until the spring of next year to find out what your status may be? Um, this falls into F sod in FY30 at 5.39%. In our employment contracts that we just are 2728, correct? No, most of them are through 26 27 next year except the principles are okay. Yep. The principles are the only ones that are on the off side cycle. >> Yep. Okay. So then we thought, let's take a look at 500,000 in alignments. FY27 is in a a very similar situation as this year. Um this year
033we're going to we're anticipating just over 2.6 million. If you did the board directs us to go with 500,000, we'll be just under 2.6 6 million. The following year is 2.2 million and then it slips down to a million and then the next two years would be um underwater. What do those fund balances look like? Very similar. So um FY26 we're ending at 9.36. We're thinking that if the if the numbers are half a million dollars, we'd end next year at 9.57 and then the next year would not be as painful, but still have to remember you have that 325 sitting out there with special ed reductions, but it would be 7.78. Now, maybe they'll give us more aid. Maybe other things could happen where we get some other funding from other places or there's
034other other places that are just naturally going to have a reduction in expenses, but there'd be a little bit of work to do in FY28. Not as severe as the other two years. This does fall into SOD and FY30, but again, that's quite a ways out. And so, state aid may not be at 2%. Maybe it'll be a little bit higher. It's hard to know. All right. Now, discussion, clarification, review the data, projections. I'm going to seek a recommendation from the board. This is not a vote. It's just a consensus on where you want us to land and the target that you want us to shoot for. And then just a reminder that the budget for next year has to be adopted on or before the board meeting scheduled for June 22nd. So even though
035we don't know exactly what our enrollment will be, we still have to adopt our budget at the end of June. So what my question was going to be before you started with the two 300 or 500,000 was and the board can help me remember. We did this last year and I can't remember if we had $3 amounts or two. >> We had three. Okay. And I want to say didn't we decide on 800,000? like we decided on the middle one and then we were regretting it and we were wishing that we would have went to the million. >> So I'm just reminding the board because I distinctly remember that it was a deep discussion and we were regretting that we didn't go even though we don't want to make the alignments we didn't go with
036the higher amount. So this year we have two but what does the board think or have questions about? >> How about five, six, and seven? Um, >> I was going to say six. So, you know, when we looked at these projections, and Dan can help me with this, too. We're not looking to pad this number. >> Right. Right. Um, because then you're holding on to dollars. >> Right. >> That >> for this is a process you go through every year >> and we're not in the business of banking dollars and not spending it, right? Um if that I mean there are districts that have 15 18 19% in their fund balance. Um that's never I mean we were at 11 at one time. >> We were at 12 I think when we got on the
037Mr. Welch and I got on the board. We were right at right around high 11 or 12. >> Yeah. >> So um excuse me. We have done so much in the last two years. I think we figured out it was two. >> So, two years ago it was 1.4 and then it was 860 I think last year. >> We went up a little last year when we ended up going through it. Didn't we add? >> Yeah, we added two pieces at the end. >> Yeah, just above. >> So, we're almost at 2.3. If we add this 500 to it, you're at 2.8 over three years. Um that's that's pretty dramatic. >> Yes. Um, I agree. I guess I don't know. I And it is a board decision. >> I just feel like our goal, yes,
038we want to be fiscally responsible for sure. Want to be above that 8%. I like being a little bit more above that just so we feel comfortable, but we're cutting so much for these kids. Our class sizes are huge. the impact on the education is starting to be felt by everybody that I don't want to see that number climbing when the impact on the kids and the teachers has been so huge. So, as much as I I hate thinking, oh my gosh, we're going to have to do this again and again and again, um unfortunately, I think that's the reality we're in because of our declining enrollment. Like, >> yeah, >> it is what it is. So, I feel like we focus on this year and say, "Where do we get to be comfortable for
039next year?" And then, yeah, we're going to have to do it again next year. >> Well, we had to do it last year and the year before. >> What if we went in the middle and did 400,000? >> Would that be more comfortable >> rather than going the bottom of three and the top of five? >> Yeah. But, Dan, did you guys do the three and five? >> It got us to that number where we're close to where we are right now. Oh. for next year. >> I want something about the enrollment piece. So, we're anticipating a drop of 35 students. >> If that was in one grade level, that's a section. >> Yeah. >> This is >> across the system. >> So, when you take 13 grades or 13 levels and you have 35
040students, it's three or four a grade. >> Yeah. >> But there's not an easy cut with that. >> It was the same conversation last year though and the year before that. >> Yep. So they're spread out across the entire system. So that makes it really challenging because you don't have a spot. You have to impact everything. >> Yeah. >> So when you look at this number and wanting to maybe think about going above the 500, it's not just one place. It's going to need to be multiple spots. >> Oh yeah, if you forget going above 500. But what if we went right in the middle? If you went to 400, what are we at? 957. 877 would probably be about 9.2. >> Am I ballparking that correctly, Dan? >> Yeah, >> around that number. >>
041I mean, we obviously want to make the least amount of effect in the classroom first. And like Miss Cook said, we're already seeing it, especially in um some grade levels. Um I do have an idea that maybe you want to think about. We could target 400 and then have a tier two that gets us up to 500. And if you want to dip into that tier two, you could. >> Similar to what we did before. >> Yes. Having a few other options like we could do this and it' be this much and we could do this and be that much. >> Yeah. That makes me feel better. Personally, I don't think that I hate to say it, but I don't think 300,000 is going to be enough. I think we're going to be backpedaling like
042we were last year where we had to add the the 60. So, if we did the 400 and like you said, if you had another tier just in case. >> What's the board feel about that? Yeah, I like having options so we can see what you guys would cut at what level so that we know what we're what we're asking for because right now we're just asking for a number, right? We're not asking for cuts. So, >> we're just >> Yeah, we won't find those out until next month. >> Y >> So, if we have options, we can at least know what we're >> committed to for the board to give um the admin team some parameters. We're not just throwing things at a dart board, right? guys focus what we are going to be
043looking at. Um, if you tell us that you want to be at four, but find some tier 2 that could get us up to five, we can do that. >> But without that kind of direction, we're not going to start the work because we could be going the wrong direction. >> Well, and $200,000 between three and five. It's just a big >> Does the board like the that idea? We We don't have to vote, but we all need to. >> It's a recommendation. communication as an approach just again so we're not >> we don't have you guys do a bunch of work and you come back with 400,000 we're like we can't do that or >> we can't agree to that at least gives you guys it gives you guys some leeway on what you're
044>> proposing then >> I'm more comfortable with 300 and then tiering to four but >> I have a hard time seeing the fund balance going up from this year to next year making a $500,000 But >> like I I I the 400 maybe, but then doing the 400 and tearing up to five, I just feel like we've made so many impacts on our kids and our teachers that then to sit here and say, "Well, our base is eight." And yes, we I I agree. I like to be above it, but we're increasing it, but we're cutting things that our kids need and our and putting a big burden on our teachers. I just I have a really hard time with that. And I know that it maybe next year I'm gonna say, "Oh man, that
045you know, holy cow." But that's next year's problem. Like I just feel like if it gives us one year that our kids don't I mean >> this is could this is the real reality we're in. Yes. This is >> a year we know we're going to have to do it every year. But if it means next year our kids get smaller, you know, like a reasonable class sizes or a program that we don't cut it and they get it for one more year, but we have to cut it the next year and then have to cut it the next year. But it gives them a year of it. So, >> I don't want to fall obviously. I mean, the 300 I agree could be a little more than that, but >> what if we did
046350 and then we did a tier to 450 just in case like if we might met in the middle? >> Yeah. >> Even more in the middle. >> 350 to 450 >> with a couple of $50,000 >> Yeah. >> bumps >> options. >> Would the board be okay with that? I think 300's too low personally just from what we're seeing, but I see 350 being a little bit more reasonable. And >> I'm just going to throw this out playing devil's advocate here for the higher cut. >> You know, in fiscal 28, we got $300,000 on top of potentially another half a million. >> But that's a potential. >> That's the thing is I hate to cut. It's things for kids, but what if that doesn't fully come through? >> It's every single year. I agree
047with you, but right now Right now, a lot of us are seeing it on a board level and a personal level with some of our students in these large class sizes. As parents, it we we just need to be really cautious of where we're um I think we should just think on a yearly. >> Yeah. To your point, Christy, that's next year's problem. >> Yeah. We we almost have to go with that right now because like she said, we could get one more year or instead of 35 in a classroom, maybe we could go to 30. we we need to we need to help our teachers out. Um >> that's that does that's not a sentiment I don't think we've ever really been comfortable with >> like that's next year's problem. >> Um but considering
048what if we do 300 or whatever it adds up to 2 point something million over three years it's >> it's taken a toll. >> Yeah. And I think that's probably our new reality >> where we are really going year by year. This this is going to get totally into the weeds then then we need to look at operating that. >> No, that's on that's on our >> okay >> radar too. >> We've already had that discussion. It's coming >> and then sooner. >> Yep. >> Like this fall. >> I will have potentially have the data by Thursday. >> Okay. >> And then Belinda and I will review everything that we get and then we will get you. >> What day? What data will you have on Thursday? that. So, I've requested the tax impact information
049on operating levy scenarios from our financial advisors. So, they're putting that together right now. >> Um, and they'll get that information to us. She thought by Thursday. So, then we'll start the process of sharing that. You guys can look at it. We can >> ultimately begin those conversations because I would agree that that that is near. >> Yeah. >> And based on this information and if we don't want to you know, we don't want to keep going three to 500,000 every year type of situation. The only other option right now to generate enough revenue based on your situation is to do something along that lines. The state's not going to keep up most likely. Um, even if they don't cut access or these other programs, we're still we're still not keeping up >> especially with
050declining enrollment. >> Declining enrollments. I mean, years ago when we were picking up kids every year was great because we never had to talk about this stuff. >> Didn't I mean what we got from the state helped, but we knew that if we were bringing in x number of more kids, which we were for the longest time. Um, it always covered that gap on our increases without any problem. >> so all those babies are now in high school. >> That boom that we had, >> they're in the high school and they're graduating. It's just people are having less children and it's very expensive to have. >> What What's the percent increase in our cost? Do you have an easy number? >> 4% increase year-over-year. Are we 5% increase year-over-year? >> I don't know right off
051the top of my head, but I can certainly look into that. >> I'm just curious. >> My guess would be it's between three and four on average. Um, it'll it'll depend on which pieces you're going to include because some years, like if we just looked at it, if we just look at our unassigned piece and not fund one as a whole because some years you'll have capital or LTFM, that'll get in there and really skew things. But >> if we're just looking at, you know, we can even just look at straight salary benefit increases and see what that totals. >> Yeah. That's that's our biggest >> a year. What's our utility bill? You know, >> all those for me all those pieces. Okay. My chemicals up, my fertilizers up, my seed is up. Fuels up.
052>> You could cherry pick some numbers, I suppose, and put them together. >> Yeah. And we have years where we have good years where things don't break and we have bad years. >> Do we? >> Roofs leak and pipes break and all. So, >> and our deductibles high. >> Yeah. That can have a pretty good impact on things too if you get a couple of those each year. Y so a fouryear average. >> Yep. >> I don't Okay, we can do that. >> Okay. So operating levy is in the discussion coming forward but for now we need to somewhat give them direction. So did we like the 350 to 450 like meeting in the middle? Can you clarify one point again? Just why just for the maybe for myself or for those listening, why did
053you choose the 300 and the 500 numbers to start with as a a place to start the conversation because of the way that it flowed with the percentages mostly or for the you know what the impact of the fund balance to keep it somewhat equitable or >> sit above the 8%. >> Yep. That was mostly the rationale was what keeps us above that piece. Um and then even looking at I I don't like I mean we'd show essentially a fiveyear projection but we all know that years >> three maybe maybe three but into four and five are >> who knows. >> Yeah. We don't we we can't even focus on that at this point in time because it's it just looks ugly. But um and there's so many things that are going to happen between
054now and then. Yeah. Um, so the main the main piece is the current year going into next year and the following year to try to do what we can to stay at or above that 8%. >> Okay. >> So that that's kind of where that target fell. Um, and then I just like nice round numbers to to throw out there. So >> Oh, sure. Yeah. >> Just easier. What if you did a like like we did last year? You go 500 as a worst case scenario and you do 300 as the best case scenario and you have a 400 number in the middle somewhere and then you could have okay tier one is 300. You have options to go to 400 and you have options to 500 if you wanted that. >> That's just I
055think that's a lot of work. That's why that's a lot of work to do. >> A narrow band would be >> it's a lot of hours. >> Three, 350 and four. >> No, three numbers alone is a lot of work. >> So, if we could have a 350 and then tier two would be up to 450, that's very workable. >> Just thinking about the amount of time that this takes and how much the team has to allocate towards the work. >> I think even just a 350. And here's a few additional things that are potentials. >> Yeah, they could be listed separately. >> Yes. Not like this gets you to 450, but here's a few additional things and how where it could get us to versus you trying to hit that mark, too. >> Um,
056but in your discussions, if it's like you're throwing things out there, okay, this is the chunk we're most comfortable with that gets us to 350, but let's keep these things as a listed for the board as options >> would be fine. In understanding 350 still would be less than the fund balance would be less and percentage and dollar >> for next year for that fiscal year. >> I anticipate you'll be about 9.2%. >> So we would spend dollar >> 2.4 and 2.6 you'd probably be around 2.5. >> Sure. Even >> is the board comfortable with that? 350 and then >> a couple options in case we need to go up a little bit. >> Sure. >> Okay, that's very helpful. Okay, everybody. >> Aaron, no. >> I I was essentially saying that I just use
057different words. >> Okay. Um, is that for the budget forecast or that gives us enough to start our work? Thank you. >> Thank you. And yeah, thank them in advance all of you for your extra time you're putting in with that. Next item is 9D, the legislative priorities and update. So this is um typically what I work on to share with our legislators um what it does. It just gives them a landscape of what it is that Steuartville needs. Not southeast Minnesota, not Minnesota. Steuartville needs these things. So the basic formula um LTFM right now there's a cap for the districts that are not in the metro. The metro can levy as much as they want. We cannot. And so we would still say a 10-year plan has to be approved by the local school
058board and MDE, but let us all have access to this money. Uh compensatory aid is $100,000. saying, "Please don't do that to us." Um, for the mandates, either fund them or give us local or level authority, levy authority, or revoke or repeal. >> Either make the money available for the mandates so that we can do them without dipping into our general fund or revoke and repeal them. Seems so simple to me. Okay. Um, employee benefits, the unemployment needs to be permanently funded or let us levy for it. um ESST and paid family medical leave. With paid family medical leave, they can have up to 20 weeks of leave. They work, most school employees work 40 weeks a year. It's just very, very challenging to find coverage for those people that are taking those leaves and
059the impact on our students. Data requests. So, we get this quite frequently. What we'd like to do is that we can fully assess and recover the actual cost of retrieving that data. Even if the requesttor abandons or fails to come and get it, they still have to pay for the time to do it. So, um right now that is not in the law and um that happens when they find out what the cost will be and we've already put the time and effort into collecting it. Okay. um education workforce increase programs that would broaden pathways for hard to fill areas like science, special ed, career and teched. Um right now there is not a program in the state of Minnesota for a um to get a license as a visually impaired teacher. So a teacher
060who works with kids that are visually impaired, there are no programs in Minnesota and yet we have to provide the services if we have a student with those needs. There's no programs in Minnesota for library or media specialists. Not there are no graduates anymore for that program because there are no schools carrying that program. College students are not interested in being media specialists and so they don't have the enrollment. So you have to cut your costs at the college level so you drop the program. That's becoming more and more frequent. Um and so if we don't have the programs, how do we get the teachers and get them into the classrooms? Uh we currently have some caps on out of field permissions and posting deadlines which are problematic. And then um if we have teachers
061that are coming into the district next year and their college has not provided them with the science of reading training that the state pays for that because it's a mandated requirement. Um levy increase. We'd like to see the baseline levy increase that you approve at the board level go from 724 to 979. The 724 was adopted um by the legislature years ago. If it had kept pace with inflation, it'd be at 979 and that would be very helpful for us because then the operating levy would be on top of that. Uh categorical funding eliminate cross subsidies and special ed. Um this is a challenging one because they're looking to increase it. Um we'd like voluntary pre kindergarten for all low-income four-year-olds. Right now we have to compete for the money and we typically don't get
062we might get two scholarships for this. Um, and we have a lot more of those four-year-olds in our system than just two. Uh, local control. We'd like to have um a school calendar that's aligned with our needs, not dictated by the legislature. Renew capital project levies after a public hearing. Um, oppose unfunded mandates. And then oppose additional course requirements for graduation. Um, our graduation requirements. the kids' schedules are quite full of requirements and sometimes they don't have a lot of time to take elective courses and do that exploration they should be able to do in high school and so let's just have them take the basics of what they need and get them exploration opportunities. >> This page two is all about unfunded mandates and I'm not going to go through all of this. I've
063gone through this with you before and you know how I feel about that. >> Okay, any question? So you when you send that off to them, do you do you have a letter that goes with it? >> Do you get a response? >> Some I request meetings. Some are virtual, some are over on the phone. Um once in a while, one of them will come down to visit and take a tour and those kinds of things. So we actually have four students going to the cap tomorrow. Yes. That's exciting. >> Yes. So Mrs. Morlock and Ms. Mley are taking them up to meet with um several of our senators and representatives at the Minnesota House and Senate and they have created platforms that they're going to speak on. Uh each meeting with the legislature is
06415 minutes. So you get in, you say what you need to have a couple of questions and then you're out. And so um their schedule is very tight. Um but they're very excited. It's Chris Waters, Matthew Waters, Samantha Jagish, and Alexa Buckrock. >> Awesome. Yeah. Could you share one of the platforms they're talking about? >> Um, they took this, >> developed an area of interest, did some research, and put things together and we met uh just last Thursday to have them just talk through what they're going to be discussing with the legislators and they're ready. >> Awesome. Yeah. So, >> we would love to hear how they go. >> Yes. I think Mr. Ravenhorse is going, isn't it? >> Yeah. So Ryan can give us an update at the next meeting >> and the students
065would like to come to you and talk about it because Oh, perfect. >> Y >> the next thing I have is just a legislative update. Um they are projecting a balance that's going to be higher than what they had in the November forecast, but they still have a structural imbalance in the years following. So um the main piece is there's not enough money to go around. Um the policy committee was looking at the statewide health standards and social studies. Um they want to have a codified in state law that a free public education is um for all children regard regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. Um this bill did fail along party lines. Um they want to have us use anonymous threat reporting systems. Uh no action was taken on that bill, but it's
066sitting there. And then to modify the criminal statute that regulates the possession of firearms on school property. That one failed along party lines as well. The policy committee in the Senate. Um so they're looking at dual enrollment task force. Um this is interesting because um when they were in the uh committee, uh one of the senators had a bunch of staffers that were attending the same meeting to take notes and and do those kinds of things. And uh one of the superintendents mentioned that the dramatic increase in PSO is because now most of the courses are virtual not on campus. The original intent for PSO was to get the kids onto campus to experience the college. >> Sure. >> You don't have the college experience. Well, now most of those courses are not on campus.
067They're virtual and they are of less rigor than the college courses we offer in the high school. And so um the senator said, "Well, that can't be true." And then the superintendent said, "Ask your staffers and ask them,"How many of you have taken PCO?" And most of them raised their hands. "How many of you found PSO to be easier than your high school courses?" >> Of course, their hands, >> all their hands went up. And so, it is now a discussion. And what I'd like to see come out of this is if we offer the course at our high school, they're not eligible for online or PSO. You take it with us. Mhm. Um the idea with PSO and online should be that you don't have the option at your high school and so then
068you can have a choice on how you get that. So anyway, uh there's a new one to prohibit cell phones in schools. This one would require K8 to turn them in in the morning and not have access all day. So no action yet on this bill, but it could gain some legs. Um I have talked with the students about this and just basically said if it becomes a law we have to enforce it and it's not us but it's legislators making this decision for you. So um concerns about federal immigration actions. It would just be the the codification that you get a public education regardless of your status. And then the finance committee was looking at the 15-day drop statute especially with the student attendance pilot that's in place. Um, school safety funding. One of
069them would um provide $25 million for school safety grants. This would not you'd have to be competitive grant to get money. Uh, proposed funding for schools that don't receive state funding like non-public schools, charter schools, cooperative units, and tribal contract schools. So, these three bills would allocate some of the state funding to these private entities and take um the concern is that it would take some of the money away from public schools to give it to these So, uh, school safety plan would have to be developed. No money attached to it. Um, I'm just going to go through here. Oh, there is a a movement out there for statewide health insurance for all education employees. Um, there's been no action on this, but they are surveying school districts on what that might look like. The
070bill has percentages in it. And so that's concerning to school districts because when the increase goes up, the percent of that increase, >> so your commitment from the budget would go up. There's no funding attached to it. Um, but I think it was 85% and 90%. >> Yeah, >> something like that. So, um, 90% of single insurance premiums and 85% of a family insurance premium, which is way out of range for us. we would not be able to afford this bill unless there was funding attached to it or you passed an operating levy just for insurance which would be concerning. Um pension fund updates. They want to lower the age of retired teacher that could come back to work from 62 to 59 and a half. And then there's just some other bills that were
071introduced that I shared with you that might be of interest. And then here's our timeline. They say they're going to adjourn on May 18th. When did they adjourn last year? >> I was well into June. That's what I thought. >> That's what I have for you. >> Does anybody have any questions? >> Thank you. I really appreciate the update. >> Y um in the in the in the in between weeks, I'll still collect the information. I'll send it out to you. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. The next item on the agenda is item 10, which is adjournment. I would seek a motion to move. >> Second. >> I have a motion by Mr. Welch and a second by Mr. G. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I.
072Same sign. Meeting is adjourned at 7:58. Thank you everyone. Good. >> You said an hour. >> I said an hour. I did.