001I will be right after. >> Yeah, I will right now. >> All right. >> Welcome everyone to the February 26, 2026 Perma City School District Board of Education special meeting. Uh, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> The right side over here. >> Thank you, Sean. I pledge algiance 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. >> Mr. Nucio. Um, do we have to do roll call for the roll call? Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Sebastian, >> yes. >> Miss Kerick, >> present. >> Dr. Early, >> present. >> Miss McTagard, >> present. >> Mr. Reyes, >> present. >> Oh, present. I said yes. That was funny. >> [snorts] >> Mr. Nucio, we're going to
002move to uh the discussion of the emergency levy collection. >> Um usually we have to do the read reading of the special notice. Usually it says unless there's >> I don't have that. So >> the language is um unless someone objects we will skip the reading of the special meeting notice. Something like that. That's what you'd say. >> Okay. So, unless anybody objects, we are going to uh wave the reading of this special meeting notice. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Nobody objects. >> Melissa, could you pull up the Yes. See, everyone can see it. So we had discussed with the putting the special putting the school district income tax on the ballot. We were also going to look at stop collecting portion of our portion of all of our three emergency levies starting in January 1st
0032027. So what I've given you all of you and what is up on the board are I think six different scenarios or seven different scenarios and this is just a starting point. You guys can come back and say we like this one or we want to change it, but this is just a starting point to say give you some ideas as to what you want would like to do. So, we can go through all of them um or is there how would you want to handle it? But it should be in your folder um with Dr. Early. >> So, the first one is our current five-year forecast. That's just saying no school district income tax and all the levies are being collected as normal. That's the first scenario. If you go down the Melissa, could
004you scroll on to the second scenario? So the second scenario is if we have $15 million in cuts over three years and no new money. So this is not without the school district income tax. And what do we say is we'd like to be at our 60-day policy for cash, which is about $25 million or $26 million. So, you can see that we're over $25 million in fiscal year 29, but as you get I'm sorry, 28, but as you go 29 and 30, we're under that number. And and just to clarify, so this scenario is with absolutely no new money and just 15 million, excuse me, not just, but $15 million worth of cuts over >> would that be the first year then that the cuts would be made? >> It'd be over the cuts
005would be over three years period. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And note, you are correct. There's no new school district income tax money in there. It's just just cuts. So, if you go to the third scenario, then this we're working in the school district income tax being collected and $15 million in cuts over three years. And then we're also saying that we'll stop collecting one emergency levy in 2027 and the other two in 28. And [snorts] that puts us at 25 26 million over the 25 $26 million threshold we say for 60 days cash in 2030. It' probably be under it starting in 23 2031. I see a question coming. >> Um I'm just so I'm I'm trying to follow along here. This is this scenario then shows that the the one emergency levy would
006stop in 2027. >> Correct. >> And that that would be equal to 15.6 million. Yes. And so then the other two emergency levies would stop then in 2028. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so by fiscal year 2030, we're still above our cash balance that we need or cash on hand according to our policy. But you're saying that in 2031 is when we would see that cash on hand below that. >> You nailed it. >> Okay. >> So, go if you go to the fourth scenario. [snorts] This one is also the school district income tax levy, $15 million in cuts, but we're also stop we're stopping one levy in 2027, one in 2028, and one in 2029. And the number in fiscal year 30 is a lot larger because you have another year of collecting one
007of the emergency levies. It's 37 million opposed to 28 million for the previous scenario. So scenario number five, this is a $15 million in cuts. also the $1.75 million and stop all three levies in January 27, which we're we're under under that every single year. >> I'm sorry. Um, under that every single year, what do you >> So, under the 60-day under the 60-day of cash, which is 20 256 million every year, we're under the fiveyear, we're under the 60 days in cash. >> Thank you. >> So, scenario number seven, also $15 million in cuts in the school district income tax levy, but all three levies will stop in fiscal year 28. So all three levies would be collected in calendar year 27, but they would stop in 28. And you can see the numbers
008much larger because you have more time collecting all three levies. And then you give go to the next scenario number seven. not as much cuts, $10 million instead of $15 million. But we have also the school district income tax. And I stopped levies collecting one and 27, one in 28, and 129. And we're pretty close to the 60 days cash in fiscal year 30. Of course, fiscal year 31, you'd be under that, but that is close to our five years, close to our 60 days in cash. These are some scenarios. There are plenty more that you could suggest or I could run, but these are just a starting point for discussion, >> Mr. Nio. So, um it looks like in a lot of these scenarios that there is um staggering one uh is that the
009third option is uh staggering 2728. Then there's 27, 28, 29. Um, in most of the scenarios it looks like except for the one that is all three, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we could we could do it any there numerous ways I you could suggest. I just had to give you some starting point and then you can have the discussion what what looks best for you if you want additional scenarios run. But it looks like we never changed the cuts. >> No, the last one has 10 million >> except for Yeah. >> Yeah, >> except for one. >> Yeah, >> but that's over two years. >> I believe it's over three years. >> I thought it said two maybe. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, that's just 10 million over two years. Well, but
010we we don't we're not tied to 15 or 10. That's just numbers we've thrown out in the past >> based on what >> ex >> based on that if we wanted to have the school district income tax amount the percentage under 2% because we at 2% we thought it's just not reasonable or feasible that most people say there's no way we're going to pass a 2% but if you get it under two we'd consider it. So that's why we worked in $15 million in cuts in most of the scenarios >> because I think Can >> So there are really three three levers that we talked about as Mr. Nusio was saying the first part of that discussion was what do we think what's the appetite in the community 2% we thought was likely too much.
011So in order to get to 1.75 uh we had discussion about cuts in about $15 million and we shared that those based on the estimates of what the initial what we thought initially would we would collect and that was at about 47.8 million I believe. So we we actually have a an accurate certified estimate of 50.3 million. So when you consider that in terms of what we need to cut on top of the fact that some of the discussion is 15 million is a lot to cut out of our budget. It's a lot over over however you do it over the period of three years whether it's 7 million in year one and and as he has written in some of the scenarios it's a lot of money to try to cut out of a
012budget where 83% of our budget is in staffing and the rest of it is in supports and resources for the district. So, when I look at this, and I I've said this before, I go back to that 60-day cash policy. And so, when you look at the unreserved fund balances, and that's what I'm looking at in, for example, um that fourth scenario where we are stopping 27, 28 or 29. And in the last scenario with the the the um not the last second to last scenario when you look at the the fund balance at $42 million and we know to to stay above our policy we need about 25 or 26 million. I look at that and I see an opportunity to uh lessen the that cut number. And I think that's the discussion the
013board would need to have. you know where is it where are you comfortable with in terms of what it is you believe we need to cut out of the budget and so looking at at 40 so I'm looking at the fourth the fourth modeling where we drop all of them in 28 I'm not suggesting that's what you do but when I look at 42 million carryover 47 million 43 million to me that represents some opportunity to uh pull back a little bit in terms of what we think we need to cut we can make some cuts and we're going to continue down to path to do that uh as we look at um retirements, as we look at programming again and a reduction in force in in staffing. Uh but the real opportunity here, I
014think, for the board is to weigh in on what you're comfortable in terms of what cuts look like and where do we end up in terms of the how you want to handle the renewals in a in a effort to provide some property tax relief. >> Mr. Nucio, I just have a clarifying question on the last scenario. Um, at the top it says 10 million in cuts, but then when you add up it has three years worth of cuts and it um adds up to the 15 million still, not the 10. >> So what would that be? Would it be 5 million in the first year, 5 million in the second year? Um, what would that look like? >> I'm looking at the gray part. I think it was just a mistype. >> Yeah, it's
015a mistype. It should it should be $10 million. So most likely the the majority of the cuts will be in the first year because if you cut more in the first year, you have to cut less in the the year two and year three or year two because of the your compounding. So yes, um it should be 10 million 7.5 + 5 plus 2.5. It should that was just changed. It should be changed. It wasn't. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Just some misprint. >> Thanks. Mr. Nucio, >> I was about to call on you. You've been too quiet over there. >> I'm trying to process. >> Me, too. >> Need motion or something. Um, so on the one, two, three, four, five. On the sixth scenario, the one that Dr. Hunt just referenced. So, so
016could we look at this scenario and see because it looks like this really keeps us positive the most out of each one. Could we could we take this scenario and see what it look like if we didn't make any cuts at all? [snorts] >> So, you're saying zero zero cuts and just $1.75 million and stop all three in fiscal year 28. >> Yeah, >> I could look at that. I could have that >> because it seems like that one really puts us in the best position out of these seven. >> Okay, I will write that down. >> Thank you. >> And um Mr. Reyes, if I could hop in here too, Dr. Hunt, is that the one that you were recommending that we would look at that within that six scenario that 15 million cut
017number would be too high potentially? Yeah, I think what I'm recommen >> apologies. What I'm recommending is you look at that unreserved fund balance. As I look at that, knowing our 60-day cash policy, we're at about 25 or 26 million. I see opportunity to pull back some dollars there that would reduce what we're talking about in cuts. So, either the the very last one or the one that was just referenced where you have over 40 million on each of those line item carryovers. >> Dr. Mr. Hunt or Mr. Nucio, when would that be realized? >> Do we do we have a projection of when we would know when how much we could pull back? >> Well, I think that's the discussion that we're going to have now. So, you can say to Sean, let's take
018a closer look at So, what does it look like if you reduce those lines to about $26 million? What does it look like in terms of the cuts >> uh that we had talked about initially? What does that look like after you uh pull back on those numbers? and how does that impact the renewal piece? I I think they all three kind of play together. >> And so I think I'm I'm sorry. I I think if the board says, you know, we want you to look at these two or three scenarios and give us some additional uh information on what the unreserved unreserved fund balance looks like. Uh if you pull it back to 25 or 26, what does it look like on in terms of what we should do with the renewals? I mean,
019some of that information is there already. I think the board, you have to kind of give us some direction on what you want to see next to to maybe narrow down how you want to approach this. >> I think um [clears throat] what what I would like to see, and I don't know how uh you guys feel about this, but two different scenarios. One scenario that would um not include the 1.75 income tax levy, and then one scenario that would. So that if it does pass then we know the course of action. If it doesn't then we have also another course of action. >> So could you clarify exactly? So I could write this down >> just so one scenario if the income tax levy does not pass. So not including the 1.75% just build
020on that. So if if it's that if that's the first one >> but are you working in cuts or you not working in cuts? Well, we would have to work in cuts, but I'm saying I just thought that instead of focusing on one scenario, I think that it would be helpful to have two. And so, if it doesn't pass, then obviously we're going to have to make cuts if if the 1.75% and I don't mean obviously to you. I mean, but uh we'll have to make cuts if the 1.75% income tax levy does not pass. And then if it does pass, then from what I'm hearing is that uh it seems like you want to focus on uh number six here. >> So what dollar mountain cuts are you talking? >> Um I don't know
021that was just that was we could >> but no. >> Can I interject real quick? Is the first scenario you have up here? >> Can you go back to the first one where it says current scenario no cuts and no new money? >> The first one is the fiveyear forecast. Yeah. So, Miss McTagard, is that what you're talking about? This a scenario that represents not having new money, which I think that one does, and then and then what would the cuts look like with this scenario? >> Yeah, I think that this would be a good the the five-year forecast. Just build on that. Um, and I mean, I $15 million in cuts. That's if a 1.75% passes. So, I don't I wouldn't be able to come up with a number right here on what those
022cuts would look like. If you have did you have a um scenario if the 1.75 didn't pass and what number um as far as cuts that you were thinking or >> May I hop in? Is that what number Because I I understand what you're saying. Is that what number two is on here? Is number two saying no levy, but we're maintaining the emergency levies and we're going to do 15 million in cuts. >> Exactly. >> So, is that the default? I think is what you're asking. Like, is that what we're defaulting to is 15 if the levy doesn't pass in May? >> Yep. That that would be scenario number two. That's $15 million in cuts and no new money and um $15 million in cuts. Yeah. So that scenario one is a five-year forecast and
023scenario two is if we make $15 $15 million in cuts from the five-year forecast. >> So um Miss McTagard is what you're saying then almost if I'm understanding it correctly is number two seeing what then how that would play out and then possibly number six like having those two comparison points. >> Yes, I I agree. I do think it would be helpful to see come May if this becomes reality like what those cuts would look like. I know we can't get down to the nitty-gritty of everything, but having an idea with Dr. Hunt with you saying it's up, you know, the board guides some of those cuts. It's hard to make a recommendation if we don't if I'm reckoning $10 million in cuts, like what does that mean? Yeah. >> And I know we don't
024have that answer right here right now, but that's the information we would need. Are we talking >> 10 jobs, 20 jobs, which programs? Like, it's hard to recommend a number amount without understanding the implications of >> And I'm not sure we we would even have that information prior to staffing being completed and probably was that March, April. I would think >> we would have to give something to the voters prior to >> um ballots going out because otherwise it's there's no clarity. And let me let me ask this. So I'm looking at scenario two again again pivoting off of the the 60 days of cash and the unreserved uh balance. So in 28 we're we're okay. We're above the policy. In 29 and 30 though we're below and so does that and I can't recall
025if we had the discussions that that 15 million doesn't change those two years. Is that right? >> Well you can see in scenario one which is the 5-year forecast we were negative in 29 and 30. >> Oh I see. >> And we're also below the the threshold for 60 days cash in 28. So 28 29 30 we're below threshold in scenario one but scenario two we make $15 million in cuts we're 60 days cash for one more year but 29 and 30 we're still under and I'd imagine 31 would be a lot worse probably a negative number >> my point is that 15 isn't enough to keep our cash reserves in 29 and 30 above the policy >> correct we would we would need yeah we need either more cuts or we need some kind
026of levy. >> Yeah, sorry my mic was off. So, back to the initial question. So, using building off of the five-year forecast looking at into this second scenario is really likely more than 15 million in making cuts. But the opportunity if in fact um we're successful with the ballot then when you look at and I don't want to assume that we will be but if you assume that it passes then the opportunity is around what the what the give back and property tax relief is around the renewals which is the opportunity to for the board to influence what the the cuts look like and I I don't know what a number would be yet either but I think That's I think that's what I'm hearing as far as looking at a couple of scenarios. What
027we currently have and what that cut would look like in that scenario too is going to be more than 15 million. But what would it look like if we modeled it? You could pick whatever model you want to look at that last one or the one where we drop consecutively year after year. I I just want to be clear too that does not include the second scenario does not include any of the emergency levies either. So, right, that's nothing. That's just nothing. >> It's continuing emergency levies. No new school district income tax levy. >> So, no stops on the emergency levies are continuing. No new money and $15 million. $15 million in cuts. >> The $15 million in cuts. Now, is that across 27, 28, 29? >> Yes. Over a three-year period. >> Okay. So,
028then it would essentially buy us time anyways so that we we can then focus more heavily for on 2030 and and what those new cuts would look like. So, the 15 million is across 27, 28, 29. And then we could plan for additional in 2030. >> But we're below the our pol cash policy in 29 and 30. >> Mr. Nusio, would that also put us in fiscal watch? >> So we wouldn't no fiscal caution the first caution is the lowest level. Watch is the second. Third is emergency. That's like you can't even make payroll. So this scenario would not put us in >> No. So they're going to look when fiscal they do fiscal caution, they're going to look at the third year out. So right now we're we're in 26. If you look at
029the first scenario, we're positive in 26, positive in 27, positive 28. We're we're not in fiscal caution or precaution or any of that. But when you if you put your hand over the 26 and pretended it's like the fall when I do my next forecast, you would be positive in 27 and positive in 28. at negative and 29. So that's when they're going to say I'm going to we're going to get Scott and I I'm sorry Dr. Hunt and I will get a letter from ODW saying you have 60 days to come up with a plan to remove the deficit in the third year and that has to be board approved and we're going to hold you to that plan. We're going to have we're going to get reports every month from you guys. they're
030going to come to our finance committee meetings or watch them and they're going to hold us to make sure we're actually sticking to our plan, not just submit a plan and say, "Oh, well, that's just just for show." They're going to make us hold to the plan. >> So, the timing of saying we have more time till 2030, actually, we would not. It would be in 2029 that we would need to be because they they would ask for a plan in 2029. >> They would ask for a plan at the end of December this year. >> So okay based on your for right. Okay. >> So really it I mean so we still have to come up with a plan. This is not we can't put anything off. >> Yeah. The plan that's required but
031from the state is very detailed. >> Yeah. >> And they give you 60 days to come up with it. And >> why don't we go through that? I think that that that would be the easiest way to come up with a plan is going through a very detailed report of I mean absolutely everything. It would be very difficult for the board members. I mean for us to sit here and just come up with a plan without the information. Um and I think that that's what I heard Dr. Early say as well. If if if we don't know the implications of the cuts, it would be very difficult to make that decision. Um >> I think what the state plan is state's going to say this is how much you have to cut and then you
032make the cuts going from that dollar amount. So if it's for instance $14 million there going to say you need to come up with this 15 or 14 million [clears throat] plan in 60 days and we're going to you're going to start laying people off right away. I I don't think we have to go through through staffing. This this would help us with our plan, but in December, we can't go through staffing. We're thinking we could get rid of some of that deficit through staffing when that's completed in March or April. >> Um Mr. Nusier or Dr. Hunt, I don't know exactly who I should be addressing this to, but is there anything you can share with us in terms of like if we're following the current scenario here, how much staff would need to
033be cut? Um, what like what cuts would need to be made? Is there >> I can give you a number. >> Any more information on that >> to again we're not saying we're doing this. I'm just going to give you an example. Here's a number. >> Yes. I'm not asking for a like definite 75 teachers. We can't afford to lose 75 teachers. This is why we have a levy on the ballot. This is why we're talking about giving back and property tax relief. And this is why we are going to remain as fiscally responsible as we can be. Make what what what cuts that we can make. Uh but I think this is where it's important that the board weigh in on this piece so that we can come back to you and say here's
034here's a number we believe we can get to based on your feedback of of what we've presented. So then when we get through the staffing process, and like I said, 83% of our budget, you know, this is in staffing. The rest of it is in other supports and resources. So there isn't a lot for us to trim back on. Uh so it would it would impact people people and programs. Um >> if if we ended up in a plan where where the state comes in, which we don't want. We don't want the state to come in here and tell us what to do. Then we lose local control and your you as a board won't have much to say about it. >> Could you just repeat that first? You said $4 million is approximately >>
035about 75 people. >> Thank you. I just wanted to write it down. >> Are we able to maintain our programming with that number of staff being cut? >> We'd have to probably make some significant adjustments in what programming looks like. I don't know what that would look like right now but >> and also class sizes would increase >> that's also one scenario 75 teachers I mean um un we can go through every single department not just look at the teachers because I think the last place we want to cut are teachers um it would have the least impact on the students so I mean I think that and of course this is a very sensitive topic but we would have to go through every single department to see where we can make those cuts. And
036it's not going to just come from the teachers or transportation or central office or the treasures department or it's going to come from all of these different departments. But we don't have a breakdown of all of these departments in order to make a very detailed decision. >> So what I've seen because we went through this in 2018. I was in fis we were in fiscal caution when I got here in 2017. So we went through this in 2018 and what I noticed is we for the classified staff there are a lot of open positions. So if we end up what we call riff reduction in force we riff some classified staff they usually go and pick up one of those open positions. So we don't really see any savings in the classified staff and they're
037lower paid. So the effect of cutting 75 classified employees compared to 75 teachers is not even close. In [snorts] order to make the large dollar amount, which we had to in 2018, we had to cut mostly teachers. So hypothetically, it sounds like, oh, we're going to look at every good every department and every department's going to chip in their share. It's re in reality it's the teachers because classified people are just going to go to open positions and you don't have any savings at all. Let me just also clarify. So my example was about teaching staff for that very reason. But please know we are looking at every department uh every position across the district to see where we can come up with savings. Um >> can we look at every department? I think it
038would be helpful to have all of those departments here so that I mean because so and you're saying that you you're looking through every department. That's what I just heard you say. That's correct. >> But you're asking for us to come to a decision here without having that same information. And >> now I think what I'm asking is what I'm asking you to take a look at is in these scenarios as we talk about the amount of cuts that we have listed here. We started with 15 million. we can get down to maybe 10 million. But I think the opportunity for the board is to talk about in terms of, you know, we have a levy on the ballot and so we we've said we want to do something with these three renewals. Uh and
039so that's not my the renewals are not my decision. That is really up to the board to say here's what we want to do with with these renewals. We want to give them all back in one year or consecutively year after year and whatever that looks like. Uh, also knowing that our our um unreserved fund balances, we can meet our uh 60-day cash policy at about 25 million. In a couple of those uh scenarios, we're at 40 million. So, to me, the opportunity is is for the board to look at that and say what and we can work together on whatever that looks like. 10 million in cuts, 5 million in cuts, and here's where we want to see the unreserved fund balance look like. And that will that will give us the opportunity on
040the operations end to take a look at all the positions and come back to you and say here's how we're meeting the whatever it is 2 million, 5 million, 10 million, 15 million in cuts that we're looking at. >> So I think what what could be helpful and I know this is not data we probably have readily available. So if we're looking at like 10 million in cuts and we're saying that likely is going to increase class sizes, what does that mean? So, does that mean we move from 25 kids a classroom to 27 kids a classroom? Like, that would be a very helpful data point. I know that's not universal K12 like high school classes or but >> I think for me seeing like 10 million cuts, class sizes would look like this. 15
041million in cuts, class sizes could look like this could be helpful data for the future to have. >> I agree. >> I'd say typically we work backwards on that. So, I think I've given this example. If you have a a 100 kids in a grade level, you need four people. you don't need five people. In some grade levels, we may we may have five people with 100 kids. We don't need five people. So, that position would come off of the roster. Um, and by the same token, we we might say we have three people with 100 kids and now class sizes are at this level. If that's something that, you know, you do the math on that, it's a lot more kids than I would want in a classroom. But typically, I think we're capped
042out at 28, 29, 30 kids in a class. Um, and so we would just set those ratio ratios. Now, if we had if we had a number, we'd say 29 in a class. And again, I'm not saying that that's what we're doing. It's an example. 29 in a class. And then we'd staff it in that manner. >> So, Dr. Hunt, you're asking us to focus on the emergency levies and what we want to do with those. >> Yeah, I think that Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I'm It's okay. Yeah, I think if we if we can have the discussion about where can we come up with a way to look at the renewals so that we meet the cash policy or just a little over so that we can function. That will help us
043determine a number in terms of you know what what do we need to eliminate. Then we can work backwards off of that to to come up with what that that scenar those scenarios look like for staffing. So, I hear I actually I want to say I hear because I agree it I mean ideally it would be nice to know what we're looking at, but I also understand without knowing how we want to move forward. We kind of need to start that first in order to see what that's going to look like. Is that >> Yeah. Yes. This is Sebastian, I would my suggestion that we have in two weeks have a special meeting right before our what's it March um see is it March no 6 no it's notch March 12th our March 12th meeting
044we have a 5:00 meeting to follow up on what you've given what the board has requested from Dr. Hun and myself and um give you guys two weeks to review the scenarios we've given you. >> Does that sound okay with the board? >> I'm good with that. I I appreciate that. two scenarios as we discussed. One up up front that kind of takes in the current >> where we are currently and then >> do you have a preference on how to or or which other scenario do you want to look at dropping off the one that drops off consecutively year after year or or do you want to look at the second to last one? >> Dr. Hunt. >> Yeah. Is scenario four and seven the same? The difference being the cut amount? Like is
045scenario four just 15 million and then scenario seven is just 10 million. Am I reading that correctly or Dr. Musio? >> Yes, you are correct. >> I mean so I think the scenarios I'll just weigh in my my thoughts would be um scenario six seeing more with that. Um, I'd be interested within that scenario too to see if we did 10 million in cuts, 5 million in cuts, like scaling that down, what those numbers would look like. And then number seven, so six and seven would be this the two scenarios. >> Okay. 67. >> Yeah, 67. Is that what it is? [laughter] >> Oh, goodness gracious. >> Eight, nine. >> I I agree with Dr. Early on that. Um I'm I like the thought of them being staggered when we stop collecting on them >>
046um like they are in the last scenario. >> Right. I have um Mr. Reyes saying scenario number six with no cuts at all and school districting tax levy 1.75 and all three uh stop on 11 128. I wrote that down as one of the scenarios. >> I just want to be clear again. Um, so six was the one that we are looking at that could possibly change the 15 million, right? That we talked about before. You said that that was the one that gave us more flexibility in the 15 million. I >> I believe so. When you look at what we carry over in the in the unreserved fund balance, >> I think that gives the board the opportunity and and we'll what I thought I just heard you say was we'll come back and
047say here's what it looks with at like at 5 million, 10 million, 15 million and what those balances look like with those specific numbers as cuts. Is that correct? >> Yes. Okay. So, I'm looking at I'm not going to say it. I'm going to say it backwards. Seven and six. [laughter] >> Okay. >> And then would we need to we're going to once we the board decides what we would like to do, we're going to do this as a resolution. I think the discussion was because this this particular discussion cannot be on the ballot that the board's commitment our commitment back to the community around the renewals would be in the form of a board resolution stating exactly uh what we would share with the community about this piece. >> Thank you. I do think
048that um the income tax levy, although I understand um what's attractive with staggering the um the emergency levies, I think that number six is uh uh most closely I guess to what we originally talked about uh with when we introduced when we first introduced the 1.75% income tax levy and then um discontinuing those emergency levies. >> Yes, correct. >> I just have one more question too. So I just want to make sure so you said in two weeks we're going to hold another special meeting and with the intent that we are going to come back fully prepared to say this is we're not are we coming back to have more discussion. I just want to be clear on that. Well, there's four more or four I think four scenarios I have written down that okay
049you guys would like to see I'm I'm going to get it to you before >> okay >> two weeks from now but obviously we can't have that discussion unless we're in a board meeting so we would come back in two weeks and >> so there would be more discussion around >> there be more discussion and then you could tell us where since it is a board meeting you can tell us which one you want us to go through and then we for the March 26th we would have a resolution memorializing what the board would like to go forward with >> and I I appreciate that. I also do have a fair um and I I appreciate the time you're giving us and I don't want to make any um decisions just because we have to
050do this um as far as messaging is concerned but I'm really concerned about that um as far as getting the message out and and the success and being able to pass the levy I really feel like rides on this. >> Well, we could we're not tied to the March 26. We can always if you guys come up with a decision on March 12th, we can schedule a special meeting shortly after to vote specific specifically on that scenario you'd like to do. And that would get the message out earlier than March 26. I believe ballots come out 30 days before. I I'm wondering if [cough] [clears throat] so we'll come back with scenarios and discussion and we could probably mock up the resolution based on what we provide so that if you so choose to vote
051on that resolution after the meet after or in the regular meeting we could have those on for um the board to determine whether or not they wanted to pick one of based on the discussion in the we we'd have to have the special meeting before the the regular as we're doing tonight. Um so I guess a couple of things. How soon do you think we can get the board this information? >> I will ask tomorrow. >> Okay. Within a week, you think? Maybe. >> I'd hope so. I think so. And then we you can you tell us we can come with resolutions ready for you or have those provided prior to so that you can consider those >> on that evening. >> I think we need to have a discussion now with the full board
052on how they'd like to see that. [snorts] >> I'm I'm open to that. voting on the resolution at the next special meeting or the >> So, we have a special meeting. We you'd have the discussion. You'd make a determination on where you want to go with the renewal piece and then I think at the regular meeting we could have those we could have all the resolutions on and then you could have the discussion at that point about how you want to vote on those. >> I'm good with that. [music] >> I'm definitely okay with that. I'm okay with that. >> Okay. So, >> that's we'll work >> that's what we'll work for. >> We have one more question. >> Sure. >> This this is just for my own knowledge. Um could you explain the difference
053between 701 and 702 >> cash balance proposed replacement? Just because like I see like on on scenario six in 2030 goes down to negative 91 million. I'm just curious how does that affect us like payroll? >> What number did you say minus 91 million? Oh, I see. >> Yes. >> Fund fund 701 and 702. >> Gotcha. Let's see. It looks like it's 7.02. Looks like it's 6.01 + 7.01. Looks like it's a total. So if you look at - 51 millionUS 39 million, >> which scenario? Number six. >> Number six. >> Mhm. >> So 7.0 02 is adding 6.01 plus 7.01. >> Okay. So, how does 702 affect us operationally? >> Well, we they when they look at the we usually look at 15.01 101 because that's when I say when I do my 5-year
054forecast, I tell people to look the two numbers I always tell them to look at is the um 6.01 and 15.01. Those are the two that I say if you know nothing about the 5-year forecast, just know those two lines. 6.01 would be are you bringing in more money than you're spending or are you spending more money than you're bringing in? And if it's a negative like it is in the current forecast all five years that means we're our expenditures are greater than our revenue. And then 15.01 is the number the state's going to use to see where we are for fiscal precaution or fiscal caution and how many years if we have collective bargaining we're allowed to certify a union contract. So those are the two ones you should know. The others are they're
055they're important but I say those are the two most important. >> Okay. >> To understand. >> So 702 that's like the actual cash we would have on hand. Is that what that account is? >> That's that is but minus um incumbrances and then the fiveyear or the school district income tax is in line 13.02 02 I think or 03 but it's not on there. It's hidden. So 15.01 is your overall where you are. So it's kind of more important than 7.02. >> Okay. So even though it says negative and a lot of them say negative um each scenario, but so so we would still be able to make payroll and all that kind of stuff >> even though even though it says >> negative. If you're looking at a 15.01 no one then yes we
056could but >> okay >> if um you don't make any cuts or change their revenue then we'd have to cut positions in order to make payroll. >> Thank you. >> Is there any more discussion? Seeing none, I move to adopt resolution 2026-02-77 to adjourn this meeting. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to adopt resolution 2026-02-77. Roll call, please. Mr. Nucio, >> Mrs. Sebastian, >> yes. >> Miss Kerpik, >> yes. >> Dr. Early, you're not here. I'm sorry. Mrs. McTagard, >> yes. >> Mr. Reyes, >> yes. >> Meeting adjourned.