001like to call to order this um meeting of the board of education on July 7th. Uh Mr. Dur, roll call, please. Mr. Bennington, here. Mr. Anderson here. Miss Mankey. Miss Lmer, here. Miss Roland Miller here. And I'll point out Miss Mankey is um driving from the south and hopefully we'll roll in very soon within the next 5 minutes was her ETA. Um let us stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. We welcome everyone to the Commodore building. We thank you for attending the board of education meeting this evening. Uh we care about the safety of our students, staff, families, and guests. Please note that there
002are exits on both of the east and west side of the cafeteria. In case of an emergency, there is an AED located right outside the cafeteria doors. You are located if you need to call emergency personnel at 140 East Indiana Avenue. Thank you for joining us and supporting Parisburg schools. Before us is our agenda. Um there's a consent agenda. There's going to be financial discussions and we do have an executive session scheduled. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? So moved second. Mr. Bennington, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dur. Roll call. Mr. Bennington. Yes. Mr. Anderson. Yes. Miss Larmer. Yes. Miss Roland Miller. Yes. Item number four, uh personnel. Uh we have a consent agenda Janu or July as we shift between contract years. We have several resignations and lots of contracts. Are there
003any other comments or highlights we want to make from that, Mr. Hustler? Um sure. Uh so this is a a very exciting uh evening for us. Um and um we have with us uh Jennifer Thompson who is being recommended for the uh principal's position at Toe Elementary School. So she is here with her um um family and um as you know the filling the you know filling the the position was very important to us and um you know Toth is is just a a great and and um certainly a a building that that uh people are very connected to and for many years as you know here in Parisburg it's our oldest elementary school but um we understand that um you know as we began to to seek you know the next leader of that
004building um there were all different kinds of suggestions as to who that might be and the qualities that they wanted in that person and um we began to to look through those and and the number of applicants right now as you know for administrators and teachers and other education folks um isn't what it used to be and um so we extended the deadline and uh fortunately ely in that extension we did get an applicant who um we were very excited to to see um for us uh as we got into the interview process uh you know she immediately um you know the the feedback immediately put her on the top of the list as a as a viable candidate when we got to the building level interviews um the staff and and administrative group the
005principles and and the teachers that were part of the the the committee at the building level uh indicated that um she had many of those qualities that they were they were looking for that we heard about from the staff and the community at Toth and uh it's remarkable um her her background and the things that really caught people's attention was her just the excitement and enthusiasm that she brings uh to to everything that she does. um you know the um position is is demanding in terms of all the different kinds of qualities that you want from a person and throughout her career she's been able to demonstrate all those those kinds of things and um the use of data and understanding how how data can be used to help guide instruction was something that she
006was very um adept and very skilled at. But really impressed what impressed the group was the data. And when she talked about the data, it wasn't just a spreadsheet and numbers, but it was about relating that to the students and the difference that that makes for students and teachers and supporting teachers. In her role currently, she's someone who uh works with teachers, works alongside of them um and and helping them um find ways to improve what they're doing in in reading to make sure that they can reach all students. So when we talk about ensuring all students achieve their greatest potential, it is something that she is doing and has done on a daily basis. In speaking with the superintendent of the district, um you know, they they weren't happy that we were taking her.
007So that that that's always a good sign when you know you get someone on the end of the phone that says, "Really? You're going to do that to us?" And that's always a great sign. So not for that district, but for us. Um, we even had the ability to check people that weren't on her reference list and and the feedback was consistently very positive and um, she's also a teacher of teachers, which is sometimes the most difficult uh, group to teach and uh, she she's done that at Lords University. So, we're very excited for her to to to join the the TOE team and uh, and be part of the uh, Parisburg school. So, so with that, um, we're very grateful for you to be here and we're excited that, uh, hopefully here in a
008few minutes with the board's, uh, approval, we'll we'll have you on board. So, right, thank you, Mr. Hustler. Um, does anyone want to pull anything from the consent agenda? Right. Then look for a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Second, Mr. Mr. Bennington, Miss Lmer, Mr. Drew, roll call, please. Mr. Bennington, yes. Mr. Lmer, yes. Mr. Anderson, yes. Miss Roland Miller, yes. All right. Well, if we could just take a pause, if you'd like to come up and board, [Applause] welcome. Congratulations. Thank you very much. You're going to my favorite building. Congratulations. Thank you. I've heard wonderful things. Great culture. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Welcome aboard. So, do we want to get a couple of pictures? I don't know if all or some or Susan for sure and all of us. Well,
009I think you guys should go. Okay. Oh, I didn't wear my Oh, I guess we're going. Can't be the only one. That would look weird. I didn't have the pressure. You want to bring your can do that. We also look forward to uh meeting Mr. Schwarz, our new assistant director of special education, and all the other one wonderful teachers who are joining the district. So, lots of great lots of great news from the personnel side and we thank Mr. Christie and for the team for continuing to fill the roles. As we move into agenda number five, we turn it over to U. Mr. Hustler and Mr. drawer for an update to try to understand what's happening at the state level. Purposely said that way. That is a tall order. Mhm. That's weird. We We understand
010what's going on state level. We just can't say it out loud. Okay. Yeah. Oh, go for it. All right. So let me just get I only have seven slides here. So this is not uh too elaborate but uh just remind you of the process. Back in uh late winter there the governor put his proposal out in this in this cycle it start it starts in one side or the other and this cycle is in the house. House took the governor's proposal did their thing to it massaged it and came out with house bill 96. From there it went to the Senate. The Senate took took it, massaged it some, changed some things and came out with their omnibus amendment to House Bill 96. At this point then it went back to the House for um
011a a vote and the House voted not to non-concur. So it goes to conference committee and this is where it gets murky as we know. It's, you know, the there's um three members from the House, three members from the Senate go behind closed doors and hash this out and come up and bring it out for a vote. There's no there's no public input at this point. It is just whatever happens be, you know, behind closed doors. So, the conference committee came out with with their proposal, sent it to the governor. The governor then last Monday went through the budget and issued 67 line item vetos. So that's kind of where we are today. We have the the conference committee budget essentially the bienium budget with the governor's line item vetos. The next step is the
012general assembly can undertake veto overrides if they'd like. They have n they have a year and a half they can override any of the governor's vetos. A year and a half. a year and a half. Now, typically what h you know it's going to happen if they override a veto the next 90 days. I'll show why it's important 90 days important those overrides go into effect when they on their um dated time. If it's outside the 90 days, they go into effect immediately. So, and then so right now that's where the it sits. The general assembly is not in session. Everyone is home enjoying enjoying the sun. Um, but we can tell you that the Republican caucus is in whip mode to get um to get support for what they feel are the most important
013aspects of this. And intelligence tells us it's probably on the property tax side. Regardless of what happens with the veto overrides, we still have other property tax reform bills that will will come up here in the fall. So what does this mean? So the governor signed the bill with the line item veto. So those appropriations became effective July 1st. So we're funded based on what was in the the budget. So we're here in um next Friday we'll get our first, you know, payment of the year. Um any other policy provisions are 90 days after signage. So that means they would go in effect typically in October. So things they don't happen right away unless they're otherwise specified. So many of the things on the property tax issues don't go in effect right away and the
014levy stuff for example. So we talk about the levy. Our levy is not impacted by this because it's happening before the 90 days. So a couple notes and this is where it's trying to clear away some of the confusion. So the May forecast if you recall I use the Senate's financial components. The key ones being continual phasing a fair school funding plan, no increase in base costs, and then they added some funding for growing districts, which includes us, and for high performing districts, which is us. So, in the Senate's financial components, we actually see increase in funding over over the House bill. So, that that's good. I also incorporated I assumed that there's some provisions of Senate Bill 66 would be included which is a cap on revenue growth due to valuation increases and include
015fixed sum and um income tax levies in the floor calculations. Um those were included. The governor has vetoed those line items but um again I think those are going to be high priorities to be overridden. So, but we the bottom line is our forecast is if if the governor's vetos are overridden, we're right where we expected to be. Okay? If the governor's veto is not overridden, then we're going to be off a little bit better, not in the next two years, but in the following two years because of that that valuation provision. So, the conference committee changes. So, this is going back to and it really does not significantly impact this, but I just want to point out a couple things. Performancebased funding was moved outside the formula, which means our five-star rating, it's getting
016us more money. It's moved outside the formula, which means a couple extra dollars. Not not really significant. Um, emergency and substitute levies, including the 20 mil floor calculation. This was vetoed, but this our current fixed sum levy now would add into our 20 mil floor calculation. So, we're no longer at the floor. Where's the 20 mil floor? Well, now you got to add, you know, 7 ms, 8 ms back in. So, we're at 28 ms. So, you'll see that millage, we have to drop a long way before we hit the floor again. Um, and prohibits emergency levies and substitute levies after January 1. Again, that was in there. That has been vetoed by the governor. Also, this doesn't impact us today, but it certainly could impact us in the next levy cycle. And added principles
017to language that prohibits retirement pickup. And we talked about this a little bit, the slap on superintendents and treasures trying to, you know, limit the board's what they do for us in our contracts. Um, they added principles to that one. This one's legally iffy, but that's beside the point. The governor ve has vetoed that. I was going to say I thought he vetoed that one. Okay. And then the 40% carryover balance with exceptions. Governor's vetoed this also, but this is one of those also. We expect this is a high priority for the legislature to do something with it. So here are some of the line item veto numbers. I'm not going to go through the the main ones. Item 51 we just talked about. That's the pickup on retirement. The C number 63 is the
018cash balance carryover. 65 is the 20 mil floor calculation and 66 the property tax restrictions. So those are all we you know potential priorities. The county budget commission authority this is when we haven't talked about that but essentially gives the county budget commission authority say hey school district you got plenty of money. We're going to roll back your your taxes or roll back your levies and have the authority to do that. Um, oh, you got plenty of money this year. We're going to roll it back and then and the governor's reduced some of that authority from the budget from the budget county budget commission, but it still sits there. Um, don't know where that one's going to sit. We think we may have some opportunity in that one to influence. So, right now, the governor's
019vetos are in place. um you know the the the legislators the the caucuses are trying to ri whip up their support. And so bottom line is our time to make sure that our our representatives know you know how it impacts us and how you know and try hopefully we can we can get a couple of these wins and support public education. The last thing I want to comment on and and and Governor DeWine um we greatly appreciate his thoughtfulness on these. he he's not he's not saying that property tax reform is not important. I think he's I'm going to paraphrase um is that it's important but it needs to be well thought out thought through and not just knee-jerk like this these bills were. So he has proposed putting together working groups to work on
020how to fix the system not just rip things out and see what happens. So that's a little bit paraphrasing, editorializing, but so the bottom line for us, and I think it's important, our assumptions back in May still hold. I mean, there's not really any major tweaks financially. So we talk about the levy right now, this budget bill, we were we're in exactly the place we're going to be. The only side really is up if some of the governor's vetos hold and it'd be it'd be up in the last two years of the of the forecast. Um so so again we're in good shape in that regard. So just uh but but on the other hand there's going to be some more um property tax legislation out there. We just going to have to stay on
021top of it and continue to inform our the public and our representatives. You know, again, I think I think we want to be in the place of helping support and guide thoughtful legislation than rather than, you know, just seem like we're we're fighting for every dollar. So, any questions? That's kind of where we are. So, we're we're waiting to see. Oh, I should mention the talk in Columbus is to try to get the general assembly back on July 29th and 30th. So, a couple weeks. And I suspect, and Tom, you may want to weigh in on this. I suspect the plan would be if the majority party can get their votes whipped up, they're going to get them in and vote without a whole lot of discussion and move on. Yeah, I think that uh
022the idea is it has to um pass both chambers by a certain number of votes. And um I know they're they're they're pretty close. Um there there was there there are some folks that have been, you know, from the the Republican C caucus who said, you know, I'm going to support the the vetos. So, they're counting those votes and and there are some that are undecided um or people that would be um supportive of schools that really haven't come out and said anything yet. So, um if it fails in one of the chambers, then it it's done. So, um, there'll be, uh, if they do call call folks back, there'll be a big rush to contact those legislators, especially those that are identified as being kind of on the on the bubble who are supportive
023of schools and um, might be sympathetic to some of these issues. So, and and we need to swing, correct me wrong, four votes in the Senate or six votes in the House. Yeah. and and there have been some senators who who really understand school funding and understand the damage this stuff will do, but whether or not there's enough there, we don't know. So, as it stands today, and I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, as you said, Mr. were appreciative of the governor's line item vetos of some of these, you know, a lot all some of these measures, all of these measures, but a few months ago, we were talking about, you know, the the not updating the cost inputs into the fair school funding formula and how you're looking at
024wealthy districts and that was I don't know if I want to use the word disappointing or incredibly upsetting. And then came along, so that's still in place, right? Then came along all of these various initiatives and bills that left me mortified. They're now out for now. So, have I gone from mortified just to what did I say? Extremely upset because we still haven't. Again, not going to get force in the mouth, but there's still challenges to school funding in the state of Ohio thanks to the fair school funding formula. Yeah. you'd have to go back to 2010 before I think um in terms of a budget that's been as challenging as this budget will be for us. I think you'd have to go back to the recession um because I think this is you know
025certainly a challenging budget for us moving forward for those reasons that you discussed. So, the shift from um Columbus supporting schools like Parisburg to relying more and more on on local taxpayers because they're not adjusting the inputs in the formula. That's exactly what this does, which makes it very difficult for us um you know now and in the future. So, and across the state that means a drop from 35% state support to 32%. So that balance across the state shifting more and more to the local and of course disproportionately to the to the wealthier districts. And and so what he means by that is for every dollar of revenue that a school district receives on average in the state right now 35 cents comes from the state and that will drop to 32 cents 32
026cents for us. Uh 20 cents. So we're well below the state average and depending on how far this goes it could be as low as 11 cents reducing it that far. So in 2014 we were 27 cents. Um so that that slide is impactful to the district but also when people talk about property tax relief that slide is also critical um in in keeping that pressure off local taxpayers too. I think that's an important reminder of that we kind of look at the five-year forecast as the norm except that really wasn't the norm. It was the norm with some really bad case scenarios that have actually come to happen. So, I think that's a great reminder um that we still uh have more limited funding than we, you know, a couple years ago would have
027projected through the fair school funding formula. Um, other questions or discussions about this before we move into the levy discussion? Okay. Uh, then I'd like to move us into number six, board discussion on the operating levy. Um, what is provided there in the PDF that's attached to this agenda item is um, I think pretty much the presentation from previous, maybe even June. So rather than have us go through the same presentation again, I'd like to instead kind of shift to discussion. Um if people want us to reference certain slides, we certainly can go back to things, but I want to pick up our discussion of maybe where we left off in early June, end of May, where we were discussing the different level of um amounts. We had kind of started to focus in on
028the 11 million. We had focused um on the fact that that was, you know, kind of the dollar figure that would be the least amount that we would have to collect to get through the five-year forecast and still have uh cash reserve close to the minimum that our policy requires, even though it's under. And I think we were still discussing the um length, but obviously there's a lot that's happened in all of our uh minds possibly in the last six weeks. So I want to just kind of take a step back, check in with everybody about where we are and what questions or things we'd still like to discuss. So I'm going to look at the finance folks from our finance committee uh since they dug into this a little bit more. And so I'll
029turn to Mr. Bennington first and then Miss Mankey. Yeah, sure. Um, see I think in the June meeting finance committee in the June finance committee meeting we were we were ready to come in and propose the 11 million 7.84 84 mills I believe levy is is that being the one that provided an adequate amount or a you know an acceptable level of days cash outstanding recognizing that no programs no positions that were previously cut rift uh uh would be coming back and also recognizing that that would still be the amount that is going to instill not that I say this recognizing that this district has a lot of financial discipline but would continue that need for financial discipline. It wouldn't make the finances easy per se. Uh it is it was less than the again
030$14 million kind of levy that was was the starting point a year earlier. Uh it was about the amount that we had lost, but with the savings that had occurred through the various riffs, including uh and the program cuts and the redistricting, $11 million, 7.84 mills was going to be the recommendation of the finance committee until we went from being very disappointed in the budget to potentially mortified. Now that I'm back to just being disappointed, I'm still in a position where where that's what makes the most sense to me. I know I wasn't at the the uh work session in June, but I did watch it and thought there was a very good discussion in there about, you know, the considerations about an income tax levy and why an income tax levy isn't the best
031option for this district today. So, based off of all of this, the work, the discussions we've had for several months now, I'm still at the one I'm still at the 11 million 7.84 uh property tax levy. Miss Mickey. Um, continuing on Eric's comments on the financial discipline. Um, yes, I am there with him in terms of the 11 million. I do still have concerns with whether we do four years or five years because we have two other bianial budgets that we'll go through and as always, we never know what the state's going to throw at us or take away from us. Um, I'm I'm having history with finances in school. I'm a little bit uncomfortable on that last year because I just feel like it's a a slippery slope for us. And it would mean
032that there's a good chance that we'll have to be very financially disciplined and maybe take some other things away that we provide our students right now. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Look, you're making eye contact with me, so I'll go with you first. I'll take it. So, I'll I'll continue along. I think the, you know, as we've gone through, it's interesting you, you know, so I joined at the beginning of the process here in in April and went from, wow, this is really challenging to, oh my god, this is almost an impossible math equation to now we've come back to really challenging. Right? If I think about it, we're we're not going to be returning any of the cuts that were made, right? But if we want to continue the four, five star rating that
033we have, we've got to continue to invest in the students and the the 11 million numbers, the number that gets us there. It's not easy. Uh technically, it doesn't get us to the 60-day true cash in the last year that we want means we're going to have to be very disciplined and how we manage things. Um but it keeps us where we're at. And I I agree with you, uh Miss Many. think the what's going to happen in those out years is is a big question mark especially with some of the property tax reform and the other things that are floating around. Um but I think we've got we've got to go with the best decision we've got on on the table today and I think the 11 million for five years is there. Um
034we just have to be it's possible we're going to have to come back somewhere in that fiveyear period depending on what the state does and that's just something we'll have to deal with when and if it happens. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Miss Lmer. Um, well, honestly, I think Miss M, Mr. Anderson gave logical reasons to make it a five-year levy. We don't know in two bianium budgets what they're going to do to us next. It's so ridiculously impossible to run a district without some sort of financial foundation. Um, and there is some kind of weird going on down there that I would rather not have that reflect on us. So, I would rather see some stability, which is what we have proposed before. So that kind of leads into my other perplexion is that I
035personally feel that the three attempts that we have made to pass an operational levy have been incredibly logical. They've been based on what we've heard. They've been based on what we've been told to do. Yet they have been hammered twice. Uh, third time. Not as badly. Sorry, it's an adverb. Not as badly. But nonetheless, it seems like, Eric, your words keep hear keep ringing in my ear. The best levy is the one that passes. And we've tried logic. We've tried reasonable. We've tried following what we've been hearing from the community. three times. So, do we still do what they've asked us to do in the past? Do we still do the logical thing or do we do something a little bit more illogical, but maybe something that would pass? And that's why I'm kind of
036leaning more towards the 8 million 5.75 mills. The reason being that there is kind of an option in there. It lasts until 2028 and gives the new board a chance to and that would be another new board beyond the one coming up a chance to review and see what they're doing to make reductions and cuts, which we still keep hearing people are saying that we need to do. Where I'm not exactly sure. Um, I can feel Mr. Christiey's eyes glaring at me right now. Um, if you if you if I'm understanding this correctly, Randy, if we went with something like the 5.75, that means we would definitely be back on the ballot for something else. be by those three years or we have to do cuts and reductions in order to make that last. What
037I don't understand on that option there is how long is that? It says three years or further reductions. Is it only for three years? You can't get past three years on 8 million without reductions. Oh, that's you can make it 8 million. You can make it 10 years. It doesn't matter. You're not gonna you're not going to get past three years without further cuts with eight eight million. So if you pass in my mind, if you pass if you want to do a levy 8 million, you might as well say, Randy and Tom, what's our reduction plan? Yeah. Right now, that's that last column. Yes. If no new funds are available, we're we're going to have to make cuts with the 8. I understand. I understand. But that's what I'm hearing is that we haven't
038cut enough. And so if if it was because on the two up above, we've got it down as the length of the levy. Fiveyear levy expires. Fiveyear levy expires. On that one, we don't have a time period for it. So is it a four or five or we can I mean obviously it's a moot point. You don't have enough to get through five. Does that mean if if we don't have enough money to get through correct of four or five years, we can't authorize. We run out of money at three years with this levy. And then we had a list of the reductions that we would have to make to to get through that to get through that period. Okay. And I could bring up that list was actually even not as much as we
039would probably need to cut based on the millage. Yeah. Because I think for the for the 9.9 option, it was 6.71 million in cuts that needed to be made starting in 27. So for an 8 million, it's going to be a larger number, probably starting sooner. So you'd almost have to start the cuts in 26. So you cut busing and immediately go on the ballot. Is the practical implications of that strategy. And I guess I'll ask just for clarity is so on the when back on ballot that's really not a column related to the length of the levy. That's more of a column related to how long will the district remain above 60 days true cash based on that levy amount. And the assumption is is the year in which you drop below that is
040when you either need to make cuts or you have to be back on the ballot. And so these could all be 10-year levies. the the column stays the same because you you run out of money. And and you also gota remember, you know, with our board policy and Tom and I were talking about that today, we look ahead and say, "What happens if a levy is rejected?" And based on policy, we can't we should be having a plan in front of the board that says, "Here's what it takes to keep us at 60 days." And and you're going to have that before another before another election. So, you're going to have to have those reductions in place before you're on the ballot. Actually, think about that because the ballot's not until November. School's starting in
041August. So, if you're going to take full advantage and if you want to do a midyear cut, let's say, let's say I need to cut $4 million. Let's say $2 million. $2 million is different cutting in August than it is in January because in January, you're cutting four million essentially annualized. You're only getting half the savings, right? So the timing of that is is is is important to consider. Also just think about the stability for just a second. Missy is exactly right. There's a couple bianiums, but we're going to have a new new governor. So uncertainty is going to get worse is my point. And we just found out where we had an established general assembly, established governor, and what we went through, it's probably going to be worse. So the question your in my
042mind is do you want to have something set and at least stable where we know where we are through that or do you want to be completely reactive at that time? I think that's the question the board's going to have to think about. You know it may not be adequate 11 million but at least we know it's there. So I I want to go back. Miss Lmer, do you have We're still on your time so sorry about that stunning. Oh, it's okay. No, that's that's quite all right. Um okay. So in looking at the chart um we've got which fiveear forecast presented? Okay. So we've got you're looking at two options and Chris just brought up another one. So $11 million annually at 7.8 8 mills is what is being proposed by by y'all or
043a 9.9 million at 7.07. So that's eight 810 basically less, but we've got the blue over there in the far corner that we'd have to cut 6.71 million just for 0.8. 8. It seems like it seems like an awful lot to have to cut for just8 of a mill differenceion, right? 1 mill generates $1.4 million. So 08's going to going to get you, you know, 1.1 million. That's the chart. That's up right now. Well, this chart shows that, you know, essentially 10 million levy, but that we're trying to maintain expenditure growth to 4% included that those cuts. Yeah. So, that's cuts every year. So think about it, it's think about it as a million dollars in cuts every year or thereabouts. So 8 to 12 positions every year if you do the 9.9 and if
044you go down even further to the 8 million at 5.75 mills then you're saying we only have enough money to function for three years less than with cuts. Well, I'm reading that that after three years we have to either pass something else or we have to do cuts from the way it's written. So right now you are leaning towards a smaller levy with cuts. Is that what I hear you saying? That's what I think I'm hearing from community. I The thing that just baffles me is is what I've said all along. We've done what they've asked and they've said no each time. So, I do want to clarify because you stated that we had three operating levies previously and we have not. We have had two bond issues for facilities and only one operating. That
045was the 13.5 million that had an incremental of the 2 million that we've heard people say that was too much money. We made the cuts, but the other two that did were rejected were um bond issues, not operating levies. You're right. So, we've heard we've had we've heard no once for an operating levy. It was at 13.5 million this year. you know, next year would have been 15.5 million. So, um, at 11 million, that was, I think, all of our goals was to be asking for less than we had before, which the 6 million in reductions allowed us to do. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Do you have other comments or questions right now? Okay. Um, I I just want to I'm certainly looking at the 11 million. I want to say that
046what I've heard I've certainly heard people who want to know, you know, why do we need 11 million? But I hear just as much from especially parents of students in the district, but those who don't have students in the district who really value public education and all of the things that we did have to reduce, especially say gifted education that have actually said, I would pay more if it would bring some of those things back. And as of right now, we've said no. So I do think that there's a mixture of voices in the community. Um, and so I think for me again I I want to continue to make sure that we are offering the level of education that that this community can afford and I think 11 million offers that right now. Um,
047I think the five-year for me gets us back on a gubernatorial. It allows the most number of people. Um, I'd love it if everybody voted in off-year elections, but we know that that's often not true. I'd like to have as many people as possible kind of weigh in and a gubanatorial allows that that an offyear doesn't to go with four years we'd be on the local election cycle again instead of the state level. Um, so that's one of the planes, but I think most importantly for me as we look at kind of some long range stability that that five-year gives us time to work on a um the next strategic plan, um it allows us to consider what to do with income tax in the future. Again, the, you know, the flat tax that the
048state has just um approved certainly opens up for higher income folks some, you know, tax money that they weren't that they're, you know, they're not going to be paying any more in income tax. We can look at that earned income tax and how that would impact versus the traditional. I would like the five-year to get us back in alignment to an even year. Um, three years isn't enough. It allows us the time to plan around whatever the state does next. Um, you know, I I can also dream that our next state legislature when that maybe the public wants to value education will elect people that value public education just as much as we do. Um, so I I can dream and be an optimist and the rest of you can laugh at me. Um, so
049I think there certainly is going to need to continue to be um, as Miss Mankey and Mr. Bennington pointed out, kind of those avoided costs that I think our district has done an incredible job working on in the last year or two. um as well as you know continuing to look at based on our strate uh strategic plan where else we might be able to do some reductions but the 11 million is the minimum I think right now to maintain what we have is is certainly what I would support. Um, so I think it sounds like, you know, my my goal would certainly to have us get to some kind of consensus on this and it sounds like that the just the amount and the length, you know, are the only two things are the
050only two things we have to decide. But um I'd like to I guess first take a look at the amount because I do think uh the difference between the minimum we need right now which is the 11 million versus less than that with cuts is a pretty big difference right now. So I kind of open up this amount to more discussion. Well, I have a question about something that you said because you mentioned that people are would be willing to to pay for taxes if it would bring back some programs, but nothing that we see in this chart is bringing back any of the programs that were said they would pay they would spend even more. they'd go back to the 13 and a they're the people who voted for the last, you know, not
051not everybody voted against the last operating levy and they're the folks who have said, "No, we want to we want to pay for the education that we want our kids to receive or we believe the kids in our district deserve." Okay. And I think again this, you know, what we look at strategically in our, you know, the next couple years is do we want to bring that back? And if so, we you know, we again may need to take a there may need to be a a midcourse correction based on what the state does, but based on what the community says, um, you know, this is we value gifted education, we want to bring that back. We keep using that as example, but there were, you know, 5 million, five and a half million other
052cuts that we also made. Yeah, I um I don't doubt that there are certainly members of the community that are saying we haven't cut enough. Don't doubt that and I don't discount that. Equally, I'm hearing folks that are saying a little bit of what you said. I'd be willing to pay a little bit more. I wasn't willing to pay as much as what was proposed in the November 2024 incremental ballot, but I'd pay a little bit more. Um, I'm hearing people say, "I don't feel the cuts." Which makes sense to me because most of the cuts are geared for the upcoming school year. Yeah. And and for that reason alone, I don't have a real strong desire. I don't have any I don't have any desire to do any more cuts right now. Um, for
053the reason for parents, talking to parents about the gifted program, I haven't, you know, I I've talked to over the Fourth of July holiday, talked to teachers in my in my neighborhood that are looking for stability, too. I think that's got to be the sentiment across the district. I think Mr. Christie back there in HR is kind of living that lack of stability right there as as all the administrators in buildings are and what will continue to be felt going into the next school year. So, it's kind of for that reason, again, I'm I'm still at the 11 million knowing nothing's coming back. And that's what I'm hearing from community members saying they want programs to come back. They're going to feel the increased athletic fees. They're going to feel the increased um uh art,
054I'm sorry, performing arts fees. uh going to feel that redistricting, you know, and and that's not why we do this. We did this to try and figure out a way to save as much money as we can. This is not a let's make the community feel the pain. Just saying a lot of these cuts that have been done haven't hap really happened yet in the building when we start a new school year. To sit here and think that of the six we're kind of talking about doing another $3 million worth of cuts, I I can't I can't pallet that. I can't go there. Um, and then I'll just skip that so I don't have to talk again too. I'm also aligned with you on the the term getting it back on a gubanatorial calendar is
055what's most appealing to me as far as the time too. Just go ahead and speak. Yeah, I guess I don't I don't have too much to say beyond what I did. I mean, I I think the maybe one thing I'll add, right, is that a little bit of the conversation seems to be, oh, well, 11, we don't have to do any cuts and we can just, you know, do what we want to do. I I don't think that's the case, right? Over the next five years, there are still likely going to have to be very difficult financial decisions made to keep the district where it needs to be from a funding standpoint. 11 million is not the spend thrift levy out there. dropping back to a smaller amount. You know, again, it's it's a compounding
056equation, right? If you start dropping a million a year over five years, that's five million in cuts. 2 million a year is 10 million in cuts. The numbers just get big really fast as you start dropping down. So, I I think there's a, you know, a little bit of both, right? 11 million keeps us close to where we need to be on a cash standpoint. Gives us time to look at some of the conversions that people are looking at. How do you get to an earned income tax versus the traditional income tax? How do you look at and then how do you adapt and deal with some of the funding stuff going out there? But I believe there are still going to have to be very strong financial guidance and discipline and and cuts that
057are going to have to happen over that five years. Otherwise, 11 million is not going to make it five years. That's the way inflation is and everything else is. 11's not going to make it five years. Mathematically in the spreadsheet today it does, but in the middle of 2027, the spreadsheet's going to be different and we're going to have to look at cuts. We're going to have to look at additional um funding. So, I I don't think 11 is a we're out of the woods and everything's good type of levy. Um the other ones just mean we have to start making cuts. to Eric's point before communities really had a chance to digest the cuts that have already been made because they're not really hitting anything until August when people start coming back to school.
058I I agree with what you're saying. I am and I've said it multiple times. I'm really worried about year five. Um, if we have any growth over what do we have 2% or 1% that's worked in there? Enrollment. 1%. So, if we have anything over 1%, we're going to have to start making those cuts. Also, um, you know, it's still in the early stages, but there is talk about prek education and if we get stuck with that, that's an additional cost that we're going to have to take care of. And we all know from past events, the state is excellent at unfunded mandates. I mean, look at what happened with kindergarten and now all day kindergarten. It took how many years for us to get all day kindergarten funded? I think we are better airing
059on the side of only doing this for four years and not having to go back early and ask for money. It just it looks bad if we run out and we start taking away when we tell them we'll do 11 mil for five years and we're pretty much saying that we're going to make it. If we don't make it, then we're going to look bad. I think if we don't make it, it's going to be more because of what has happened at the state funding than our own finances. Again, we end with uh 44 I think it was 44 cash days, which again is below the 60, but is in the ballpark. Um we will I you know, we can make it five years on the 11 million. It's a question of what the state
060does. And I at this point I don't wanna I don't want to ask for more money because really if the state in the next I I still that's fascinating that they have a year and a half to make decisions about this. But if if any of that property tax money goes away that I I can't I'm not going to ask for 12 million to make sure that we can overcome whatever the state decides to do next. Um, so I I mean that that's the concern I have right now. The 11 million gets us through five years. Miss Lmer, I think it's back to you about the 11 million because I was hoping you wouldn't notice. Um, all right. To me, the con, you know, I'm always looking at the compromise. I understand and I hear
061what y'all are saying and I understand what people are saying to me. So to me, wasn't it you Chris that brought up the 9.9 million? What that asked for those number? Was it you? I I think that's the compromise. That's a compromise because it it it also goes to 2030, but um and you're willing to cut another 7 million more than what we just cut from the budget. I'm not in fiscal year 27, 28, and 29. Is that That's not six million each year, right? That's over those three years. you'd have to cut another six million. So basically um a little over three million each year. That just doesn't it doesn't make sense to me. Have we received out of all the committees and commu community outreaches and everything else, have we gotten any feedback?
062Um, this has been out since June. Um, all of the things that have been out there, unfortunately, a lot of those happened when I wasn't able to attend any. What kind of feedback were we getting from any of the outreaches that we did? Were they Were they all for the 11 million? Were they Were they angry about it? People are getting escrow checks back right now, so they're sitting with some money in their pocket. And I'm thinking, "Oh boy, this isn't really going to help a whole lot in the explanation either." Um, we had those we had the two sessions. We had a morning session and I would say um there was one or two people that were concerned about the amount but understood it. I would say that there was a larger group that
063was in more of the um where we went back what the reductions were. There was an evening session with about five or six and that was I think more informative with some questions. Again, I um I don't think anyone came to those forums who I heard in the discussions were against the 11 million that I mean everyone I think all of us were at least at one of those. So correct me if what I just reported. Yeah. And that was the only one we did. I thought there were other ones. Well, specifically about the levy, there's there was then a forum uh the 20 whatever that date was. There was a 20some forum over at the library. I was not present at that though. And that's the one I wasn't at either. Okay. I just
064don't feel like the community is really been very vocal on on everything that you that the two of you have laid out. And that makes me excessively nervous because they've had plenty of opportunities to let us know what they what they want, what they expect us to do. I mean, I think if you go back to all the conversations that we also had following the November rejection of the levy, um, you know, again, I I think with the reductions and with, you know, we we are even with the 11 million, we're using cash reserves to do that. And so, we've kind of responded to that question. and well, you know, all this cash that you have and meanwhile it's our savings account. We are going to go through some of that even while collecting the
06511 million. So, I I feel like that was part of the conversation that we heard. We heard again that the the incremental that we put on to maintain as things were was perceived by a lot of folks to be too much. Again, we're asking we're asking for less than that. And I think it's important again to point out that we also have the benefit right now of the high school bond issue falling off next year and how that offsets the cost of the 11 million. Um that the net increase is um what's the percentage on that? About 25 to you know 20% lower than what the 11 million would be without that falling off. Well, Miss Lmer, this would this job would be a lot easier, right? If if that community was incredibly vocal and
066if we were able to knock on 20,000 doors and and do a poll and get it right before we got to take an action on August 5th, right? That's the quandry we're in here is that we don't have that luxury, that ability. And this is where, you know, from my perspective, it's time to base a decision on my underlying principles of what's best for the students combined with the data that that I've spent three, four months looking at and discussing with the administration and you fellow board members and weighing that against yes, my mo that my favorite levy is going to be the one that passes as well. Um, this is just kind of the time where we make that decision that is best for these students, best for this district, and then it'll be
067beholden on us and other community members to go out there and talk about why this is the right path. Time to go out and win the argument and and bring, you know, the middle over to what the need is, why the need is, and why we took the decision that we're going to we're going to ultimately take here. I for me the our calling is to represent the public but to represent the public in support of public education and this the 11 million is what provides to this community um the education that I've heard that we are expecting um and to be able to maintain that is is what I've heard. from the public as I represent them. At this time, I think I'm going to request, if someone is ready to do so, um,
068a motion uh, for a resolution of necessity and then we can debate the specifics in that motion. And so I think the motion would need to include the amount and the length because I believe they're the two things we need to fill in. I'm looking at you Randy. Um that we fill into the resolution of necessity would be the amount and the length. Well, I have a resolution of necessity in this agenda. I is this it's 11 and five. 11 and five. So, obviously it can be edited edited. Edited. Sure. But I'm I'm willing I'm willing to motion for a resolution of necessity that I guess I'll say is in the spirit of what I'm looking at here in 7.1, but with the key features being $11 million 5-year uh emergency levy. Okay. I have
069a motion, Mr. Bennington. Do I have a second? I'll second. Mr. Anderson. All right. Open for discussion. Emergency levy 11 million 5-year. Why is it being listed as an emergency levy and just not a levy? What's the difference? That's the legal language. It's an emergency because we need more than the 10 mil floor or the 10 mills. That's one of the things that the legislature wants to get rid of is that language. But for right now, by statute, it has to be called an emergency levy. I hate that language, by the way. I know. That's one thing that the state could get rid of and we because it makes it sound like there is agreement across I think all the associations that that language stinks, but that's the statute. It just means a levy. And
070as I was saying the words emergency, you know, I was getting a bile taste in my mouth from saying, "Did you feel it?" Nice. So, it's a Yeah, it's a fixed fixed sum levy. Yeah, better words. Yeah, but we have to use that word emergency. Any discussion? I'd like I'd like to call to the question then. Okay. Not debatable. So uh we have a call for the question. So it's my Robert's rules of order that's not debatable and we have to move to the question or not. Depends how flexing about the the years the amount of years and the amount of the amount we can I've made a motion for five years. Okay. You can debate the motion. You can debate the motion at this point. Right. Or you can you need to debate the
071motion and if you want to try to amend it, you you can, but there's a motion and a second on the floor for resolution of ne necessity for $1 million levy for a 5year term. Okay. So, kind of cutting to the chase. Okay. We would have to vote on that. I have a motion to um to end debate and to move to a vote. I would need a second and we would have to consider that before we would consider the motion of the resolution. So I need a second if we were to close debate to vote on closing debate. without a second. That fails. Let's go back to debate debating the motion. So, which are we debating both things or are we debating one thing? Are all of the above? It's in a motion right
072now that we would do a fixed sum 11 million 5-year levy. Oh, okay. I'm solid on the five years. I'm not solid on the amount. I'm still very wobbly about that. Would you like to make an amendment to the motion? I suppose I could do that. Um, I'll split the difference. I'd like to amend the motion from 11 to 9.9 at 7.07 mills. I would need a second for us to consider that amendment. Without a second, that amendment would fail. We're back to the original motion. Other discussion or amendments? Seeing Oh, I'm going move that we discuss I'm going to move that we discuss the years on it. You would have to make a motion of an amendment. I'll make a motion of amendment to discuss the years on it. You'd have to do a
073specific specific four to discuss four versus five. So, we have a motion to amend the original motion from 5 years to four years. Is there a second hearing? None. The amendment is not brought up and we're back to the original motion. Any other discussion or amendments? Then I'd like to move to a vote. Mr. Drewer, roll call, please. Mr. Bennington, yes. Mr. Anderson, yes. Miss Minky, yes. Miss Lammer, no. Miss Roland Miller. Yes. Simple majority is needed. So the motion passes. All right. Um, thank you for good discussion. Thank you, Mr. Duran, Mr. Hustler for the information provided. Um, at this time we have an agenda item number eight for executive session. I would be looking for a motion to approve entering into executive session for the purpose of appointment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or
074compensation of an employee or official. So moved. Mr. Bennington, second. Anyone? Second. Mr. Anderson. Um, roll call, please. Mr. Bennington? Yes. Mr. Anderson? Yes. Miss Mankey? Yes. Miss Lmer? Yes. Miss Roller Miller? Yes. Um, with that, we will be moving into executive session. I'd like to invite the board to go up to the conference room upstairs. We do have um action based on the outcome of the executive session uh following the executive session. That's possible. So, we will be back here for that motion and then to adjourn the meeting following the executive session. [Music] All right, we're back in session. Um, and we have item nine, recommendation, looking for a motion to approve the separation agreement with Kelly Wells as presented. So move. Second. Missy, Mr. Bennington, Mr. Drew, roll call, please. Miss Mankey, yes.
075Mr. Bennington, yes. Miss Lammer, abstain. Mr. Anderson, yes. Miss Roland Miller, yes. Seeing no other business. It's a special meeting, so we can have any other business. I call this meeting adjourned. With no objections, I guess I should ask objections. No meeting adjourned.