Austin ISD Board of Trustees Budget Work Session: April 30, 2026

001Good evening. In compliance with chapter 551 open meetings of the Texas Government Code, I call to order a work session of the board of trustees of the Austin Independent School District for Thursday, April 30th, 2026 at 6:10 p.m. A quorum of the board is physically present at Austin ISD central office to conduct this meeting. This meeting is being broadcast on cable channel 2020 uh 22 through Spectrum Estound Broadband and on channel 99 through AT&T Universe. Close captioning in English is available on these platforms for individuals who are deaf or heart of hearing. Welcome and thank you for joining us. We provided an opportunity for public comment this evening, but there were no callers. We'll now move on to the work session and I will turn it over to uh Katrina McGomery, our chief financial officer.

002Thank you, Miss McGomery. Thank you very much, President Boswell. Um hello, trustees. Um we're going to get started on our board budget work session. Um So this first document shows our general fund. And one of the things we've talked about is our preliminary budget. We're all clear that it has the deficit of $181 million. But we wanted to show a couple of different scenarios or options where if we kept our fund balance at 15%, 16% or 17%. So the only change that you will see you will see the 181 million consistently across as the gross deficit and then you'll see property monetization that we have there for $50 million and then you'll have reductions needed. So that's where we're going to spend a little time today. So for scenario A um for us to get

003to 15% we'd have to reduce 127 million to get to plus the 50 million to get to the 181 million. um for 16% it will be 135 million and for 17% it will be 143 million. So when we're talking about the guard rails and the expectations from the board, we wanted to provide this information so that we can give you a little bit more clarity so you can provide us um information about where you would like us um what the expectation will be and our guard rail for this year's um budget. And on this next slide, we've gone over this slide before and you can see you see there's some prior years FY23 2425 and on. But we really want to spend a lot of time on the last two columns. We have on the

004second column from the right the preliminary balance. And so this is where we built our preliminary budget on. And then in the column f in the final column we have what we're working on now is our recommended budget. And so what you will see is we kept our adjusted enrollment number at the same. So we said we were going to keep that at a 4% decrease. And then we're working on changing our assumption for our vacancy savings. Year-over-year we've used 2%. But we really do believe that we can increase this number. We just have to come up with a um a new percentage. And then we have our average daily attendance. Um, so what we've landed on so far is doing our recommended budget. Okay, so let's go back to preliminary. We had done our

005ADA at a negative 3% and our property value at a negative five. And we've talked about why we took such um such great lengths to make sure that in the current fiscal year we would not have to make reductions. So, for the recommended budget, we're um going to change our adjusted ADA to a negative -2% and then our property value change at a negative 4%. And the reason why we feel comfortable doing the property value change is because from um TCAD, Travis Central Appraisal District is saying that our property values will come in at a negative 3%. So, we're going to increase that to a negative four. And then um our adjusted ADA um we're going to move that to a negative 2%. So those assumptions are going to change our um deficit amount that

006we just talked about on the previous slide, but you will see that at the recommended budget. This next slide we presented at the previous board meeting and one of our trustees asked to see like well what happens if we do our property value change um as a decrease as high as a negative 7%. So we've added some additional um information at the top you can see if there's a negative 7% and then it would matter or depend on what your ADA how the revenue additional revenue will fluctuate. But again, if we stick with a negative property value change of 4% and a negative 2% of ADA change, that would be an additional $17.3 million um to reduce the $181 million deficit. So, these are the assumptions that we've landed with so far. We are going

007to continuously um monitor our average daily attendance and if we get any additional or updated information from um TCAD we will monitor those as well. So we wanted to spend some time talking about the um budget survey data. We've received over 5,000 plus responses from our community as well as our staff. Um the feedback reflects a clear desire to protect our classrooms, our students and employees first while seeking efficiencies and well seeking efficiencies elsewhere. And some of the top priorities that have been identified is protect our class size and classroom staffing, preserve planning minutes for teachers, maintain nurses, counselors, librarians, and TAs, protect employee health benefits and key stipens, specifically bilingual and special education, and maintain transportation for high need and special populations. And some of the common themes we've seen is reduce central office

008and administrative costs before campuses. Review contracts, duplicate programs, and software subscriptions. Increase transparency on spending, staffing, and outcomes. Use standard process to identify and evaluate funds to ensure alignment. And finally, seek new revenue through partnership, leases, grants, and um asset use. So the feedback that we're receiving, you can see is information that we've all talked about before, but it's good to hear some of the same things from our community as well as staff. And on this next slide, we wanted to show the in change in enrollment in ADA. So the box to the far left talks about our average daily attendance and you can see it from 2018 through 2019. So in 2018 2019, our average daily attendance was 72 688 and then we are going to go all the way down to 2526. We

009adopted our budget at 64,100 and now at the end of the fifth six weeks our average daily attendance is 61,864. So you can see the count change is 2236 with the percentage change of 3.49. And so this is one of the reasons why I stated earlier we're going to continuously look at how we planned our budget um on our average daily attendance assumption. So when we looked at this number before it was closer to 3% and we felt like we would we would um it would be good for us to say that for next year our average daily attendance would be at a negative 2%. But if this number continuously increases then or we're going to have to continuously update our assumptions. And then to the far right you have our enrollment. Again from 2018

0102019 we had 79,787 students. And then at the end of the fifth six weeks for enrollment we had 69,225. and from adopted budget um our enrollment has decreased 3,78 students. So this is just information so um we can review. The next slide is a graph of what we just talked about. Um the one thing I want to point out which we've discussed before is that our enrollment we can clearly see that it's decreasing but the one um silver lining is that our average daily attendance is not decreasing to the same level of our enrollment and the reason that's happening is because that there is a concertive effort from our campus as well as our attendance team to make sure that we're taking attendance on time and our campuses are processing and getting support to do

011that. So even though our enrollment is dec decreasing 4% our average daily attendance has only decreased 3%. This slide here is a budget breakdown and so one of the things we we want to talk about is how do the numbers add up. So this particular side is campuses and how do our campuses fare. So on this you can see at the bottom we have 9,06 employees that um that are report to our campuses and the budget is a total of 88 817.95 million and in that you can see you have high school at 1,684 for a total of 142.11. So we wanted to give data about how these numbers um are impacted in our budget. And the final line here we want I want to talk about is other costs at district level. And so

012we keep this in one large bucket, but I wanted to I want us to talk about what that is. So for the campuses, we have $23.2 million in stipens. Employee allowances is $.5 million. Substitutes is $16.5 million. TRS on behalf is $42 million. TIA is $6.3 million. school improvement is 12.1 and then you have some other things attendance incentive um literacy first for a total of $6.9 million but the most important part is I want us to remember this $817.95 million is what we currently spend on campus budgets and then when we go to the next slide you're going to see the exact same thing for departments so you have the breakout of departments you have the FTE so the total department count for FTEES is 1006 and the budget is 213.03 and if you

013add the 213.03 million plus the 817.95 you get the total operating expenditures that we reviewed on the previous slide. The one thing that we don't spend a lot of time talking about that we need to be clear about is if you look at an example of operations and even that it shows that operations has 335 positions for a total of 68.39 and that is on um Christine's um department budget but we have 193 of those positions actually work on campuses. So even though I want us to be clear that when you see how much we have in departments, some of these people still report directly to campuses. So one of those the largest example here would be operations. The other thing that I wanted to call out on this data is talent strategy. If you

014look it shows 96 positions and the reason I want to call this out is because we have um a team that normally wouldn't directly report to Talent Strategy. And so I I don't want us to think that talent strategy actually has 96 people um working in their department. Of that 24 FTEES are athletics of which most of those people um report to campuses or work directly with our students. And this next slide, we've gone over this and we've talked about where does our money go? And we want to just be really clear about 87 to 88% of our budget is payroll costs. And so that's what makes this work so challenging because there's not a place where we can go in and just take a lot of funds. So when we talk about um the

015previous slide departments, even though we could take make reductions from departments and we know that that's still something that we have to do as a district, a lot of we still have some of those positions that are departments that directly impact our campuses. So 88% of our um um budget is actually payroll costs. 3.4% 4% is contracted services, 7% is supplies, and then we have 0.80 as other. So this is all preliminary figures based on the information on our preliminary budget. And now I'm going to turn it over to um Miss Denanisha Presley and she's going to um answer. She wants to give a little bit more um more information about where the district money goes and then she's going to go in and start talking about staffing. >> Yeah. So, actually we can just

016go ahead and start um Can you hear me? Okay, great. Uh start talking about um the staffing portion. If you could go back, just go back one side for for a second. When Miss McGomery was talking, she talked about the 88% that goes to staffing. And when we talk about staffing, like that is a broad term. And it's a broad term that encompasses hundreds and hundreds of or thousands of employees over 11,000 in our district and hundreds of different job titles. Right? So when we talk about staffing, we say we're talking about assistant superintendent, principles, um teachers assistants, teachers, counselors, librarians, right? So all that isn't that's there's one term that says staffing. And so uh for the work that we're doing this evening, we want to engage you in a conversation about um our

017methodologies and talent strategy and how we staff campuses. So this this portion of our of our work will be direct directed um to staffing. So on the next slide, thank you. We will I'd like for us to just keep these three things into consider or keep them in consideration as we walk walk through this work and really think about the correlation between the methodologies we use to staff campuses and our budget, right? Just just focusing on that correlation. Um there are three three considerations. one are ratios because we've talked about we've had conversations about ratios and what that could mean for staffing and I just think it's important to know that this is an area that we could explore um and that may be refined based on grade level and special programming for campuses but

018then there's also this consideration of weights and we'll dig deep into weights tonight and what it means to have a weighted formula for staffing and and distributing allocations to our campuses. Um, and so when we talk about weights, one of the things we, you know, we we are we are constantly thinking about is what does this mean? Because our weights align closely to what we say are our values in in Austin ISD. And so we want to be extremely careful about moving weights or or even, you know, going into deep discussions about weights. if we we want to pause on those until we can build out our academic vision because we believe that the academic vision and the weights or our values um are closely aligned and we want to make sure that they stay

019aligned as we move through this process. And then the last is scheduling. So that's been an ongoing conversation among many groups in in our district. And so we just want to make sure, you know, that we are as we talk about stat about scheduling that we're prioritizing teacher planning time as that um directly aligns to uh priority 1A. So keep those considerations in mind or top of mind as we move through our discussion. And so to talk about staffing, we want to give you a little bit of history. Um just just thinking about where where we started and how we got where we are. And so as far as our team has been digging deep and trying to figure out when we started um adding weights to our allocations and what we believe is prior

020to 2021 allocations that were designated for campuses were built on enrollment. Right? So your enrollment was the direct this we take our enrollment we do the division and we um and we allocate the FTEES or the teachers principles I mean assistant principles and counselors to those campuses. In 2021 is when we see the first iteration of the way we staff campuses today. Um for secondary teachers our allocations were weighed at 1.2 2 and we also took into consideration our eco dis well 1.2 for our economically disadvantaged populations on campus and for campus ratings in 2223 campus ratings went away. um the weight for Ecodis campuses or E ecodis populations went to 1.1 and then the following year we instated a minimum teacher FTEM implemented for our for our secondary campuses and so what that means

021is regardless of the population like the enrollment of your campus so for example if a campus might have 200 uh secondary campus might have 200 um students enrol rled that might yield 12 teach FTEES or allocations for teachers but we believe in or we have in stated in 23 24 a minimum teacher FTE um process for campuses right and so that's just something to to take into consideration it's not in writing it's not um in our compensation manual it is in talent strategy has been a way that um things were done and those additional FTEES just to to keep in mind could be to support some of our elective classes um other programs that that we might have in some of our campuses. So just keep that in mind. And then we also have the

022secondary teacher allocations based on ecisk which 1.15 and for our emergent bilingual populations the weight is at 1.05 05 but then in the following year our weight for ecodis goes up to 1.2 and um our emergent bilingual uh population weight stays the same. So just kind of understanding we'll dig deep into weights. We'll actually have you guys work through some of our formulas um later on this afternoon to better understand how we staff our campuses. Mark. >> Good evening everyone. I'm Mark Gurgle, director of staffing and substitute services. So looking at this next slide here, as we're looking at allocations across campuses, we have certain u baseline standards. They're based a lot on uh class size ratios uh as Denanisha just mentioned, but we also look at special program and campus needs, as she mentioned

023during the timeline. And we also take into consideration weighted formulas depending on the campuses and positions for our students receiving special ed services as well as our emergent bilingual and economically disadvantaged uh students. And then of course there are unique needs to every campus and we do want to take the opportunity to revisit those needs to make sure that the students receive the services needed for those campuses. This next slide is a is a comparison of our current format that we utilize as we were building out for 2627 and we've worked to update these guidelines and hopefully a more userfriendly uh visible format. I believe these were shared with you uh earlier today or possibly yesterday for you to review and have access to. So, I'm going to go into a little bit more detail

024now with uh some of the base baseline staffing allocations. And so, if you starting on the left, it's the position and then moving to the right, it's the different levels. So, every campus is allocated one principal. And then if you look at the assistant principles, there's a minimum allocation of one at the elementary, two at the middle school, and three at the high school regardless of student enrollment. But I also want to point out that there is a weighted formula that we'll get the opportunity to explore more in just a little bit based on uh the population of students receiving special ed services. In a similar fashion, you can see the same thing for counselors where elementary school counselors uh one minimum for middle school it's two, high school it's three and again we will

025then implement a weighted formula based on the special education population. Baseline allocations for librarians and nurses remain the same for each of the different levels. Moving on to clerical, you can see uh a similar breakdown for the different levels um based on student enrollment and the increases as the enrollment of the campus increases. We may see guidance counselors added additional attendance specialists, additional clerks, accounting techs, so on and so forth to meet those needs. On this slide here, it drills down a little bit clo further now looking at the elementary school teacher formula. So the ratio right now for preK3 is 1 to 17. Currently our prek4 through uh fourth grade is 1 to 22 and starting in fifth grade the ratio goes 1 to 25. There is one TA allocated for each prek uh

026teacher. Looking at the secondary uh level, you can see this is where for teachers, as Denanisha just mentioned, we do look at the weighted formula considering the ECOIS and the emergence bilingual population of those campuses. And currently teachers are teaching six out of eight. The class ratio is one teacher for every 29 students. And again, as Denanisha me mentioned, every secondary campus right now is guaranteed a minimum of 20 teacher allocations. This slide here is an example where it drills down the information further for the board to review. So you can see the grade level on the left column, student enrollment following the ratio that I I mentioned before, 1 to 22. It indicates how many teachers would be allocated for the campus. And then finally, you can get an idea of what the possible

027class size might be for that campus. So for example, looking at the first grade row, 49 students with a ratio of 1 to 22 would yield three teacher allocations and the anticipated class size for those three would be students 16, 16, and 17. >> Clarify what it means that it's an >> they're not serving uh the bilingual dual language. >> Okay. Maybe after the meeting I can talk about that. I'd like to revisit that because that's every campus is an ESL campus and most students at an ESL campus are not ESL. So, I'd like to clarify the language with you afterwards. >> Thank you, Trusty Kaufman. And also want to point out that this currently does not include any special ed allocations. Those are provided separately by that department. So then to uh dive into

028this campus example a little bit further, this would include all of the allocations for the entire campus from the principal, professional, classified, um an estimated cost, so an average salary, which does include benefits. And you can see we've added the special education allocations as provided by the special ed department in this particular example. And so this particular campus would have 45 allocations and an estimated cost of 3.3 million. That's just staffing that doesn't include any non-staffing dollars. This is uh an example where we are supporting the dual langu dual language programming and we have um the separation of the classes based on the students. We work very closely with the multilingual education team on identifying those students to help us make sure that we have the right teacher allocations for those campuses. So in this

029particular example, again, same thing. If you look, for example, at the preK4, if there's a total of 66 students anticipated enrolled in preK4 and there's 40 ESL and 26 DL, that would yield two ESL teachers, two bilingual teachers. And again, in the far right, you can see the estimated class size for those teacher allocations. Again, as a reminder, this does not include any special education allocations. And then on the next slide, this also similar to the campus before. This is a a buildout of the entire campus. It does include the special ed teachers as well as TAs. gives you the opportunity to see total allocations as well as total estimated staffing costs for this particular campus. And then as we mentioned there is a weighted formula at the elementary school for counselors and assistant principles.

030And so we have an example here with campus A and campus B. And you can see the weighted formula that we use to determine the supports for the counselors and assistant principles there. As you're looking at this, you might notice that the overall student enrollment for campus A is lower than campus B. However, because of the higher population of students receiving special education services, the counselor and the assistant principal allocation is increased. And if you would click one more time, you can see that formula there in action at the bottom right. So, in looking at that weighted formula, you can see step one, we have a total of 550 students, and we're going to subtract the number of special education students from that, which gives us a total of 300 students or x. We take

031um the number of special ed students, that 250, and we multiply it by 1.5, the weighted formula, which gives us the 375. When we add x plus y, we add the 300 plus the weighted 375 and then divide that by the 450. We get 1.5 and we do round up at that point. >> So we actually wanted to give you an opportunity to to look at um one of our we at campus. Can you go to the next slide please? Thank you. So um these are our you know as we said before prior to 2020 2021 all of our allocations were based on like strictly based on enrollment and as we moved into 22 23 24 that's when we brought in the different weights for our campuses and so where um you know to the

032the slide before is showing we'll we'll actually do a side by side but we want you to walk through um and or give you an opportunity to think about and actually staff one of our campuses. So on by using our formulas um we'd like to pair you up into groups of two if you could find a shoulder partner and for if you'll see our formula at the top. So there's the first formula is for teachers and so we're looking at the base the minimum baseline is you know minimum of 20 um class ratios of 1 to 29 for teaching six of eight and then the weights uh for a particular campus or student based on student populations is at the bottom of that graph. And so we're going to ask one or two of you

033to get together and do the staffing ratios for teachers. So, you're going to actually build the allocations out for one a an imaginary campus if you wouldn't mind entertaining and engaging. Um, and then for our assistant principles, so we'd like for a a couple of you to work together or if you're one of those math minds that work to like to work in isolation, you're welcome to do that as well, but we would like to assign assistant principles to a group and then counselors. So someone will do the allocations and the staffing for a counselor just to explore and engage in the inner workings of what this formula actually means and does um for our campuses. So campus A here is our imaginary campus. Um campus A has 1578 students enrolled. The ecodis population is

034164. The emergent bilingual population is 20. And our special education um our students who receive special education um services at this campus uh we have 29 of those. And so I think we'll have trustee Kintana and you're up. Okay. Anyone else want to pass or >> question? >> Are you okay? Are you guys >> will we move move forward with the engagement or would you like for us to just continue to move through the work? >> Do we have a campus that looks like this? >> This is one of our campuses. Yes. Oh, >> thank you. >> Um, actually I I would much rather not do the exercise and move through the work, but I also, this is the question that I asked last week. I see all of this. What I think our community

035wants to know because they I mean the people that are watching, the people that are in this room, the formulas just not what they're Is there an advanced math in this school? >> Is there a librarian in this school? there is >> is there foreign language in this school >> because we have schools where there is not a foreign language we have a middle school where there's no foreign language >> in that same middle school kids are made to take AVID >> that's what I want to know is happening in each school and I I can't seem to get that question answered um I was told last week that every school gets the same like FTEES or similar FTEES and then they decide what they're going to do with it then that means there's places

036where you have double blocked English and and nothing else And there's places where you have Harry Potter math and Star Wars science. So that's a problem for me. So how do we get to where no matter what elementary school you go to, you know, you have X? We know I know that pretty much every elementary has art PE and music. What some people don't know is that maybe that art teacher is split between two K two campuses or whatever. So where where's how do we get to those numbers? >> I I think it's a very important question. I think it's distinct from this though. I think this is like helping us understand the current method for assigning staff to campus and I think you're moving to the next step which is vitally important but it's

037part of our academic baseline that we don't have which is how do we ensure that every camp every student's getting certain minimum expectations. So then >> understand the purpose for this as far as being >> then how do we know what to cut like weights and how does the >> I guess I'm just not going to get an answer to that question. >> I think I think it's a two-stage thing. And I think question number one is how are the schools currently staffed? And let's understand that because this is one mechanism that may be used to generate savings by adjusting the ratios and formulas. And then the second question is what's the impact of having a staffing model like this because of the >> okay >> the imbalance it creates and then what's similar what's

038the consequence of cutting this because this might mean adjusting this is going to exacerbate the problem you're describing. >> I do see the value I don't I don't want to do the exercise but I do see the value of understating the ratios by themselves. Yeah, and I appreciate the idea of the exercise, but I also know our time is precious and I'd rather hear it from you so we can have more conversation. I appreciate that. I'm hearing that from all my colleagues and thank you. And I do think that's part of our academic vision question, right? Is even if we have weighted FTEEs and and more staff in some places but fewer options, what is going on? And we've been asking, I know that question for a long time and it does make it hard

039to make budget choices. I mean I think these these are interwoven um and and I think it is all part of those conversations. So thank you. >> Yeah. No, we are we are okay to move past um past the formulas. I think our our engagement tonight was to really just help make sure we understand like the the impact that the weights have and to explore the different options. So as you're having discussions about which options and if we are if we are looking to cut then what what kind of impact would that have on um on our campuses? So can you keep moving? So on the we we did have two campuses if we could just walk through quickly. Um we did have two campuses to explore. Would you go to the next slide please?

040And um just looking at them side by side, had you had we gone through the the the exercises, you could see what our weighted system, for example, on campus A and campus B. If we were to use use the weighted system that we currently have, campus A would have 75 teachers, campus B would have 85 teachers. If these were unweighted allocations such as that which we had prior to 2021, campus A would have 72 allocations of for teachers and campus B would have 72.5 or 73. We round up. >> And are these both actual campuses? You said the first one was >> Yes, ma'am. These are both actual campuses. Um, both high schools. >> Yes, they're both high schools. And I would say something I kind of would like to address like if we're looking

041at campus A, campus B. So like I I'm sure I know which high schools they are. I know they're high schools automatically. Um and look like I think we just take it for granted that it's okay to have high schools that have demographics like this. Sure. to have to isolate students who are in poverty um and have a campus like but that's not how our city looks um and I think no matter what with with our limited resources we're never going to get to equity that way with having um because the rest outside of schools it is so unequal um that with limited funding it's something the schools cannot fix when you have So, I think part of when we're looking at doing our budgets is like how can we make schools all of our

042schools attractive to everybody? Um because no parts of our community even look like this in a high like because our high school boundaries are huge >> and so people are choosing to leave because they don't think their kids going to get what they need at that high school. Um so we can like do formulas or or whatever we want. Um, but we have to be like really really strategic and smart and communicating with with families and like making all these schools schools that everyone wants to go to. For sure. Thank you. I believe that um yes. So, do in which direction would we would we like like to go? Do we want to I I appreciate you trusty Q. Um, in which direction would we like to go? Do we want to open for discussion

043or continue to move through the formulas? >> I think it's helpful to see the presentation. It's helpful to know. It was really helpful at the beginning on the first slide when you said we need an answer about the direction we want to go on the fund balance. you know, knowing the answers that you want the questions you need answers to tonight to continue moving forward, I think is extremely helpful to us and that will help us make sure we answer what you want. And then I think as trustees, we need the option to discuss and deliberate, do we stand by these formulas. I know we've talked a lot about equitable funding rather than equal funding. That's why we move toward weights. Um, but I think the the question remains, we can have 98 teachers at

044one campus and fewer than 80 at the other and yet still have fewer options for our students. The weight has not brought um a similar weight to the programs we're offering students and and why is that? And so I think those are those are also important questions to ask as we talk about the budget. um because it's how many people we have and what we do with those people and and part of that's a budget question and part of that is a deeper question about our academic vision. >> But knowing what you want answered, let's get through the the presentation. Let us know what questions we absolutely need to answer. Um and then we can talk about all of this as we move forward. >> Okay, great. So, we'll we'll continue to move through and

045just looking at weighted versus um unweighted for our campus A and B. um you know weighted our campus A and B would have four and five um assistant principles and five counselors on each campus. Um if we were in an unweighted situation, we would be looking at four assistant principles on each campus and five and four on the other. So we'll continue to move that one. So again, then building out the uh entire campus costs from principal through teachers as well as our classified staff. We did also include the special ed uh teachers as well as TAs in this one, estimated salaries including benefits. Um so we're looking at 10 and a half uh teach allocations overall staffing allocations with an estimated staffing cost for that particular campus. And then the following slide, campus B

046again outlines similar information. Uh larger staff overall 135 including the special ed teachers and TAs and an estimated staffing cost for that particular campus. >> I think it's also important to note that um these the the allocations and the funding these are strictly for staffing, right? So this is not including the HVAC, the air conditioning, the operations of the campus. Um so just making sure that we make that note. Move on. And it's also important to know that we have various programs across the district that um that automatically warrant an additional um additional FTEES. So, for example, for Keeling and the Lively Middle School magnets, there's three additional FTEEs that go towards those particular campuses for their signature course teachers and um additional leadership positions such as the magnet director at each campus. And then

047LASA has an additional three allocations for the magnet there or the special programs there. And then our um special programs for the following on the far right. Special programs clerk, excuse me, um are allotted for the um campuses on the right. We also have I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Yes. >> Sorry. Just really quickly to understand the special program clerk. >> Um I guess and the the three above formula. What does that mean? Three on top of >> correct. So if we went through the entire uh the the formulas that we just explored um and we have the FTEES out allocated for these particular campuses. There are three additional FTEEs that are um allocated to those campuses for their specific programming. >> And where do those dollars come from? >> Our our 199 budget. >>

048Okay. And is that the same for the special program clerk? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I have a qu. What's a signature course? >> The just the magnet for as part of the magnet program for Keeling and Lively specific to those programs. >> Yeah, that's I'm so sorry. Yes, that's what I'm asking. What is the course? Is it like how to succeed 101 or is it just like hey make up something? >> It's at the discretion of the principal in the campus. >> Thank you. >> Great. So our primary purpose again was to share information with you as as you get closer to make decisions right and and to un understand how our campuses are um are staffed. I understand there's also deep questions about the programming and what is the baseline

049expectation for each campus and I know those those conversations are continuing and those answers to those questions are coming. um in talent strategy, our primary purpose is to staff the campuses. And so we wanted to, you know, if we're if we're looking at making adjustments um from campus to campus, we just wanted you to make sure that you had the information you needed to make make the that decision informed as we talk about what's happening right in the in the um in the workspace of our of our children. And so, um, again, I want to just offer the considerations that ratios, weights, and scheduling are opportunities or or, um, spaces to explore. And our recommendation is to pause on the weights um, as they do align to our our values. They also align, we want

050them to move forward alongside our academic vision, but considering ratios and and scheduling. However, those are um that that is our presentation, but we do know u we want to open the floor for conversation if needed. >> So, are there specific questions about this that you'd like to have answered? Do you want to know if we would like for you to bring a proposal to us about changing ratios, for example, about um you know, what we're hearing about schedules out in the community? um what what information would be helpful for us to discuss at this point >> in addition to to the topics trustees want to bring what information do you need from us >> yes thank you very much pres president Boswell um the we've talked about what we need from a finance perspective

051we have the expectation what is the expectation for our fund balance and the information that was provided from a staffing perspective is it was forformational purposes only there wasn't a requirement or any additional information. We wanted to make sure that not only our board members but as well as our community understand how we currently staff and that if we do come back later to adjust or to change those at least there'll be a starting pa place or a foundation of where to start from. Everyone will be clear how we currently staff and then if we decide that that was a proposal that we would want to make into changing ratios or formulas then we everyone will be aligned with where we are and where we're going. So there right now there is no additional information

052needed from a staffing perspective. Um it was allformational purposes but I would like us to have some um discussion about the expectation uh for the fund balance. Okay so that we can get laser focused on what the um deficit is and how we need to proceed. >> Okay. And so if we go back to the slide with the general fund >> number two thank you. And I think if we're looking at it too, we have the $181 million deficit shown um as the starting point for each scenario, but what I see to get to that 15% fund balance, um the deficit we would actually need to close would be 177. >> The deficit we would actually need to close to get to that 16% would be 185. >> Yes. And the deficit we would need

053to hit meet to close to hit that 17% would be 193. >> Yes. >> Okay. And so I that's the question is what how >> how do we want to balance the fund balance and the depth of the cuts? >> There's been conversation. Do we want to say we want to just have a balanced budget stick with the 15%? Do we want to contribute some money back into the fund balance? And if we do that, do we want to do that at 16% or 17%. And so this really helps us start. We're always going to have the floor of the $181 million, but this helps us decide how much further or how deeper reductions we'll need to make over these next coming weeks. >> Okay. And I know Trusty Singh is out of town and

054not with us tonight. Um and and I know you've heard her input. So Trusty Coffman. >> Right. Well, now is our chance to to be a little more less conservative. Um, I would like to echo the concerns that trustee Singh has shared many times about the importance of having conservative estimates in terms of the enrollment and in terms of um, ADA and all the other and property values. You know, I don't want to exag to exaggerate like our resources if they're not going to be there. Um, but I'm more concerned and I also think the fund balance is extremely important to pay attention to and to make sure that we're not creating a situation where we're putting the district or payroll at risk or having to take out emergency loans that it cost to the

055district. So, I I agree with all that. Um, but I'm equally concerned about the other side, which is preemptively making cuts that are going to hurt >> and then finding out later on that we didn't need to. >> And so, I really want to put that if we cut librarians, for example, which I don't think we would possibly do, but we could. If we were to cut librarians, that's irreversible for that year >> and and it's going to create um a situation that can't be red, you know, resolved over multiple years to come. So, I don't want us to cut things >> and then end up regretting cutting them because now we can't just put them back. So, I would like to be very, you know, I would like to find a a good balance

056between being very cautious with our money but applying equal caution to the cuts that are irreversible. So I would lean towards, you know, something a little riskier in terms of the fund balance than being like, you know, I would rather miss the fund balance mark by a little bit >> than guarantee that we hit it by making excessive cuts. That make sense? So that would mean in this I would only lean towards the 15% as the target. When it comes to the 3% and the 5% and all that, I would like to follow the guidance of the demographers and the tax people that you've talked to and follow that guidance and try to like go in at their level and not be more conservative than what they're estimating. And if we that results in harder

057cuts next year, I'm okay with that because I'd rather have slightly harder cuts next year than unnecessary cuts this year. And and I echo exactly what Trusty Kaufman is saying. Um I think that that 15% is both is responsible in in both ways. I think is the most responsible thing to do where it gets us um to a balanced budget or extremely close >> which hasn't happened in in a while due due to chaos from from our state. Um, so I think that is an extremely responsible number for taking care of our students and staff the best that we can. Um, and I think also using the most accurate number from our experts from TCAD and using that 3%. So I think that those are the most responsible things to do right now. >> Sorry,

0583% in reduction of property. Yes, I I was I understand what you meant. Yes, >> Trusty Hunter, what she said. >> So, I I had I'm kind of jumping back, but I had a question in regards to the staffing allocations because I, you know, take it that, you know, adjusting the weights is the consideration around cost savings. One of the things that I've noticed a lot in the slides that are brought up is is around vacancy savings and unfilled positions. Is that reflected in the numbers that we're looking at in these staffing ratios? Like is this considering unfilled positions or is this you mean how many of these are, you know, missing staff that aren't there or is it not reflected in this >> it? So for let's go back. So for the vacancy collapse

059positions that we proposed is only for departments. >> Okay. So none of that's on campus. >> None of that is on campuses. It's just departments. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. Trusty Foster. >> So, I I keep thinking um you know what you've all raised in the past about our cash flow solveny um versus uh our student outcomes. >> Mhm. >> And then of course versus the things that are hard to unring, the bells that are hard to unring. So, it's like a triangle a triangle of of of challenges. And um I've said over and over again that I worry dramatically about um the numbers being worse. Um I also between the lines amathetic to there are some cuts like you can't get back. So even if I have a a pretty strong feeling that

060the n that it's going to be worse than what we're projecting, even if I have that feeling, there can be a level at which if we budget according to that, well, nothing's on the plate and we don't eat and student outcomes crash or we and we can't unring bells. And so it makes me extremely um uncomfortable and I'm already like thinking about the contingencies in next year and next year. Um, but I think the cuts we have to make are so hard and it's going to be so hard to preserve student outcomes. And I'm going to ask really powerfully, pointedly, strongly that our equity lens stays solidly in place, which is reflected in waitings, but it's it's also reflected in other ways as well. So if I'm going to push for equity, which means somehow

061whether it's Title One or this or that, certain things have to remain on certain campuses. And getting those things that people want and people need on the campuses will require that we go cut a little that we that we in this case say we'll we'll just go down to the 15%. And stay with that. So in other words, the long and the short of this, I'm I'm super uncomfortable with this. I think fiscally in a sense it's imprudent, >> but I think student outcomes wise it's necessary and we have to do what we have to do. So I don't want to see us make any more cuts as Trusty Kaufman said than we absolutely have to make because we're already cutting into the bone. Um so I I'm I'm okay with the 15% as well.

062>> Trusty Kintana, >> I don't understand. I'm just gonna start there. Um, it was my understanding that we were going to kind of do this budget work in tandem with thinking about what our baseline academics would look like at each school. Am I understanding that? Okay. I don't so so when you all talk about the weights how does that affect the baseline academics that we are providing at every school you want to >> we'll let Dr. Dr. Maxwell is going to come and talk a little bit about the AC academic um framework on our campuses. Hi, good evening everyone. Um we've said the word academic a lot tonight so uh and I keep getting looks now so uh coming down. Uh Sure. Sure. Um, so it was I I didn't work on this presentation, but

063I did hear some conversation around it when started. And it was my understanding that uh that it this tonight was really just supposed to start with staffing to get a better baseline and understanding of how we're staffing schools. Um, and that next steps in the conversation would be to talk about and and everyone uses the term academic baseline. Everyone uses a little bit differently. There have been a few different definitions around it. What what I'm gathering tonight, what we mean by it is we want to say at every elementary school, no matter what, we have these things, which is fairly easy to do at the elementary level. It gets a little harder to do at the middle school level and at the high school level without further evaluation of programs that we have been, I

064think, building for years at the district. Um, that would take more than just a few weeks to truly evaluate and say, "Yes, we want to continue this or do this as a district. we want this at every school or no uh this program isn't having the impact that we think that it is or maybe we can't afford this program or these things anymore and we'll have to look and and say whether or not we can continue those that work gets a little more complicated kind of as you go up and you get even more diverse in programs um and obviously things change and are different across communities in the schools so um I I don't I I think that we what we have laid out for the academic framework is a long longer term plan

065and I don't know that we would be able to answer all of those specific questions by the time we have to have a budget voted on in June. Um but what we had talked about in next steps would be to say okay knowing how we staff our campuses then that gives us the reality of what we have and what we allocate to our campuses based on the programs that currently exist. um and use that information to in to inform, not necessarily make decisions about programs. That gets a little I know that gets sticky because when you we're saying in effect, oh, we don't want to cut this program, but we're going to need to cut all of the allocations and the FTEEs that actually support this program, then what you're doing in effect is cutting

066that program because you just sort of cut all of the support that would even make it able to exist in the first place. So, it's um I mean it's a it's sort of a a you know chicken or the egg thing really to try to figure out what to do first. But I think next step is really just to come with as much of that information as possible so that we can connect um staffing to uh actual campuses looking at programs at those campuses and seeing how they are staffed currently. there might be, I think, some adjustments. And that's what we're looking at right now as we look across the district and we have um line item after line item um for all of our departments to really look at all of our programs and

067the and the staffing that goes with it to support not just here but on campuses as well. Um to really see can we maintain this program with uh all of these um positions or could we maintain at the same quality uh rescaling or reducing in certain ways and still be able to maintain that program. and trying to make those decisions as much as possible in the short amount of time that we have now. For sure. Um, next steps going on into the summer and into the fall are something that really should have been taking place on an annual basis or maybe a bannual or trianual invas basis is really just evaluating our programs that we do have in the district and there should be a system set up for that. That's what we're working towards

068long term to really create that system so that we can say let's prioritize these programs first. Um we're going to evaluate those. We're going to make some decisions on those. Let's move to the next evaluate those make some decisions on those. I know that doesn't help answer all of the questions that we have to have for budget right now. But that's that's the plan to do what we can now and then do what we can in the future. Okay. Is that >> Well, and my understanding is we've been talking about academic baseline which is just what's the bare minimum. We've been talking about academic vision, which is really what we believe about a whole lot of things, right? And and deeper with our long term that you've laid out that you're working with with our

069community. >> Um, and I think one of the questions that I think this is highlighting when I hear Trusty Hunter talk about a middle school that has no language. It is one of our middle schools that is receiving significant weight. How can we have more teachers and fewer opportunities and and we know at that c you know that there's a campus that is making everyone taking take AVID whether they want to or not and yet not offering a foreign language. So I think there are I think it would be helpful to talk maybe not about the full vision but maybe just that baseline right >> what are the what's the minimum we need to offer by law. >> Yeah. um and and you know kind of what are our basics. So I'd love to hear

070from Trusty Kintana and then trusty Hunter. >> So just two things really quickly. Um I think that it for me is difficult to take a vote on this when I don't have all of the information, if I don't know if we can afford all of the programs that we have. Um, and I know that that's, you know, a lot of work for y'all, but, you know, maybe this is, um, like you said, an opportunity for us to kind of change the way that we do things and maybe next budget, um, season that comes along, we can, you know, have a more um, you know, detailed plan in place because, um, that's just hard. It it's it's just hard to know. um if we can't afford the things that we're spending money on, uh that makes

071it hard to take a vote. And I think that the um the thing when I hear this conversation and I hear that, you know, there's a middle school that doesn't have a language teacher. There were schools in my district that didn't have, you know, a science teacher. Um, it seems to me that we can't afford all of the programs and the special things that we do if that means there are some schools and kids who who who aren't meeting that baseline, right? And that is just a another, you know, conversation. But where I'm sitting from right here is just it's I know it's hard for everyone, but as a trustee, it feels like it's really hard to to take a vote on this budget without all that information. Um, I think that that would probably

072go along the lines of what we're doing with um our our process right now from building things from a zerobased budget and then starting with what actually we have to do um that is either federally or state or locally policy required um and and starting there with you know and then adding on. So what are we doing that we believe is um you know really moving schools forward or like really helping us meet accountability first and then moving schools forward and kind of building it from there. Um which would be the same way that we look at in a in the short amount of time that we have that that we could look at programs. Um I it's probably safe to say we can't afford all of the things that we're doing now because we're

073we are so overbudget. um and and and and in passing deficit budgets. So we we are spending more than we're making so to speak. Um so it it I think it's fair to say yes. I mean that that we can't afford everything that we're doing right now. Um just from a number sense. Now what those things are is is obviously the hardest thing to vote because there's so much that we do that is incredibly valuable um that is not required, right? um a middle school however I mean I can also say you would start if you're thinking about programs would be graduation requirements and then specific pathways for graduation requirements right you would start there languages would be one of those and so I don't know if this the campus has um is able to

074not fill the FTE if that's the reason um but every campus should be allocated some sort of uh FTE for a language because it's part of graduation requirement >> and I think to to add um to Dr. Maxwell and and back to Trusty Kitana's um question is going back to Katrina's slide from earlier when she just she just said, you know, our 88% of our budget is goes towards or is designated to staffing. And so when we show you this the staffing formulas really it's to to understand that our revenue comes from or a large portion of our re revenue comes from enrollment but it's not just enrollment it's ADA right and so we're talking about you have we had a sample school with 1578 students and for to maximize the revenue from enrollment every

075student would have to be in school every day to generate the amount of funding that's needed but our formula as themselves are are structured in a way that we are the formula supersedes or exceeds the revenue brought in by enrollment. And so that you know that's when when we show you the formulas that's the why is to better understand that the way we do things by itself exceed the amount of dollars or funding that we receive from student um from enrollment or our ADA. And so that is um that that's the question, right? Like that's that's what's on the table, the conversation that's happening. And we're talking about 88% of our budget. So we know we can't we can't fix the problem or solve the problem with the 13 or 12% that's left. We we

076have to address um portions of the 88. And when we think about staffing, again, it's a broad broad term that encompasses several different roles. Um but we have to look at those you know those percentages and then you know and also uh lay those alongside our programs and our values and the things that we say we need and want for every kid to move forward in Austin ISD. >> I would like to also add can we go to slide seven um to what Denanisha just said. just want to I thought I think and she made a very very very valuable point and when we look when slide seven is um pulled up you will definitely see that our slide seven. Thank you. Yes. So like if we even if we look at the fifth six

077weeks we're staffing our campuses ex inexclusive of the weights for 69,225 students. We're receiving funding for 61,863. And so immediately immediately our budget is already in a deficit because we're staffing for the students to be in class to be here for every student enroll. But we're very clear that every student is not going to be in class every day. So what um Denanisha said is a very poignant um point that we need to be clear about is that it's the difference between the levels that we're staffing plus the weights plus all of the addition and then the amount of um ADA we're receiving. So thank you for that additional clarification. >> Thank you Trusty Hunter. >> I'm going to push back a little bit. Um, the LRP, I specifically did not join the LRP because

078what is happening is exactly what I thought was going to happen. All those hours, all that time, all those weekends, all those nights, all those meetings to do exactly what we're asking people to do right now. What's the baseline? What can every parent expect? That work has been done. So, I want to thank those people who did that work because that work has been done. I have been on this board since 2022. I've asked about early college high schools a whole lot of times. We have seven early college high schools. Mayor has one. They still graduate more people than us. We have on-ramps. We have ACC. We have AP. And we get those scores. and they're sometimes abysmal. Kids dropping out of classes in the middle, kids not finishing, kids not passing and not understanding

079the impact that that's going to have later on. We have been asking, this is not new. I have a question that I'm going to read that was canceled for whatever reason. I don't have an answer to it, but it was canceled. It says, "I am requesting the following data and estimates to better understand the financial and operational implications of current programs and initiatives. Transportation costs, total cost of student transportations for magnet programs, on-ramps, dual enrollment with the University of Texas, the early college high school and a with Austin Community College for FY23 24 FY2425. Please disagregate these figures by middle school and high school where possible. grade configuration analysis. A conservative estimate of potential annual savings if the district were to transform transform uh from seven to eight middle school mo seven to eight middle

080school model specials redesign total expenditure to date and projected cost associated with the specials redesign initiatives. an estimate of the number of teaching assistant positions, particularly PE, PE special TAs, that would be eliminated, reduced or reclassified under this redesign. Facilities and property management, a conservative estimate of potential lease revenue from underutilized or available central office space, current or projected costs for managing vacant or underutilized district properties, including maintenance, utilities, and security. Five, if the district keeps Maplewood and Brierwood open, what campuses would have to close in their place? Six, it has been brought to my attention that Maplewood is on a railway easement. What does this mean to sell development? I don't have an answer to any of those. This is not new. And I'm telling you right now, I cannot vote on a budget

081if I do not know what we're going to cut. And if that means we have to stay up late, then we have to stay up late. But this is not new and it has been asked again and again and again and again. Full stop. >> Thank you, Trusty Hunter. So, kind of what what I'm hearing from my colleagues that I I hope will be helpful because we have a lot of budget workshops scheduled. I I told my family and my full-time job, I was like, I think you can expect me to be at a meeting every Thursday until the budget um is voted on. So, I think to help you guys out, what I'm hearing from trustees is like they don't want to do like another thought exercise and kind of like, okay, we're getting

082your values and then we're going to like spit out the budget. Um, we really want to go into some detail. Um, and give you like that information to make those kind of decisions. Um I see a lot of I do see some opportunity with these slides because I think the staff needs really clear a clear direction from us. Um I would love to go through like so go through slide number two. I'm writing down feedback from trustees. Um so slide number two we talked about um the the fund balance. So, I heard from Trusty Kaufman, Trustee Hunter, myself, and Trustee Foster um that they were comfortable with the 15%. >> And I will add my voice to that. I didn't have a chance to answer that, but I think uh we are >> cutting really

083fundamental things that are very close to our student experience, that are very close to our staff experience. We have our staff telling us what it will mean if we go to seven of eight. The profound impact that will have on their work life on what they can offer our students on the feedback they can give our students on the planning they can do especially for people with multiple preps. Um that making it only for core teachers to have planning time lacks a recognition that sometimes our non-core teachers have more preps. um that we don't have a clean division between core and non-core, that many of our core also teach electives, lots of things. I think we're cutting really really deep and really really close. Um I know we have a cycle of every two years

084hoping it might get better um when the session comes and hoping we might get more funding. Uh but I think we to get to an only $4 million deficit is a really heroic painful work. um in a moment when the funding we're allowed to have from the state is not keeping up and uh I it is hard to approve something where I know we might be in a position where we have to borrow um and I don't think we have a whole lot of choice right now because these are deep and deeply disruptive cuts and and 177 is a lot. Um I think 193 I'm not sure we survived that intact. We've had so much disruption. Um so add me to that list please. Thank you. >> And then so if we're going through that

085um trust, do you want to weigh in today? >> Um so I'm thinking how to how to phrase this or how do I want to say this? Um, I I think the short answer is I would be okay with staying at 15%. But I do want to put, you know, a a footnote on that is that, you know, we're not going to cut ourselves out of the problem that we're facing. And so I want to be clear especially, you know, for the community that's that's going through this and, you know, presumably listening tonight is, you know, thinking back to last year's budgeting and then to see where we are now. And I think, you know, uh, to kind of Trusty Hunter's sentiment, you know, this this doesn't seem particularly new either. And, you know, that

086all the stuff that's in consideration largely is all stuff that was last year. And I said this at a meeting the the other day, it's going to be all the same stuff next year. Um, you know, unless there's a significant change in in the overall situation, there there are going to be continually, you know, strong cuts that are going to affect all the programming and all this stuff. You know, I would like to see this if if we're staying at 15%. to me that the idea there is that we're buying some time and I I would like to have some clarity on what we're going to do with the time that we're buying because we have more to make up, right? When we decided to go down to 15, we had a three-year plan, all

087this, but the the ground is kind of moving underneath us as we're doing this work. And so I would I would you know maybe borrowing a a a sentiment from Trusty Singh is I would like us to start planning now as if we are going to have to do even more extreme cuts next year and start talking about that now. You know, to me it seems easier to figure out what to do with extra money that we like somehow end up getting after session than coming up with cuts that the community is just going to hear about shortly before it happens. I would rather have that discussion what we're doing by saying at 15% is you know minimizing what we're doing right now because we're planning to do it next year because I don't see

088any way that we're not going to end up doing it next year in you know the waters that we're navigating unless something you know there's a sea change and I think we would be able to see that coming so we can we can change course if if it seems like there's going to be a correction later but I would I would rather us be planning now for what what are we doing next year? Because all the stuff like the academic baseline, all these other pieces, uh, you know, Trusty Canana is saying she's having, uh, worries about voting on a budget when she doesn't have that clarity. I mean, if we're going to try and minimize the damage that we're doing now, I don't want to just pass that down to next year. And I don't

089think the community is going to trust us to not be doing that after the experiences they've had. So, I would rather us just say, "Okay, if we're doing that 15% now, this is because we're planning what our contingency is next fall or next budget season and start that now so that people are not surprised that that's coming down the line." Um, because I I don't see how this changes any other way. And Tristy day yesterday to that point, I think we as a board have an opportunity to rethink our budget calendar for a new budget reality and think about how early we start having these conversations and how we make our budget conversation a year round situation because a few months is not enough time to give this the thoughtful work. it does allow us

090to wrap into wrap in deeper conversations about what we're offering, where, why, how, how we're using the resources we do have um to expand what's possible for our students. So, I I think there's a real conversation about making we have to talk about the budget sooner and more often. So, I appreciate that, Trusty Kona. And I think taking a vote so close to when the budget is due to TEA is not helpful either. Or maybe, you know, if we started earlier, maybe taking a vote to so close would be fine. But it doesn't feel it doesn't feel good. >> And it's hard for our staff who have questions. Some people seven of eight is a deal breakaker. Um, and yet they are expected to sign contracts and make decisions about what they're doing next year.

091there there it is this the schedule I understand some of it is dictated by when we know property values and we're still making some assumptions but it's not a kind schedule to people who are making decisions about their lives um to our staff so >> I hear that >> and trusty Kintana I think like I think we all heard you loud and clear and like I agree with you that we we need more detail before we're ready to approve this and something that would help the staff to present us with more detailed on what their their proposed cuts are. Um would be if they know what trustees will approve as the fund balance so they know the revenue they're working on. Do you feel comfortable um today talking about where you feel comfortable on the

092fund balance percentage? Um, no. I think I'm hearing two different things. And and you know, I think I'm hearing we don't want to cut too close to the bone, but then also we don't want to have to do more severe cuts next year. And to me, those are contradictory statements. And so, I don't I don't Yeah, I don't think I'm ready. >> Thank you. >> And Trusty Foster, I think you had a comment. >> Yeah. Um, >> so, um, I don't know where this gets inserted. There's there's certain things I want to ask and I'm curious about and I just don't know where they fall into the conversation and I feel like I'm going to lose my opportunity. So, um, I I have some questions and just some thoughts and I don't don't know where

093that will go. Is that okay? Um, first uh clarifying question. Um I I as as I've said several times and I will continue to say equity versus equality as a sort of leading principle in this and I mentioned student outcomes and as I've been trying to clarify for myself sort of a theory of action around this. I think in terms of where I feel like the student outcomes are likely to be there. Um even with deeper cuts and where with deeper cuts these student outcome it's just not going to happen. The students absolutely need the certain supports um that are provided. And so I'm ever looking for indications in our slide decks that that is coming through. And I actually don't see it in our slide decks, but then when I ask about it of,

094you know, the diff the the senior leadership, they're actually often able to come up really quickly with the ways that they are thinking about this and how it will be okay. And they're, you know, and they're not I'm not being gas lit like there there's the receipts there. Um, so I would like that to be kind of more upfront in the conversation. um if that's possible, it will help me to consistently not get lost in the weeds and to consistently be able to pursue my personal northstar as a trustee. Um as a clarifying question, when we talk about staffing, where do instructional coaches and content interventionists fit into the the model? because I don't see those listed and there's so many campuses that I visit where I see it in action and where I hear

095people speaking to how this particular innovation over the last few years where we've leaned in has been really powerful. I want to see it continue. But I also understand that you could pull academic coaches to the central level and do away with the campus based in like I don't know where we are on that stuff is what I'm saying. So tell me about that real quick, >> the instructional coaches, content interventionists, where they fit into the budget. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> Is the funded or just how they how we um place them on campuses? >> Um are they going to be there? >> Like what's it, you know, what's the plan? >> Well, um instructional coaches are funded and I I believe they're all out of title if that's correct. They're all out

096of title and content interventionists are all in our out of our local local funding. Um some of our TAP campuses did receive additional funding just to you know to support their campuses 3885 um K and many of them are adding to uh the content interventionists that were designed for their campuses or that were allotted to their campuses um and adding additional content interventionists or additional teachers or the the principles are um are making that decision based on the academic needs of their their students. I didn't Dr. Maxwell, do you want to add anything? >> I want to add something real quick. For the tap campuses, each tap campus, excluding of the $385,000, they're getting an IC, they're getting a CI, they're getting a PSS, as well as the additional funding as well as stipens. So,

097I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Yeah, they're they're um in a sense really part of the structure of um thinking about how we are staffing campuses differently that um have the highest need. We do even look at um data uh in order to annually to look at those placements um of how our students are doing on those campuses. The higher number of students um that uh could possibly qualify for interventions, we would place we place the content interventionist at those campuses the most. of course they're working directly with kids. Um and you know um one of the things that we are trying to protect most is is the people that are working directly um with students uh as far as content interventionists go. Um instructional coaches are just part of that instructional leadership team

098that when you're trying to turn a school around are very very critical. >> And I have a question. Does uh our revenue line include our federal revenue on slide two? That is not just state revenue. That's all sources that's all sources of revenue. Thank you. So that's that's really helpful to hear um you know the use of local funds, the use of title one funds and that's a kind of clarifying thing but and and it's weird because I'm I'm coming to ever more deeply appreciate how tough finance is because you want to present us with this one budget but it's got this aspect that aspect and these things that aren't counted and you know so um and even acknowledging that I need to hear what I just heard and actually it's been you know shared

099with me but you all sharing that is is very very um useful. uh pushing further when we have these conversations. Um there was a principle that was lifted up I think from maybe our superintendence um echoed by trustee Singh or maybe the other way around but basically there was agreement and head nods in the room when the conversation was about not just cutting but transforming and looking for the opportunities to do things differently. And right now necessarily we we're we're talking about the precursors to cutting because there's going to be huge cuts and we need to talk about the cutting. Um I'm super interested in continually the transformational work. So, for instance, if we go to I guess it was last year's budget and you said transportation hubs and we rethought y'all the administration rethought

100transportation and presumably is still serving our kids but now serving them with a slightly different model where a bus leaves the barn, they go to the hub, they go to the site, boom, they're not accumulating miles and etc., etc. To me, that was like a transformative piece. I'm excited to hear about transformation. And one of the things about transformation is it might even create opportunities for equity. So, a couple years ago, um I was on a uh a horse and, you know, got nowhere and um it occurs to me that it's the issue is still there. I think of a high school campus. We're talking about CTE. We're talking about what programming is where. And here I've got a campus where I talk to a constituent and they don't go to that campus. They go

101to another school, but they really like what's on this campus. And so they get a bus to go from the school they transferred out of to go get a bus. you know, they they're they're they're going over there, however they're getting there, but then they get a bus back to the home school to take advantage of the programming at that home school. So, what do we call that? Student sharing. >> So, for CTS. >> That's right. So, here we are and I'm thinking, how much money does that cost? Don't know the answer, but I bet it's more than I bet it costs money. I think of these instances where we've been okay with acquiescing to our constituents heartfelt and real desires, but we're doing something that people want and they could go to this home

102school. In fact, they seem to actually low-key like this home school because they keep coming back every week to to do the programming. So, why are we doing that? I don't know how many examples there are of that. Uh I think of this notion of choice. We've said we like magnets and so we're doing magnets. We do CTE. What's Clifton? What does it look like to scale Clifton? And do Clifton a little bit differently and say this is going to be the hub for all of this, this, this, and this. Now, I don't I haven't run any numbers. I have no idea. This is above my pay scale unless I were to spend hours and hours and hours thinking about it and studying it and talking to people smarter than me. But where are the

103opportunities for transformational work that will simultaneously support student outcomes, produce more equitable approaches, and actually save us money. So, I'd be really interested and excited to get granular like that. And what's really cool is when I talk to y'all senior administrators, y'all can give me examples of where we're doing it. And it's like, wow, can we do more of that? And then can we also share that with the public because they need to hear it. Last thing I'll just quickly say to this is that I would love to get this is just an offline thing. I would love to get and I'm trying to actually develop my own list of all the examples of all the transformative work you're doing and some of it is microtransformative work. I don't know how to better to say

104this but where you've looked at a department and you said how can that department be rethought to affect savings and do a better job. Um, I need those examples and those stories because pretty much I'm at an every day now and I bet I'm not the only trustee where I get, did you think of this? Did they think of that? Why are they doing this? Why are they doing that? And eight times out of 10 y'all are doing it. And they don't the community doesn't know. And I don't know how to get that word out. So I I'll stop with that. But the the the key that I'm saying is I want transformative work and I want uh that transformative work brought into our presentations for us to debate and discuss. >> Thank you for

105that. Um I appreciate that. Trusty Willie Shu, I think we've gotten what we need from slide two. Do you want to walk us through slide three >> because I think there are a lot of assumptions baked into slide three that are conversations we've been having about enrollment ADA property value change. I know you spoke to the property value change question. Do you want to walk us through these assumptions and give make sure we all get feedback? >> Yes. I think once Yeah, I think we're we're all hearing like I'm hearing from other trustees. I agree. we want to get more into like the granularity and more and how this is going to affect students. Um, and then when Miss McGomery has the, you know, this information from us, then we like her department can focus

106on on those other other things. So, um, I want to first talk about property value um, change and then so I'm I have like a old life. I worked in property tax. And so when they're getting this 3% negative 3% value change from the chief appraiser, this isn't just a guess because we are in April. So they now have sales data, market data and sales from January, February, March, April now. So this isn't just a guess. this is like what is happening and that and the chief appraiser like sets the the values. Um so that is a very very reliable number. Um I think there was like a a lot you know a lot of like pressure to be like very very conservative but I would like to pressure us and then can we go

107to slide number four to be um or maybe slide number three. three >> I think four >> four is good shows the percentages >> I would like to pressure us to be extremely accurate because um and do and look at 3% so feedbackwise from trustees um trustee Kaufman um echoed that that accurate you know wanting to go with that that expert number of a 3% reduction in property value trustee Hunter um also gave that feedback Um, I did I and I want to >> and I have a question, Miss Montgomery. Between this time last year and when the values were certified, what was the do you know what the prediction was this time last year and how off they were by the time they were certified? >> It was 2%. >> 2% off. >> So,

108we had >> and the certification comes after the final in July. The final certification comes in July. The numbers we had around this time last year was a negative 2% and we ended up landing at a negative 4%. >> At a negative four and and what has the appraiser I know you're in close conversation with the appraiser. What is the appraiser telling you this year? >> She's saying originally >> what does she believe is different? >> Yes. So um originally she told us betweeng -3 andg5. Um we received our numbers in in March I believe the day it is. And so now she's landing at a closer of a negative 3%. Some of the change that we're dealing with is there are lots of protests and hate to put it out publicly but there are

109lots of protests and a lot of people are winning. So that decreases the amount but then there's also a a reduction in um um my brain just left me. Um a reduction in um real estate like real estate building. So there because more people are working from home and so there's less real estate rental, commercial rental. Thank you very much. >> And how confident do you feel in that 3% prediction right now? And and uh can you help just walk me through your thinking about why you're hearing three from the appraiser? You chose to come down from 5 to 4, but why you didn't come down from 5 to three? That will help me figure out. >> Yes, I agree with Trustee Woody Chu. um our chief appraiser has really been trying to land and

110be very conservative but also as the CFO I am very clear of the last two to three years we have been off so the percentage has been two to 3% off and so if we go with the 3% that is what she's telling us and the numbers end up being another 2% off that means that our property values the additional the revenue that we'll receive will be a negative 2% off and that's the spot that we've been in for years is because then we're trying to recoup that revenue in the current fiscal year. So that's why I landed at approximately the negative 4% somewhere in the middle so that we didn't have to be as aggressive and stay at five but not be at the 3% and then possibly have to make adjustments or changes

111in the current fiscal year of 2627. So I will say given all of that for me um my heart wants to be at three. My head is like um and I do feel a little more comfortable because you have um adjusted the enrollment prediction >> and adjusted the ADA to go with it. >> So I would say I'm not all the way there, but I'm probably halfway there. >> Maybe are you maybe at a 3.5? You can call me a 3.5. You can give it a number. >> Okay. Trusty Hunter, I saw you responding. >> Okay. Oh, you're good. Okay. Who else? Anyone else want to give it a number or share where you are >> on the property value? >> Assumption. Yeah, I would go assuming we're going to get as little money as

112whatever the lowest estimate is going to be. >> So, you want to stay at four? >> I would say like a question I have about the four for for you. Um, is that based on like strong trusty feedback you got in the last meeting or like that's based on like you like you get what I'm saying? I do. >> Yeah. >> But I want you to say it. Or is that based on like if is that based on your like I'm a four like good question. So um what trustee D said said is true like we have to be really really really careful at balancing the cuts cutting too deep but then also getting ourself because we're going to use the smaller numbers so we can make less reductions. Now the deficit is not as

113large as as it could be and then putting oursel in a situation for next year. So if um we've landed on the negative 4%. I understand everyone's concern about going at a negative five, but I would, if you ask Katrina Montgomery, I would like to land nearer to the negative.5 the negative 5% because even though it is going to make us have to make stronger reductions this year, we're not in a place in the current fiscal year where we have to make reductions or changes. And so that is extremely hard for any system, but is it is extremely extremely challenging for a system this big when 88% of our budget is staff. >> And I have a question. Are you now staffing for the 66768 number? Is that the plan? We're staffing for the 69,000

114because we're staffing based on what the enrollment projections are because >> So what is the adjusted enrollment then if that's not what the enrollment projection is? >> The adjusted enrollment is the 4% decline. So we're looking at the 4% difference and what we want to do is let's go back. for enrollment. We're staffing our campuses on the enrollment number because we don't want our campuses to be impacted by us staffing for 66 and then enrollment comes in at 69,000. >> So, we're adjusting our enrollment number but not in a way that impacts our budget >> except with our ADA. >> Except with the ADA, >> but we're still staffing. Okay. We're staffing our campuses on the 69,000 the 69,000 projected enrollment. >> And if we end up with 66768 or 65, do we do a

115riff? Do we have a horrible leveling process? What happens? >> At this moment, I would say we would have to level. And then what that leveling looks like, we'd have to discuss. But if the enrollment decreases by if we're saying our enrollment number is 69,000, that's what we're staffing on and we come in at 4% less like we did this year, we would need to level because then at that point we would be overstaffed because you'd be staffing for 69,000 but you would actually have 66,000 in this example. >> Okay. So adjusted enrollment isn't and that I was wondering why that wasn't really changing >> budget and our deficit and now I understand. >> Yeah. So but we are taking it in consideration in the ADA though in the funding. >> Yeah. Well and that's

116what I was asking at our last meeting that I asked. Yeah. We could take it offline. Were we were we making the adjustment in our enrollment number or just in our ADA? And I see that. So I will continue to express my concern that I think we are making overly optimistic predictions by thinking our enrollment is going to go up. I think that is a mistake. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I would like to go to the um slide that has our central office. >> And can we go and does anyone else have anything to say about the property value change or the enrollment number >> because I have two two blanks. Oh, on the I feel like in enrollment I can't even I can't even guess. I can't even be helpful. So, I'm

117like I'm going to go with what you said. >> Okay. I think I would just throw in is I mean there's there's other sources of funding that are are potentially at risk or that are are not 100% dependable. like I mean there's other ways that we might still come up short from whatever our protected projected budget is and so you know certainly you know we're soliciting community feedback you know people people will weigh in on this but my thought on this is is to plan for lack of a better word plan low um so that we're not overselling the public on what they're going to receive and then we end up having to cut more again and I think with the response that we've gotten for the community. I mean, the community can give us

118feedback on it, but you know, we're going to budget for more than we can afford and then end up losing some sort of funding and have to cut more. The impact on that, like I'm hearing so much people, you know, bring up concerns about stability or that things keep moving on them midyear, you know, all these changes. So my thought on it is budget on something that is the least likely to change for us even though we can't guarantee even even with the conservative budget. Um I'm just throwing it out there I guess for the community that wants to give us feedback on this is you know should we be budgeting more conservatively or not. I I think that's something for the community to weigh in as that's going to directly affect them if we

119if we budget high and then come in with lower enrollment or some you know the entitlements get infected affected whatever it's going to be then we have to do stuff midyear next year and and I mean obviously people are going to going to feel that. >> Thank you for that. Um I have one more followup about the enrollment number. Um, have we already staffed for something and already given people contracts to sign for things closer to that 69,000 number? >> Uh, yes, we have already staffed and we've sent out contracts. They are not due to come back to us until June 1st, >> but are we pretty fully hired up for the larger number? >> Not fully. We've been in the hiring freeze since January 5th. And so we do have um we do have

120several vacancies that we've not filled, but we don't have vacancies that would account for 3,000 kids that we haven't filled. >> Just for campus, >> if we adjusted our budget to assume a lower enrollment, we would have to get rid of jobs for people we've already promised jobs to. >> And that it's it's hard to we can't I can't say yes. Yes. know um we're sitting on about we right now I think we have close to 400 vacancies and so with those vacancies we could collapse right and and that's a that's a broad answer okay >> we have to start you know it all depends on is that a math teacher is that you know algebra one or is it a a mechanics CTE teacher right and so um it's we do have a a

121pocket of vacancies that we're we're not filling and we're holding and Um and we have sent out our allocations to campuses based on the 69,000. >> Okay. So reducing our deficit by reducing our expected enrollment in in kind of at that top of the line would be very disruptive. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> Um, >> all right. >> I think are we >> I think we're solid on that one. I think we've heard what we're going to hear on that one. >> So, I'd love to move to slide nine. Um, yes. So, something that's really glaring to me on here are two positions that we no one works in those positions right now. Um, so deputy the two deputy superintendent positions and their staff. Um, so that's about a $1.1 million

122budget item. Um, so speaking for myself and what I feel like our com not and what I hear from our community is like there is not a big appetite for more highlevel positions here. Those are ones I I am not comfortable seeing in the budget in the 20 2026 2027 budget. Um I I don't I personally do not want to see those two deputy soup offices. So um Trusty Woodly True, the one thing I want to say is I want to say last week or the week before our superintendent has committed to not um filling the deputy superintendent of business ops. Uh I'm I currently think the deputy superintendent of TLL, teaching, learning, and leading is still in the process. absolutely no interest in that position either. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone

123else? >> Uh, I wrote some things down on that slide um for because it kind of gives us the the strategy. It says athletics and you said some of these are directly with students, some of these are on campuses. Who is that? Yeah. So, some are are the coordinators, right? The um athletic coordinators that are at at um the central athletic office. I believe there's a there are only five. And then the executive athletic director. Um most of those are groundskeepers and other other um other workers who help manage and support our fields like House Park and some of our Burger Stadium. Um and then custodial staff. So at one point that all lived in operations and over the last year we've shifted that over to athletics so that they could have you know just

124more control as games were coming and have their own staff. >> Okay, this is remember the email I sent that said show your work. This is what I meant. Tomorrow people going to wake up and they're going to see they're like damn coaches they already make $100,000 now they got 24. I'm just doing. >> You just explained to me what Kevin said earlier. >> Those are people we have to have, right? They're maintaining things. But that just says athletics. >> So my mind is allowed to just think whatever I want to think because you haven't driven me in the right direction. 100 and because I know like because of the budget codes like I know how it flows up to the TEA budget but like I also know that operation stuff that is bus drivers

125correct every single bus driver would be operation is that correct? Oh, there she looks like she's hiding. >> Yeah, one of those 300. Um, every single custodian, >> every single uh food service worker in our cafeterias, >> and who else? >> Oh, every Yeah, every mechanic. Um, >> not nearly enough. >> Right. >> Exactly. And you people will see that number and say, "Why did 300 people to do what?" So I would say like if if y'all pull that and so and also I know special education I know that every single speech language pathologists who they work on campus they serve students they are centrally allocated for for budget efficiencies um physical therapists uh u diagnosticians educational diagnosticians school psychologists I know I miss occupational therapists so yeah like those folks with work with our

126kids. And I'm sorry, I know I miss awesome people. Oh, yeah. Adaptive PE. Thank you. >> No, you're correct. And I would have to get with Miss Montgomery on this specific number, but many of the operations staff who are our groundskeepers who mow the grass, who are our custodians that are on campuses but are centrally ored could be a part of that number. Absolutely. For sure. in the operations division. There is no one that works in this building that is in that number. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Um, anything else, Trusty Hunter? >> No, I just wanted to say it so people could see it and hear it and know that because that that I mean if I get one more email >> Yeah. which people are allowed to do because I work for them

127but I'm like we already solved that problem or you know because but we're still not saying it right and if we don't like that I really would like to see that athletics number and then say three house park four whatever five whatever because remember last week when I said when people see that number they'll be like I'll make more money than them and then that helps people think okay well that's not a solution when people when we did consolidations people really put their brains together and I mean they came up with some awesome awesome plans but they're just repeating things that have already been done or things that don't really apply because they it's that asymmetry of information and in this case there doesn't need to be one. This is absolutely where we could be

128completely transparent. I guess unless it's one person then we would know who that person was but we could we could know that more openly in the public. I mean that's what people are asking for so they can help us problem solve. >> Thank you Trusty Cofflin. Quickly on this slide, and I may have missed this when I stepped out, but the chief of staff number, was that addressed? >> Okay. So, could you clarify what departments are within the chief of staff? >> Perhaps the chief of staff. >> Okay. >> Or or maybe is is maybe this is like a good um information for next time. I don't need I guess I don't need the fully answer now because >> not just trustees but especially the public seeing >> I go back to this idea of

129the importance of the transparency and the communication and people see the slides right and they interpret what they see based on that's the information we gave them. >> A chief of staff typically has >> a staff member maybe and the chief of staff is is the staff member who works for the superintendent. >> This looks like we have the most bloated central office in the entire universe if we have that many people working in the chief of staff office. comm's department. >> I know that that a lot of people report to the chief of staff, >> right? Part of >> I don't need the answer today because I I think fewer people are going to watch the meeting than who view the slides. >> So, if you could just update that particularly for the budget

130workshops in the public and itemize that by department so that people don't think that that's just bloated. I do think it's important to note though that um part of the reason athletics falls in talent strategy and uh the chief of staff has 76 um people who might report to her is because of the cuts that we we have made over time. Right. And so um where you know some of some of those positions that report to the >> cares what department it is and they care about what the work is that's being done. Correct. And so don't report it by the person who they report to. reported by the function that they serve. So athletics is athletics. It's not human capital. Whatever the department is under the chief of staff doesn't do chief of staff

131stuff. That is not what they do. They do >> they answer the phone for enrollment. Yeah. Communication office innovation and development. Yes. >> Accountability. Some of those report break it down. So because we get so many questions about >> the bloated central office and how cuts being made there. So we need to provide accurate information to people about who those people are and what work they do and then make help people help us and help others. So that's my request is to break that one down >> for sure. >> And then um similarly well also I would like to request an update on the cuts because people are asking in the feedback that you shared people are asking for central cuts to be made prior to the campus cuts. I would like an update on

132um the cuts that had you know we and our answer has been we made significant cuts to central office last year for a savings of x amount. I would like an update on that to see, okay, what does that currently look like? Like when you consider the cuts were made then and any any additions that have been added back since then, like where are we now in relation to where we were last year in central office cuts? How many of those cuts were real cuts? Like we actually cut something rather than we just didn't spend something, right? Because that's very different thing. you know, if I have what I don't need an analogy, but if a a a cut of something that we weren't spending isn't doesn't hurt the same way that a cut of

133something that we are spending. So, I would like to understand better just kind of where we are with an update on on the kind of the current reality of the central office cuts that have been made. And then just real quick, since I came back on the previous slide, there's a reference to TIA. What TIA expenses are there that aren't actually funded fully from the TIA aotment? >> I think one of the one of the um interesting understandings about TIA is that it is not a separate account that comes in like it's not a a separate pocket of money. What the what TEA does or what the state does is when we're allotted, for example, we earn $6.3 million in TIA, that is actually it's it comes to us as a deduction from our recapture

134>> reduction >> or right. So it's it's a dis discount if you will from the reduction. It's not necessarily they don't send us $6.3 million. >> I guess my question is why is it listed at an expense at a cost? because it still comes out of our 199. >> But if we didn't spend that, then we wouldn't get the allotment. So we'd actually be net losing 90% of that. >> So this I understand what you're saying, but this number this is all expenditures. This is get us to get us back to our old operating expenditure total number. And in that, so you're right, the recapture number offsets it, but then this is part of the operating expenditures because this is a payroll expense. >> Okay. But is it something that could be cut? Can we

135just say we're going to cut TIA and save $6.3 million? >> No, we we don't want to do that. >> I know we don't want to do that, but I'm saying could we even do that? Because if we can't, then why would it be listed on the >> I mean, theoretically, you you could back out of the the program >> and save $6.3 million. >> You would not have to budget for it, right? I get what you're saying, Dr. Like this just isn't the type of information that's useful that >> it's not useful to put something on there that we can't do anything with or about. So just that's all I'm saying. So thank you >> president. Anyone else on this? I have some thoughts about this one >> before we move on. Does anyone

136else have anything before I share my thoughts? >> Okay, perfect. Um, sorry. Can we go back to slide nine, please? or ahead to slide nine, please. Yes, this I have a couple of thoughts about before we move on and then I um I have a slightly different take on the deputy. I I fully support pausing on the deputy superintendent of operations. I remain very interested in a deputy superintendent of teaching, leaning, and learning. um but would love to consider if we can support that cost by reducing some of the layers in between our principles in that position. Um that is something I've heard from principles that they would not feel especially on their campuses that that we haven't always had that many layers. Um you know the superintendent can share whether what he thinks the

137impact would be on student learning. Um I think I'm hearing one thing from campuses. I might hear something different from him, but I that is a question I have is what um the impact would be. And um having someone at the top as we're working on academic vision trying to answer these questions of how we can have more people and fewer opportunities at some of our campuses, what that looks like, I think would be valuable. Um I would love to see departmental non-staffing budgets for all of these. I remain extremely interested in looking at what we can cut with technology. I have been told that work is being done. Um I do not think we should have onetoone devices everywhere. I understand the devices can be bond funded. I do not believe the software is

138bond funded and I heard from a friend the other day who you know said a kid was on YouTube all day. Um and the teachers didn't know and that was on a district issued device. We should not have access to YouTube on our devices. We should not have Minecraft on our devices. Um, these are programs intended to hijack all of our brains. Um, and we need to not have them in our kids' hands. We should not be paying half a million dollars a year to replace chargers. Um, I have a lot of feelings about this. I I think our students will do better with less time on screens. Um, I have been visiting schools all over the state this year with a special TASBY program. It has been striking how few screens I have seen

139in classrooms all over the state in schools that are thriving um with populations that look like ours. Um so I would love to see that departmental budget and understand what might be brought to us for savings there. Um I'd like to see all the departmental budgets. I also have an interest in understanding um in a moment where we are really struggling financially uh understanding legally and this is a legal question probably more than anything. What is our obligation with one police officer for every single campus and if we have a financial struggle? What kind of waiver might we be able to apply for? what kind of statement might might we be able to make um to make sure we are doing what we need to keep our students safe uh but not spending money on

140police that really could better go to the classroom and if that's a place we might consider some reductions to our budget if if that makes sense um with safety and if it is legal uh that is an unfunded mandate that I know we are spending a massive amount of money on um those are some of some of my main questions when I see this slide. So, thank you for that. Um, and then other costs at district level. I'd love a better sense of what's in that bucket. Thank you. And slide eight. Um, oh, and if we can see our stipens and allowances really detailed out. Um, I think cell phone allowances should just go away. I think that's an artifact from when cell phones were rare and expensive. Um, I that doesn't make a whole

141lot of sense to me anymore. Uh, and I think anyone who receives a cell phone allowance is paid enough to have a cell phone plan. Um, my zookeeper kid pays for his cell phone plan. Like people in in well-paid positions can pay for their own phones. And I'd love to have a sense of the stipen. And I am hearing so loudly from people that those stipens are essential for retention of our Spanish speaking staff of our um staff who support our special education students. Um I would be interested in knowing how many of our staff who receive a Spanish uh stipen for bilingual um for being bilingual are actually using that to support our students and how many may not be. I think that's would be valuable um a valuable bit of detail to have.

142Um I have also heard a real call for AR facilitators um and and for people asking if we were to reduce special education stipens if we could use some of those savings to provide AR facilitators. Um that would make a profound difference. And I've heard a real concern about that with going to seven of eight that some of our teachers will be have to be pulled out of their classes away from their students to do arts. Um that that teachers will get less class time. And then finally with um and this isn't on this slide, but with looking at changes to planning time at elementary school and high school. If we reduce planning time, where else might we find some in a different way? We had talked about creative systems. There's a a neighboring district

143that has early release on Fridays to allow for secondary planning time. You know what other models? We had talked about early release on Wednesdays for elementary planning time. I'd also love to understand if we get rid of all everyday PE for our students, how many instructional minutes we get back. Uh because we have been hearing about that and we know that instructional, you know, time and instruction matters. So, I think that would be a helpful thing to understand as well. Thank you. >> Hey, Lynn. Um, thank you for the technology and I'm glad Trusty Foster walked back in because that is also something that I ask about a year ago to bring all of those devices back in. And here's the thing that kind of this is where I have struggle and frustration when I

144know for a fact I know three schools students are not allowed to take the devices home, but all of the other middle schools are. See, it's that kind of thing. That's what wrankles me. I'm wrankled. Okay. Um, that costs a lot of money. You're right. Those chargers, uh, my kids, last one just broke. I was like, just take the computer. The school let her take it. She's almost through. But with the technology, I think we can save some. Also, we do need to back up off that technology. But that's a policy. That's a policy that we have to have. And we already know. Um that's something the policy committee we're happily ready to take on, but we already know um especially uh for those people who don't live in the world of EC through6 teachers

145are about to have to start teaching cursive again. Yeah. So all of those new things are coming. TEA is making lots of wonderful plans. You can't do that on an iPad. I mean maybe you could, but this is these are the things we're we're moving backwards to what actually work the the good stuff that work. Techn I love technology. I teach an educational technology foundations class. Sometimes you just got to do pencil and paper. >> There's an important place for it in our schools. CO thing that happened to edtech. >> So I appreciate that. Thank you for mentioning that. Thank you. >> Um and you did I you you got my other one on what the allowances were because is that just my question was is that just because I know I've been hearing cell

146phone allowances but is that like mileage because you drive you running your car which you know I'm not against mileage. I think that's fair. if you're going to campuses every day, if you're, you know, driving you, that's wear and tear on your car. That's gas money. So, is that something that's an employee allowance or is that they just that's not in there? >> It is. Um, we have some employees, principles and and up who receive a a cell phone stipend. >> I mean, that's all that is. >> Yes. And it it we spend about 130,000 a year total on cell phone stipens. >> Can I ask how much it is individually because I feel like they got satellite phones. >> It's in our compensation manual and I will look that up for you. I don't

147have it off the top of my head, but it's we don't we don't necessarily purchase the cell phone itself. It's >> No, no, no. I understand that. But I'm saying that number seems like everybody has a satellite phone. That's a really big number for a cell phone allowance. I got four people and I'm 250. >> What are you? >> What? Yeah. What number? >> Sorry. Are you Are you asking employee? I'm asking what's in the employee employee. Does that Can I not read that number? What does that number say? Is that an M next to that number? >> Half a million dollars. >> What's in the employee? >> So, that is what that number says. Correct. >> That's also including travel stipens. >> That's what I'm saying. It's it's uh it includes >> sale and

148travel. >> Yeah, sale and travel. >> So, that's what I'm saying. But I just wanted to while we were talking about Yes. those mileage symptoms is if I'm traveling to a conference. I'm sorry I'm not answering. >> This is exactly what Dr. Kaufman just said cuz that's what I was like that's because I'm at ACC and I know we go see teachers we get paid that mileage. Right. Correct. So I'm like people see that and they're like what kind of cell phones do they have? >> Right. And so that is mileage. That's wear and tear. Like I'm not against mileage. I don't think anybody would be against mileage if people are going from campus to campus serving teachers and students. >> Right. So what is So if we knew what that number was, then for

149me I would be like I don't want to touch that number. >> But if it's like to have lunch every Thursday like doctor's offices do, I'm like you bring a sandwich. >> I've said that for the board. I've I've said that, right? I've said we can bring some sandwiches, >> right? >> I appreciate the food, but we can you bring some bread, I bring some bl >> bring some. >> Yeah. I'm just saying that people need to know what those numbers are and we need to know what those numbers are so that we're like, let's break that number out. These three. No, these three were on board. >> Thank you. And I think Trusty Foster, then Trusty Coffman. >> Yeah, I I >> Trusty Coffman then Trusty Foster. Sorry, I saw Kevin. >> Just super

150fast. Can I just acknowledge that I think >> obviously with the number that we're dealing with, we have to aim for the big items. Yes. Right. And I want to highlight the ethical importance of looking at the small items also, >> right? So, if I'm saving a million dollars by cutting school lunch program, but I'm spending $500 on food for me, >> that $500 cut is an ethical cut, right? I can't sit here and feast while I'm cutting a million dollars as funding, even if it only says $500. So, I just want to say that the small cuts are extremely important symbolically and ethically. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh just with regards to the the the technology that that ends up being the onetoone technology conversation. Um to me that's a uh an example of

151an opportunity for the introduction of nuance that could actually improve um this teaching and learning setting. So if um you go to you know I guess I saw somewhere a slide on uh program based support. So instead of uh one to one straight one to one technology you got your cows or you got your classroom set and you know you affect some savings. Um but according to some of the teachers you also impact accountability stu you know just kind of the soft learning of students when we start doing things like saying you lose a charger you going to pay for it or there's actually a fee associated with breaking things or losing things or somebody gave me the story of you know Jeremy lost his or Jeremy's Chromebook was broken. How was it broken? Well,

152because some, you know, Bobby threw it out the window, threw the backpack out the window as a joke and broke the chrome broke. And we don't have any accountability for that. We just have a like, well, that is what it is. And there, you know, there's so probably not teaching accountability. We're probably not seeing um the best outcomes for students when they just can kind of willy-nilly do these things. then we might be able to affect savings by not doing away with technology but by being much more nuanced at how we use it. And then the last piece and this is actually kind of an open question. Um, as you all and as we all and as the community comes together and introduces the nuance in all of these lines, how do we or can

153we communicate this or is it just information overload? And it's almost like a it's a real question for me because what I'm finding is that when I have a conversation, I'm sitting with four or five teachers or I'm sitting in a coffee shop or I'm sitting with whoever and we talk through these things. Well, that's an extended conversation and we often and typically get to really good spaces. It's like, oh, you all are doing this. Oh, they're doing that. Oh, I get it. Now, that happens quite often, but there's only so many hours in a day and so many cups of coffee I can consume, you know, in one day as I, you know, kind of sit and chat with folks. So I do wonder honestly a go forth with the nuance but b how

154do we talk how do we communicate the nuance so our community gets it and it's a it's a theme that keeps coming up trusty hunter's talking about it for uh trustee estee uh talks about it but I wonder is this in our slide decks is this in our presentations or is it just too much nuance because what you're hearing from the board is we want the nuance But maybe it's too much. And this is almost an open question. >> And I think there are other places it could be put. It doesn't have to be in a slide deck. It can be in attachments. We know our community wants to go deep. Um I think a deeper understanding. You know, I've heard our community ask for the entire budget to be put online line by line

155so people can really understand. We have had at points in the past budget committees that have combed through our whole budget um in collaboration with the administration and the board. Um this may be a moment next year when we want to bring that back. So I know we have the budget task force that has been doing some help too, but it it hasn't been kind of line by line looking and you know kind of bringing a different set of minds to it. Um we're in desperate times and I think we have to think about everything Um, so I think they're important questions of kind of how we manage the quantity of information. Not everyone wants the flood. Some people want the flood. And I think as trustees helping us understand where we're going, um, I

156think we are hungry for that detail and to be joint problem solvers. Um, and I know trustee Willie Chu has spent time with line by line budget in a really, um, you know, really detailed way. So, thank you. Um, and I would like to say too, back to the technology just briefly, last year we talked about, you know, we have multi-year contracts. We had talked about some strategic abandonment in alignment with a real focus on student outcomes, where we're getting them, where we are not, what teaching, leading, and learning believes we need, what we're hearing from our campus. Um, and an update on where we have landed with some of that. I know some of that was considered last year and done. um but where we may be with some of that um and reconsidering

157that or I may be remembering incorrectly. Um but I really we're paying for a lot of products and we need to be paying for as many people as we can and not that the technology doesn't have a place. Um, but I feel like we may be out of whack and out of balance and and would love the administration's thoughts about what's serving our students and what we could lose and do better other ways and save that money for other places. Thank you. Uh, anyone else? Um, have we answered helpful questions? Do you think there's valuable um is there anything else that would be of use? >> I think um the information we've received has been valuable especially with us knowing where to land with the fund balance. We talked about the property value um decline

158where we would like to see there and then to see that the that the um board wants to see more detail and so we can definitely provide that as we're going through I believe like the last two weeks we've been going line by line items over our budget so we can definitely provide that additional information. >> Okay. and and uh if we are going to shift to that 15% I know that's a a shift in what we've been talking about just in response to how desperate we are honestly >> and um I would love for you to bring back to us um with a superintendent a plan for honoring the promise we made in our policy to get back to a 20% fund balance um >> by the deadline we've set for ourselves. So, I

159know that will change the trajectory of that and what we need to do to get there. Um, and I would appreciate that. Um, and then I think for us as a board, I think one of the other questions I have for us is with property monetization, that is one of the only ways we have to generate money. It's a one-time problem and we lose something really meaningful every time we do it. Um, and and do we feel like we're hitting the right balance on that right now? >> Um, so I think that's a a future conversation to have as we work through all of these really hard things. >> Um, okay. Thank you. Anything else before we close? >> I just want to make a suggestion. Um, I always do this and I was good

160today. The sound didn't come out. So, but I always go There are 94 people, right? Uh, 89. Now, that was quick. They said I'm done. Um, 91 back. Oh, they're just popping up. But going and seeing the comments that people are making, there are some really good questions here. Um, still some confusion about that taco truck. Y'all have to do better. People are not getting it. Um, but that's okay. Um, yeah, the contract is like it's not a necessarily the one, but anyway, y'all gonna have to explain that because that is not that was not clear. Um, uh, somebody was saying that NISD's waiver for the police, uh, were was approved. So, I mean, this is what I'm saying. These people are on it. They're wonk some there's some wonks like us out there. I

161mean that's how most of us got here. We were just random people too. But I think it's important for the district to go and see these questions and on the one that the the district does where people get to ask, you know, they don't really answer the questions but they put questions in. You got to go through it all. You got to kind of see and there's some good stuff in there. And that's some of the questions I ask on the board. I'm just reading them off the screen because it's a good question. >> Yeah. our community is engaged and wise. And thank you from all of us to all of you for being out there and engaging and caring. And thank you to everyone. Thank you to our staff who are out in the

162community having budget meetings, having budget meetings online. And thank you to everyone who is sharing their time to show up to them. Um that is deeply deeply appreciated. Um and I really appreciate everyone who's going out and making that happen. Thank you. Um, okay. We will now recess the open meeting at 8:26 p.m. and move to executive session pursuant to Texas Government Code sections 551. Do we need Oh, we don't need any executive session. We are not going to go to executive session. Um, Secretary Foster, do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Um, I do want to acknowledge someone who's sitting up there who will be >> Oh, thank you. Yes. May we >> thank you. >> So, thank you, Miss Presley, for all your time with the district as you move on.

163>> And next and next. >> Thank you. You guys have been absolutely wonderful. And I'm keeping my home t-shirt. No one gets those. and I will wear it often. Thank you. >> Austin will be here. Thank you. >> Uh I move to ajourn. >> Thank you, Trusty Foster. And the meeting is adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Thank you.