001We're going to call our meeting to order. Thank you for joining our uh April 14th, 2026 meeting. Uh we'll begin with our first agenda item uh which is uh any modifications uh to the agenda. Hearing none, we'll continue on. We'll begin with the uh public comments. We have three people who are signed up to speak. Uh beginning with Katherine Shiner. >> Good evening everybody. I'm Katherine. I am the president of the teachers association and I am here to offer some trend data on teachers perspectives on the effectiveness of the implementation of the IC cell phone policy and you will get this or have gotten it and you'll get all my graphs in the statement but I'm going to read it without the graphs. After hearing the lengthy discussion of the call for teacher experience data
002at the March 24th meeting, the ITA distributed a three question pulse survey amongst our members to quickly gather teacher input on this issue. Within a short time, we collected data from 70 teachers. This pulse survey was responded to by a wide variety of teachers. 40% of them were from middle school, 31.4% 24% from elementary school, 22.9% from IHS, and 5.7% from LHCS. When asked how big a problem is se is student cell phone usage in school for you right now on a scaled 0 to3 range, the responses ranged across the entire continuum. 52.9% of teachers indicated that this was a zero out of three for them, indicating it was not a problem at all. 7.1 stated this was a three for them, indicating the current situation is no better than the pre-Cellphone ban policy. And
00340% indicated somewhere in the middle in a level one or two. In follow-up conversations, a small number indicated that they felt the problem was worse now than before the ban. When combined with the teaching level, the trend we saw is that this is a level zero or one or low-level problem for elementary teachers and some middle school teachers. The only teachers ranking this as a level two or three problem teach at IHS or LACS. When asked where the biggest area of concern right now is, 6.1 responded with concern with the policy in general. 21.2 responded classroom. 33.3 responded hallway and 39.4 responded behavior follow-through with the policy implementation. There were some data gaps. While I acknowledge that this data collection method is far from perfect, I sincerely hope that the trends it identified will not
004be dismissed because of that imperfection, but instead will be considered as one data point to inform the larger discussion about the effectiveness of this policy. Given the short time I have to speak to you this evening, I've included only a summary of our sample survey data and have not included anecdotal information from the follow-up discussions that I've had on this topic. However, should any of you wish for me to return with this information in the future, please let me know and I will. But the big takeaway, members of this body frequently ask how the board can better help reach district goals while reminding us that the board's three jobs are to shape district policy, oversee the budgeting process, and supervise the superintendent. The data that we were able to quickly gather indicates that overall teachers
005do not feel a significant need to revise the policy or to invest additional budgetary resources to support it. Instead, we ask for your support by holding the superintendent accountable for supporting building leaders to ensure strong, consistent, and supportive implementation of the existing policy. >> Thank you. >> Uh, up next is Christopher Carver. >> Good evening everybody. I had such a nice written thing, but it flew away. >> I have three things. My name is Chris Carver. I teach at Itha High School. I've been there for 16 years. I teach mostly seniors. I teach economics. I ain't human geography. Uh thinking about the cell phone policy, I want to make three points. Number one, and mind you, uh IHS is not following at least the spirit of the cell phone policy. The idea was a bell-to-bell
006restriction. And I think most of the value lies there. At IHS, our cell phones are generally away more often in classroom spaces, but in passing periods, in lunch periods, in bathrooms, in wandering around the hall, phones all the time. If you uh toured IHS between a passing period, you'd see phones everywhere. If you were just in IHS, um you'd see that students wander in the hall, have their phones out. We can and should do better. So, that's point number one. Point number two, um for me, I see a lot of value in the cell phone band. Uh it ticks every box for me in terms of metrics we're trying to improve. If a student actually went without their phone for six, seven hours, social emotional so important, academics, so so much increased, behavior increase, dramatic
007uh improvement in teacher morale when you can engage with students. Every box is checked by that. And New York State has created an opportunity for us to have this meaningful bell to bell. To me, that's what matters. Can you go six hours without your cell phone, not can you go 35 minutes until you update your status again >> to play whatever game you're playing that day? We can we got to come up with a way that phones are gone for that period of time. Third point, to me, the only way to do that is to have students turn in their phone at the beginning of the day and pick it up at the end of the day. Cyber pouches have never worked. Um, it's hard at IHS. We got 1400 kids. I don't know, maybe
008kid leaves their phone with their first period teacher and picks it up at the end of the day. Maybe they leave with their associate principal. Maybe we create a home room period in our extended day that we're about to have where you drop off a phone and pick it up at the end. So much value in that, especially for students that are struggling academically, attendance wise, but for everybody, it should be the same policy and it should be all day. So much to gain if we did it the right way. And my final point is for folks in charge of policy, it has to be explicitly stated if our administrators are going to follow it. Our administrators are hesitant to enforce rules and very hesitant to oppose any kind of consequence. It would need to
009come from you folks and explicitly be stated what our administrators need to do to create this amazing opportunity for our students, our staff, for everybody involved. Appreciate it. >> And up next is Scott Reese, if I pronounced that correctly. >> Yes, you are. Thank you. I think so. >> Um, I'm Scott Reese. I teach English at IHS. I've been here for about five years. Um, I'm speaking alongside these two other folks about our what I feel like is a lack of compliance compliance with the device policy created by this school board. Um, I'd like to say that the implementation of the cell phone or personal device ban has been pretty much a disaster since the very beginning of the year and it has only fallen apart ever more. Um at the very start of the
010year, the cyber pouches that were haphazardly distributed at the last minute days before um were not used by students for very long, if at all. They either stopped using them pretty much right away or they never really started. And I don't know if our school administrators seem to have assumed students would go along with it just out of the goodwill that they hold or their own sense of what good education would look like, but it didn't happen. Um, furthermore, students have seen inconsistent consequences when they use their phones during when we met at the start of the year as a staff just days before the first day of school. Our administrators said they still did not quite know what would happen if the students caught using their phone. And I think students by and large
011don't know what will really happen because it differs from adult to adult. The policy seemed pretty poorly thought out with consequences being pretty unclear. And so as the year started, we devolved right back into a place where cell phone use is seemingly tacitly permitted. Um, us teachers are, I think, by and large pretty dejected. I certainly am. The people I talk with certainly are. We try to enforce it, but we don't know what will happen if a student is caught with their phone. If we say, "Can you put it away? It'll come back out again." At the start of the year, we were told we could not take students phones. And then a few months into the year, we were quietly rolled out a policy where students would get a ticket and students had to
012go pick up their phone so we could take their phone for a while and bring it to administrator's office with a ticket. That policy was never really talked about out loud. It was only in an email. We never talk about staff meeting. Um many of us are not doing it and it just felt like I don't know um trying to shut the sle after the horse was out. It felt like way too late. the second quarter already to figure out what exactly we were we're doing here. Um, I have watched other adults, including myself, walk by students who are using their phone in the hallway or during lunch, not because I'm not aware that that's what's happening, but because I don't know what to do about it. Um, unfortunately, it creates a scenario in which
013our students feel like it is acceptable to be sneaky, duplicitous, um, otherwise generally dishonest. So, I'm here to ask for your help. Um, I am, like I said, feeling pretty dejected about this policy. And I know that parents of my students, many of whom I have talked to, who were excited for their kids to experience a high school education without their phone from bell to bell, are confused at the very least. We are out of compliance with this policy at the high school. And I'm That's it. Thank you. Those are all the names that are signed up to speak. So, we'll move to >> Excuse me. I signed up on my way in in person. >> My apologies. That's not on my sheet. So, tell me your name, please. >> Patricia Sitman. >> Thank you.
014>> Hi everyone. I'm Patty Sitman. I'm president of the Education Support Professionals Union. Our bargaining unit consists of employees working as teacher aids, teaching teacher assistants, and bus riders. The last time I had occasion to speak before the board, it was regarding a backpaid deadline that had been inadvertently missed. Thankfully, that was resolved in a timely fashion. I mentioned this because when I spoke at that time, I suggested that the district's practice of our of omitting our members hourly rate from their paychecks was illegal. There are some circumstances under which that is illegal. Apparently, this isn't one of them. So, I stand corrected and I offer my apology. In early May of 2025, our union's leadership did note a lack of accurate and consistent information on our payubs as it relates to longevity. The lack
015of an hourly rate on our payubs, coupled with the inconsistent data relating to longevity compensation, suggested to us that an internal audit was appropriate. On May 27th, our union sent a letter to management requesting information relating to longevity payouts. I'm happy to report that on March 26, 2026, after multiple instances of management providing data and the union verifying its accuracy, it was ascertained that more than 10 members of the bargaining unit had indeed not been paid their full longevity compensation. A cumulative sum of more than $45,000 was owed to more than 10 employees. Don't hold me right, but that's roughly I don't know upwards of 5% of the bargaining unit. In one instance, an employee who had recently retired after 25 years of employment received over $15,000 longevity compensation. Sadly, one employee died of natural
016causes before receiving their longevity compensation, which of course has been to passed on to their family. So, I'm happy to report the resolution of our internal audit request, and I'd especially like to thank the person who was tasked with going offsite to dig through hard copy payroll records that have been put in storage. Thank you. I'm waiting to see if that is now all the names that we have signed up. Speak and we will then move to board responses. Yeah, I mean I'm concerned to hear the the anecdotal feedback from you guys coming out and I appreciate you guys coming out and letting us know um because it it is disheartening to kind of hear and I don't know what the solution is but it's really important that we are hearing this um and yeah
017I'm just kind of curious to get a sense of like what where do we go from here? Is this something that we address try to address now which I personally like to address now we wait for the next school year which I want to do and what exactly does that look like? Um so I I'm I'm concerned to hear it and I'm curious everyone else's feeling about it. >> Yeah, I'll chime in because I I guess I agree with that. Um I like getting all the feedback. Um, I mean, I'm not happy with exactly what we're hearing in the feedback and I feel like we have to do some things to address that. I also appreciate the survey data and also I I was just excited to see that a survey could be put together
018so quickly and information could be gathered and brought to the court, you know, quickly and I know it's only anecdotal and it's only 70 people, but that's a lot of information to kind of start with and take a look at some of those numbers in addition to some of the other data that we have collected already. Um, so I think it's something that we as a board can definitely work toward improving. >> I know that there are some districts that do have explicitly set out in their policy um that if the bell ban does involve the taking of funds at the beginning of the day and the um giving them back at the end. Personally, I would like to see this board look into that as a as an adjustment to our policy for the
019next school year because I do think that that is the most straightforward way to address the very legitimate concerns that were raised. Um, yeah, I appreciate you all for sharing and echo what Todd and said, >> well, thank you Katherine, Scott, and Chris for sharing about the cell phone then and knowing that this is our first year and unfortunately the governor rolled it out and um we were deliberating for some time and what I would hopefully say to the superintendent as well as with the rest of our board members is that when we do our annual survey, it would be good to get respondents about have some questions in the survey about that as well as when when um the administrators meet on a monthly basis with the um with Mary Grover that they would
020communicate that too. But but to get more and um I I appreciate the numbers that you did receive, Katherine, but it's less than half of our um teacher body. And not to say anything about it, but but just I I I like that it's given us more insight into what um the comments and the feedbacks and and and I would like to see that more data um at the annual survey. Um I couldn't agree with Erin more. I I data is what I also want. I want to be able to understand um the impact that this policy is having. But also I think that there are kind of two different pieces here. There's the question of understanding if the policy itself if like taking away cell phones is like having what kind of impact that's
021having. But we and that's what we've kind of talked about I think a little bit and talked about in the last conversation which means like maybe it's too early to really have like a good idea of like the the impact that it's having on students and learning and all of those other things. Um and that makes sense in a lot of ways but that is a different question than we can't evaluate how it's actually working if it's not actually being implemented effectively. And so I think that that is a that is the area with which I'm much more interested at this point recognizing that we're not going to understand um kind of longer term impacts on whether like we there's support for a ban in general. But um you know I I really appreciate you
022all coming and I also know that it's hard to come in front of your your boss and the people that you work for and talk about um how a policy isn't isn't being implemented effectively in your school. So I I really do appreciate that and appreciate you sharing. Um it's very much in line with a lot of the feedback that I have also been hearing. Um, and I am a firm believer that a policy that is poorly implemented can actually often do more damage than not having a policy at all. Um, and so I'm particularly concerned about some of the things that you raised about um, if in fact it's actually, you know, teaching students that they what they can get away with or to not take a policy seriously or that when, you know,
023an administr administrator say you can't do X, Y, and Z that it's not actually the case. That that is far more concerning to me. So I think that in the short term what I would love to see happen is that the um that the district is able to actually like engage with leadership and administrators in the schools and to make sure like if they don't understand which I get because I also felt like I felt like the the layout of the kind of consequences or whatever you call them was confusing even to me. So I would understand completely if it was also confusing to them. But if we're still at that stage where we're threequarters of the way into the year and the policy hasn't been fully understood by administrators and by teachers, then there's
024really no hope for and certainly no purpose in knowing how students feel about it or whether it's actually helping them academically or anything else. Um and I think that that is a much more urgent issue so that we don't have these really um concerning unintended consequences about the ways in which students then see um those that are putting in policies and rules in place to open their schools. So again just thank you very much for coming to share. >> I I just want to note looking at the data I'm seeing if I'm correct here. So 70 70 responses, 16 teachers from the high school, four responses from LACS, 28 responses from the middle schools, and 22 from elementary schools. So that's a really small sampling. And then the results are that more than half are
025not having a problem and just 7.1% find it problematic. So I I don't see these numbers. It's not that I don't want to understand more, but I don't find these numbers to be an a really great representation of what we need. It's just kind of a quick look and I appreciate it. Um and I also I can't remember I think you said you know regarding parents and parents wanting to see more. I hope that at some point this can be a community conversation because it shouldn't just be on schools and teachers. You know, parents don't want students using their phones in schools. Perhaps the phones stay at home. You know, there are other options here where it doesn't have to have the burden doesn't have to be on teachers. It can also be something that
026is implemented within individual families if that's what the parents want. And that would certainly take a lot of the burden off of teachers who are already working incredibly hard just trying to teach students. So I think there's so much more to this issue than just is the policy working. I think it's community buyin, participation, understanding, and getting a fuller picture rather than just a very small sample. >> I mean, you know, personally speaking, I'm going to go on a limb here. like I would love to see bell to bell and I don't think it should be the teachers responsibility to have to police the kids and I don't think we should have to cause you know this this type of a relationship where they're having to police then the kids are resentful to the teachers
027like the teachers should be here to teach and the kids should be here to learn and I don't think like having that point of contention should even exist and I think that you know the policy creates that and that to me is a bigger issue that I don't even know how you quantify that in a survey I would love to see something where the kids you know you give up your phone when you get here and you get at the end of the day. I mean, I'm looking online right now. It's like, you know, for a a cell phone locker that holds 32 phones, it's $170 a piece. You take 1,400 students, it's like $8,000 investment. Now, granted, like I it's it has a key. There's I'm sure there's more there's more high-end ones, but
028like I don't like the fact that teachers we're putting the burden on teachers and um I don't I don't think it's fair and I I think there's a better way to do it. And I think it's in the kids' best interest to not have their phones on them. I think like, you know, socializing is such a big part of being in school, you know, and I think that's something that's been robbed from them because of the phones and whether they realize it or not. It's like um I would love for them to be able to make eye contact in the hallways. I'd love for them to be able to engage with their teacher. I'd love for them to be able to engage with their friends and um yeah, I I I'd love to try to
029come up with a policy. I don't care what New York State's doing. I'd like love to do something that we think is is in the best interest of the kids. I like irrespective or you know, mutually exclusive of what New York State is doing. I think we should try to come up with a bell-to-bell policy. Um, and that's my first look at it. So, >> I think it's unfair. Personally, I think it's unfair for the teachers. And I also just want to add it's unfair for the students. Yeah. >> My perspective because it's an addictive device. We learn more every day about how addictive they are. I think as adults, you should be supportive with >> removing addictive devices from our schools. Yeah. >> And so I also hear like I mean as a parent
030who sends my kid to school with her phone. I also just want to highlight that I I agree with the validity that like it should be a community conversation. And I also think there's a lot of factors that would cause parents to send their kids to school with phones based on what they might be doing before school and after school that makes it a problem that does need to be addressed by the schools and not not be addressed fully by um asking or hoping that parents do not bring send kids to school with. >> Additional board comments, reactions. I do just want to throw in just because it was brought up in multiple comments that we did, we spent a year, it's not like community conversations didn't happen and um Mary and Carrie did an
031amazing job spending almost a full year doing exactly that that having community conversations, sending surveys, inviting people to um sending comments on Let's Talk. I don't I I would never advocate for not engaging with the community even more. And I think that that continues to be important and regardless of how the policy has been implemented, it would still be really wonderful to be able to hear it from um from families again. But I want to make sure that we are talk that we are recognizing the work that the very hard work that went into um kind of preparing to build this policy in the first place because that definitely did happen. Um, and I think that what I feel like I'm hearing from everyone is just like like Erin's right like there was not, you
032know, the the data was limited and while it was I find it very helpful to hear, like it's it definitely is not representative of all teachers or all schools, but I feel like what everybody is saying is that we don't have the information we need to then continue a conversation in many ways. So that's certainly what I'm saying. I continue to advocate for maybe the board actually engaging in a conversation about what information we really feel like we need instead of waiting for information to come to us and then we you know talk about what what's missing from it but instead like give some actual kind of direction or ideas um to the exec team and to to whomever else about what actually would help us understand kind of where things are at what what
033direction we might may or may not want to go. I personally don't need any information and and like I to me it's like if you have how many teachers every day are going to have to spend time policing the kid and that's causing a negative relationship to the students. I just don't think that should be their responsibility and I think if we can remove it all together there's it there's no benefits to kids being on their phones walking in the hallway. There's so much you know data at this point saying like how harmful it is. So I don't think we should find ways to like you know continue to allow themselves you know I don't know. I think I think it just causes problems and I I don't like the fact that like our teachers
034are going to be responsible policing. I don't care about the policy. I'd rather just remove the phones altogether that you know like that's my personal opinion. I mean >> I'm not opposed to what you're saying. I am going to take a contrarian position just for the thought experiment. >> Yeah. >> Do we think that a bell to banner taking the phones away are still not going to put teachers in a difficult position with a child who still has a phone? >> I I I think that is more fair and equitable. No, I sorry I didn't mean to cut you off. I have an answer to that, but >> right, but there's no simple solution is what I'm saying. It's it's not a one stop and that's it. And so the complexity of the situation for
035me does require more information. I get that as one board member, you don't want any more information. You feel like you can move forward, >> but I don't think we're going to resolve all the things we're hearing simply by saying we're taking one action and one action alone. >> I do want to answer that because I think I think it's important because if everyone knows at the beginning of the day, you hand your phone to the home room teacher and it goes to lock. >> Yeah. >> There's no ambiguity. Now, if a kid's walking down the hallway and he's on his phone and the teacher's like, "Hey, you're on your phone." And the kid behind him doesn't get stopped. It's like, "Well, why is it me?" And now that there's all these issues where like,
036"I'm I'm being targeted." And it's not because they're being targeted. It's because there's only one teacher and there's two issues. Like, it it to me there's it leaves so much room to just cause problems and and it puts the kids in a in a difficult situation, puts the teachers in difficult situation. It's going to be hard to get kids to buy in in the beginning, but at least there's no confusion. It's the same across the board, you know? I I just I just think it's a much better policy all around and that that that's just you know there will be challenges. >> My question was not disagreement. My question was that that we're still going to have some issues that might work out with that as well >> and and to me that those those
037yeah those are worth having. Um so >> additional comments >> sorry to drag it out. >> One more thing and then I'll I'll let it go. It's actually not even about this. I just want to make sure that as we're talking about this and people have various feelings that I some of which I don't think that are being raised that are that are very different from what is being raised. So I want to acknowledge that as well that that there's a lot of different perspectives here. But I think that one of the things that's coming up is also just like the challenge about how we feel about having so much technology readily available to students. And so I know that Jacob has brought this up several times now. And so I just want to use
038this as an opportunity to request again that we add on the agenda sometime of more comprehensive discussion about technology use in schools period. Very much also um talking about Chromebooks and all of the challenges that come with those as well. >> And I feel compelled to highlight since we're in public that an email was sent asking board members what additional data they would like to have around the stockage. And you can respond to that email at any point in time. I was just going to add also that the that the beltto belt ban I mean sometimes I feel like we talk about it like it's a question like oh we need to have it I mean but we do need to have it because it's being required by the state. So first like it really
039isn't uh like a subjective desire to have or not to have. So I just want to put that out there that it's something that have to have. The other thing that was brought up that I think I just like to explore at some point was that there was some I guess there was some talk that there was some confusion about the interpretation of the policy and I I guess I just had a question about that maybe from administrators such as here like you know is there a question about the interpretation of the policy? What's the what's the ambiguity or like where if there's any places that it's being held up because that's something that we can you know work on. >> I guess I'm curious. I'm just fast forwarding to the future. What I don't
040want is to go into next year. Personally, me as a board member, I don't want to go into next year with a similar situation where we have like the same bags and we have the same sort of approach where folks whether they be teachers, support staff, any adult in the building and is encountering phones reliably and predictably a lot over the course of the day. So, I want to know what actions do we need first? I guess I would need to know does a majority of the board agree that we should actually have take phones at the beginning of the day and return them at the end and if so what do we need to do as a board to make sure that we can that that can be planned for either through policy or
041through like directives to the superintendent or a combination. Um, I feel like we're veering into an agenda item as opposed to board responses. And that's not an attempt to silence the conversation any way, shape, or form, but say, let's put that as an agenda item for an upcoming meeting. And it's the way in which quote unquality. Um, but that's how that's where we find ourselves. So, I would recommend that it be an agenda item. We follow up from there. I ask board members humbly to respond to that message about what additional information you may need and we proceed from there. Can I just ask for clarification on that? If we've already said publicly the data that we are interested in getting, are you asking us to also send that by email? >> It'd be great
042to have it in one location in a concise place if that's if I'm going to be the person responsible for trying to help to coordinate that. If I'm not, then no worries. >> So to clarify, does that mean can should we expect can we expect that to be on our next agenda? I'm just again cognizant of time. Uh that's an answer I would hope so but that's an answer would be dependent upon a couple things that happened both today and over the next couple weeks. Uh ideally sure it also depends on what kind of information folks want how much time we have to give everybody else additional responses from >> fantastic student reps. Hello everyone. We're very excited to see you guys again. Um so after the most recent policy meeting, the board reps have
043been working on um ways to widen our um impact and reach the student body. So a few uh strategies that we've come up with is implementing a new suggestions box. So this would probably be a physical box placed um around the school. And so um people without uh like technology devices or people that just want it to do it like physically and um make it easier for them to give us feedback. And then also improving our monthly summaries that we send out to the school and more on that is um potentially putting a very important information in the announcement segment of the school day. And uh yeah and then after that code red recently finished our two competitions. So, at our first competition, we actually placed 44, but we improved a lot and we placed
04418th at our last one, um, which was three weeks ago, and we also won the sustainability award, which is the first time in our 26 years of existence. So, we're very excited for that and, um, very excited to continue on to the next season. >> Yes. A couple weeks ago, we had our Vietnam and Morocco club. Uh, both of them went to their respective countries. Uh, and that was a lot of fun. Um, I think there are a lot of very good culturally enriching experiences there. So, update on that. And then I also have some data about my cell phones. I'm sorry this took so long. Um, but a few months ago, uh, the student reps put out a cell phone survey to teachers and staff at IHS. Uh, we received 617 student responses and
04552 teacher responses at IHS. So, I'm just going to go through this report. I think that this is has this been printed out and everyone has this. So I'll just go through some of the data for everyone to hear. So on average students rated their general experience with phone ban at 2.5 out of five. Uh and only 4.8 85% of students rated as a five out of five. Um which is down by 3.95 percentage points from September. So the rating has gone down. Uh and 23.3% rate it as a one out of five which is up 13.9 percentage point from September. So overall a large like a sharp decrease from um from student perspective. Uh teachers only rated it slightly higher. Uh their average rating was 2.88 out of five which was down from one
046or down by 1.38 from September. Uh and 67.3% of teachers rated their experiences as three out of five or below. 53.4% of students say that there's been a worse school community since cell phone ban and only 14.2% 2% of students say it is it it has improved. Teachers disagree and they say that the IHS IHS is a better community with 41.9% responding the community is improved and only 15.4% say it. Um one reason for this discrepancy might be students perception of the punishment system as compared to that of administrators. So, one of the things we've talked about in our meetings with administrators and teachers is that u right now if you if your phone is taken, it's an automatic referral. And now a referral to a student means a call home and something on your
047record. Whereas to teachers, it's just a note to administrators saying that students need to be talked to. So, I think that's part of the reason why there's a discrepancy there. Uh, one of the clearest outcomes of the policy is reduced phone use with around 72% of students reporting that they use their phones less or significantly less in school compared to last year, which is up from up by 12% from September. Regarding school climate, uh, about 51.5% of students say hallways are not more positive. um that they disagree or strongly disagree with a statement that hallway atmosphere is more positive since the cell phone ban and 53.4% uh disagree or strongly disagree that we have a better general community at IHS cell phone ban. Um so from open-ended responses it looks like the most difficult times
048to comply with the ban are at lunch and hallways at passing time which again aligns with uh anecdotal teacher evidence. So 40.1% of responses said that lunch was the hardest time to not use your phone and around 10.6% said that it was hallways or passing times and the rest are smaller percentages. So the most common barrier that students identified or the most common issue sorry uh were communication barriers. So whether it's parents, it's rides, um coordination, um and meeting with friends at lunch, around 40.9% of students responded to an open response question saying they had trouble with that. Now, the administrators IHS, um you're technically allowed to go to administrator's office and use your phone to call home or for important things, but it's again, it's kind of unclear. Um and administrators are not always
049in their offices. So I think that's also during our uh one of the things we surveyed on was the punishment policy. So students heavily oppose the current punishment system regarding the cell phone ban. And now we didn't ask any specific questions about this, but 54.9% of students said that they think the punishment policy is inappropriate. Um but notably 28.3% responded that they were not sure and only 16.8% were supportive. Um, so as far as I could find, there is no written qualitative description of the IHS cell phone ban punishment policy. The policy, as I understand it, is that when students phones are taken, they are taken to the welcome center, students are given a ticket and they can sign that at the end of the day and students are given automatic referrals. But there is
050no place where that is written or posted. It sounds like teachers don't really have that either. And I think that is the biggest problem is budgeting policy. I don't think that students I think every student understands that this is a rule and that if if we break it there's going to be punishments and I don't even think that this system is necessarily wrong. I think the problem with this system is like everyone else has said there is there's so much ambiguity and it's very it's very unclear what the punishment policy is. So that's the data that we have. Um Mr. Ree and Mr. Carver are right. students agree that there is a need for more explicit, consistent written regulations. Um, I'm just going to go through a few things now from our teacher response. This
051is not um in the report that you guys have, but just a few questions I'm going to go over. So, one of the questions we asked teachers um was if they agree whe supports stronger student teacher connections. So the majority of teachers say that u the cell phone ban does support stronger student teacher connections um despite the dissonance between stu students and teachers when their phone is taken. Um student or teachers also said that they they felt neutral um when asked if they felt comfortable addressing student cell phone use in the classroom. So um around 26.9% of teachers said they felt com or they felt neutral um on this issue and and then it's an equal bell curve both sides. So I think there are teachers that fall on both sides of the aisle um
052when it comes to comfortability enforcing it. Um regarding administration there is there's kind of a wide uh a wide of evidence but no almost no one feels neutral. there's there's a small amount of people that feel neutral about it. So about 26.9% of um of teachers feel disagree that they're supported by administration staff and about 26.9% agree. So it's about even um but ideally I think 100% would agree that they're supported by uh administration and really have a ban. So that's the data that I have. Um, I think overall that it just needs to be the policy needs to be more clear for students and staff and whatever that means, I think students students are going to adjust to whatever happens. And if if that even if that means lockers, I I personally I wouldn't
053like that, but and I I don't think a lot of students would, but I do agree with the with certain board members that students would get over it and it would become a normal uh eventually, but whatever whatever happens, it needs to be more clear. That's all I have. Thank you, student reps. Uh, our reps from LACS are unable to be with us this evening and so we'll go to board responses. >> Uh, I'm happy to hop in. I I just want to really acknowledge the great effort that you all are making to try to reach additional um students within the school. I think that I know that through all of the work that we've been doing to come up with a new exeicio policy that there's been a lot of conversations about um access
054to information and engagement with students. Um and I think that there's been a lot of like people wanting more and that coming across sometimes as a feeling as as feeling to you all or it may feel to you all as we're saying like you're not doing enough. Um which is not the case at all. But I really appreciate that you've continued to kind of like hear those conversations and that instead of saying, "Yeah, maybe next year things will be different," that you seem to continue to be coming up with new creative ways. So, just want to acknowledge that and say that we really appreciate it and we had a saying policy meeting, but that's not it. a rescheduled policy meeting um sometime very late yesterday. >> Um and we talked about just this and about
055like how uh difficult or impossible it is to ask any any four students no matter who they are to try to you know reach every student in the school. um and talked about some kind of new ways that we're thinking about h supporting the policy for the you you all and people in your roles in the future to be able to do that in a way where you're actually being supported by your school and your community to be able to reach folks instead of asking you to kind of solely do it. So, just want to say a big thank you and um and that we we are hearing all the things that you're saying and the additional information you're sharing >> additional board responses. >> Okay, I'll just follow congrats to code red and also
056want to echo uh Emily's sentiments amongst the board members to the policy committee. Uh we had a conversation last uh night identifying the work that our board of reps have been doing and the steps that you all have been taking for additional outreach and that labor is not going unrecognized. We're greatly appreciative and um we just want you to know that we appreciate all the work they've done. >> Thank you. We'll add this to our our dead and we'll go from there. Uh this will move us to the consent agenda and we'll entertain motions. Uh motion to approve all consent agenda items listed in consent agenda, considerations of accounts, personnel reports, meetings and minutes of previous meetings as presented. >> Second move by Emily, seconded by Adam. Discussion, debate, conversation. >> If I'm Oh, sorry.
057If I'm understanding correctly now, the emergency repairs for Heights Elementary School, I know that there have been some questions asking some I guess I just wanted to create space if >> Yeah, I mean, personally speaking, I think the 1.5 is way too high. And I mean, I would support 500, which is where our insurance cap is. Um, I mean, we don't have hard numbers back yet. I would feel comfortable approving 500 today and if they need to come back for more, ask for more. I don't think they the extent of the damage is nearly as much as you think it is. Um it's mostly cosmetic. There's nothing structural, there's no electrical, no plumbing, it's like it's flooring, it's drywall. Um you know, to to me, I I think it's possible to get it done. And
058again, if they needed to come back for more, then I I would be okay with that. But I would want to see like actual bids and things like that. So to me, I think the 1.5 is way too high. and I I don't feel comfortable >> but and maybe Dom can clarify but when I read through this earlier and I can't find it right now it's up to that amount and >> because of the urgency of the matter we're not doing competitive bids because this work needs to be done now. Did I read that correctly? >> Partially yes and that's not what I'm I hear what you're saying. Um and I'm not necessarily competit saying competitive bids. I think fish when you tell some of the budgets for 1.5, they feel a lot more comfortable
059just saying yes to things when you don't need to say yes. And I this is my wheelhouse. I don't think it's going to cost that much more. I mean, I don't know if you guys disagree or not, but I don't I was there. I mean, I walked the entire building. I was in the crawl space. Um I I I don't think the damage is that extensive. The one the one variable that I didn't have was what the cost of Serve Pro's current bill is because that would allow us to know like what's left in that $500,000 for repairs. Um have we received that yet? >> We've got preliminary figures and I can show you >> that I mean that would be helpful. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> So Sro today just this is just mitigating
060the the water issues, the the flooding, um mold prevention, dehumidification, boxing up hooks, all of that sort of work. Uh the preliminary figure is 388,000 a little bit over that for that. Yes, I know we're all in the wrong business. Totally. >> Um that does not include electrical contractor invoice and plumbing invoices and all those other factors. That's just the mitigation. >> Have they itemized that? >> They have. We've got a 31 page itemiz. >> Um in addition to that, we've also and I might invite Chris up from tap just to help us. >> So I've got some average cost figures to share with you too. And and there's two caveats to share with you. um that are important with this resolution. Number one, this is the resolution so that we can we have the
061ability to use those funds up to that amount so that we can declare it an emergency to receive payback. So we can use the funds in order to trigger that. That's part of whether or not we spend that will really depend on the overall cost. So, in talking to Chris um and looking at the overall project, we've got 13,000 square feet of affected area and in New York State, particularly in central New York, the average cost of both mitigation and contract work and and again, our contract work and how we have to handle that is a bit different in in the public entity that it is in the private considerably different I don't need to explain that, but I'm happy to at some point. everything from prevailing RA wages to the insurance costs and so
062on. Um the average cost is anywhere from $150 to $250 per square foot for mitigation and reconstruction of those type of areas and in in in these certain situations. Um we've actually provided figures that come in far under that this point from what we're looking at if we have to do the work that um Chris can talk through here. Uh I think we're looking at a total of between 800 and 900,000. That's without dealing with the water intrusion and drainage and so on. So that's where we are at this point. >> And the water intrusion and drainage wouldn't be considered emergency above and beyond. Right. >> So that's where we are at this point. >> So is there a possible uh compromise that can be made? Right. Because the what's being asked of us is
063to approve a certain amount of money to be able to begin immediation for this work. Correct. We have some board members who are questioning the total of that cost. I understand that idea. Rather than 1.5, would we feel comfortable approving $1 million and anything more than that has to come back to the board? >> No. I mean, I have followup questions that would be helpful, I think, for for >> whether we approve $500,000 or Yeah. Or >> Yeah, sure. >> Um I mean the I hear you with the 150 the 250. Right. At this point, we already know what the water mitigation already that's that's that's pretty much a fixed number. >> Well, no, that's that's up to date >> preserve pro. I mean, up to today, that's >> it could be it could be
064higher, right? So, yes, to date that there's a list here and I can share these with you. There's 10 points that are not included in that figure that are part of the cost. It's going to go up. >> Yeah, we don't need to get in the weeds. I mean, I'd love to just not right now the itemiz. Um, so, so what what's in our scope of work? I mean, flooring, what do you think new flooring would be per square foot? We got 13,000 square feet. >> We could go through it at OACM tomorrow if you'd like. You want to go through it in detail now? We could. >> Um, well, I I guess so. My issue is like I I would want to kind of go through because I want to see what the budget
065is because to me, I'm like I I'm struggling to understand where the 900,000 is. If that's if that's on top of the 300 that's already been done, I I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around it. And I'm not saying that there's I'm probably missing maybe I'm missing something. I just want >> of that first. >> Oh, the 800 included. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And also in terms of the the funding in it. So I think we mentioned our insurance coverage for flood of that. Yes. >> And then above and beyond that is why we have to file for the emergency funding so that we receive whatever our rate is. I mean 58% of that back. Yeah. >> Once we >> and and that that's another piece I don't really understand. So you you
066mentioned we unless I misunderstood that we needed to be at 1.5 in order to hit that threshold or >> I'm just covering us so because we're we're going to submit this emergency once. >> Yeah. >> And really don't want to have to do this again. We have to go through another resolution. I'm not sure that we can. I've never been in that situation. We didn't quite hit the target and then we've got to resubmit for another for the same emergency. So I want to just make sure that we set a ceiling that covers the costs so we do get the aid back if we have to expend those funds. >> Yeah. And I'm hearing you say that you guys are thinking that it should be 800,000 including the serve pro >> 800 to 900 900
067right I mean so why why not do 900 then I mean >> why not just do a million so we don't have to come back and again the idea so I'm not into agreement with everything you're saying >> I'm saying the idea is we're authorizing up to a particular amount does not still means that we can go through line by line and and have conversations about the cost >> but the authorization especially if we're going through nice and I would assume there's is right. I think I heard you say it right. Public sector versus private sector. And I imagine there's some additional things that cover education spaces for the health and well-being of young folks and for teachers and everyone else as well. So that was my sort of compromise being like I understand what
068you're saying. We be fiscally responsible. Let's see if we can set it at a million dollars so we don't have to come back and you know hopefully we're under that without question and then continue to talk about this at OACM our facilities committee would be for me that would be the place to go line by line. >> Yeah. Um, not saying it wouldn't be beneficial here, but that's that's where we get really into the weeds. >> I agree. I agree. That's the place to line my line. I feel comfortable today at a million. I wouldn't want to go that. >> I just I want to be clear though, we're when we say up to 1.5, we don't spend that much. The money then goes where? >> It just stays in the fun. >> Stays in
069the Okay. So, is there any downside to 1.5? I I like I don't understand why if we have the money there and we're just saying 1.5 and we just spend what we need. I don't understand why we wouldn't just say 1.5 as a CA. >> Sure. >> Call it a day >> because I I think when you put a cap on things, it forces people to to be more diligent with and be more responsible with the finances. Um and it's easy to spend money when it's not your money. I see that all the time. I experience in my business all the time. And I just feel like if someone knows like this is our budget, you're more creative and and more willing to kind of stay within that budget. So I I just I feel
070more comfortable putting a cap on it. I don't I don't feel comfortable saying, you know, >> we also acknowledge that this could potentially cost us more. And by what I mean by that, we say that we're going to put a million dollars on, which I'm in favor of, right? But say it does cost us 1.3 and now we can't get aid back on that $300,000. We then lost some money. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. So, I'm I I get it. I just want to make sure we're Am I Am I right about that? Those are all the variables. Or if we try to put in for another $500,000 and we're denied for emergency funding. >> They may say that if waited this long, it's not an emergency
071at that point. I'm not sure to be honest with you. >> Okay. Also, I completely understand where you're coming from in terms of setting budget cap, but we're also obligated obligated under New York state law procurement processes to fit. So >> we could run into a situation where the lowest bid is $500,000 and >> you know >> we're forced to go with the lowest bid. Is that how it works? Can you remind me again? >> Yes. >> Okay. No, I just >> that meets the minimum standard. >> Responsible >> most responsible way. >> Well, Mr. F raises another point that I think is important for us to speak. I've heard they and someone eight times over the last five minutes. We need to establish who that they and someone is because we're talking about public
072funds and there are significant amount and during my time it's close to a quarter billion dollars worth of capital project funds and most of those projects we've come in under budget we've had come to this table to talk about what to do with the monies that were left over. So if there is a sense or um someone is thinking that someone is going to a number just to go to a number because it's a number that's there or if we're not using this taxpayer funds appropriately and most efficiently. I just want to know that and just I don't think it's I'm not being defensive here, but if it is a day or someone that we're talking about, just let me know as a person who's been point for this project these project for 16 years
073now. >> Yeah. Nope. You know me, I'm very direct case. So, I'd be straight forward. That's that's not >> But I want to know who they is. If it's an architectural firm, if it's a an estimator, if it's the people doing the work, >> whoever that is. And I just I've heard that a few times now. I just want to know who it is so I can address. I think there there's a conscious or a subconscious, you know, element involved when you know that there's a budget. Um you you don't feel I don't know. It it's like >> I've seen it happen. Let's be clear. >> Yeah. >> I'm just underscoring. >> Yeah. >> It doesn't happen here on the MWatch. >> Yeah. >> And I think I have artifacts and receipts to show that
074it doesn't. >> Yeah. No. And I was not insinuating that. I want to be very clear. I definitely not does not board members. We're talking about a particular budget agenda item. You want to speak to that, Jacob? >> I just had two quick followup questions. Someone said Ca. What? What? >> Cover yourself. >> Cover your head. >> Now I know. Great. >> We'll say CB. >> Thank you. All right. So, and then Tom, I think you started to reference like can't go back. Like, can we like you started to say like >> what I said was I don't know. I've never been in a situation where we have to go back and ask the state to give us additional emergency funds months later after the emergency's been the start process. >> Does anyone know the
075I feel like that's important information. I understand. I'm not saying like you should have decision. I I'm I guess if I were in their shoes, I would say it can't be an emergency at this point if you're coming to us eight months later for the money, but I could be wrong. I I don't know if you run into >> I could share what our process is. Yeah. >> Which is to create a document based on review, walk through, review it with the district. Um and this outlines the scope of work, what we're planning to do, what we're suggesting. we talk about it, get everyone's agreement that establishes a number that then the district can use as a number for the emergency. So that's the that's the typical process. Um and then >> you know you
076probably round up to just make sure that you're covered on that. Um so that's that's what I'm familiar with with emergency projects. >> Is there anything left in the scope that you have not identified or that could uh impact where you think it's going to land at the end of the day? There might be as we talk it through, but is is there that you know of? >> Uh, no. We've documented what we think at the moment. Okay. >> And Todd, come on. You know, and I mean, as someone who No, no, no, no. I'm just bear with me for a minute. As someone who's a bootleg home person that does my own repairs, you know, anytime you open a wall, >> right, there's a potential you're going to find something. So, I just want
077to make sure we're on the same >> and that's exactly what I mean. Like, are there any walls that we haven't opened? Are there any are there any like unforeseeables that you're like, "Hey, we have not gone into X, Y, and Z yet." That could then balloon the budget or it's like, "Hey, we've done all the exploratory stuff that we need to do. We we know what the scope is at this point because there's no there's no continuing water issues, right? Like that's all been mitigated. Um but but like you understand what I'm saying? Like I'm not >> Well, as as you know, we often find things in construction. So we will um in the planning of the budget >> account for um contingencies as a percentage of the project construction value to account for
078that >> and we've done that in the in what we can review you know now or tomorrow whenever you want to do that. >> Yeah. So you have contingency line item that should cover any scenes. I mean, there was stuff where like, you know, Dan, I don't know if it's Dan's team, but you know, they found like, hey, there's a bathroom that, you know, has issues that we wouldn't have known about if we hadn't had the water. So, like that that factored into it. So, it sounds like you guys have already done all your due diligence. You have a good understanding of like what the scope could be. You have a dig line at a budget and currently as it stands, you're thinking it's around 8 to 900 that includes cert. Am I understanding that
079correctly? >> So, sorry. No, >> no, you might have been. I I'm curious. what the actual process right now, >> right? So, I'm I am I'm trying to try to move this forward. So, there's a couple things that we can do, right? Right now, we can move forward as the consent agenda is and folks can vote the way in which they they choose. The idea being that we are not authorizing to go out and spend $1.5 million. We're authorizing up to spending $1.5 million to cover the charges and we hope and or expect it's going to come in unpack. Another idea would be to make a motion to see if we can make a motion to change the agenda and pull this out of the the consent agenda and either modify it or vote as
080a separate issue. Those are sort of the two things that we have here. It's been moved and seconded and so a vote could happen as is or we can entertain a vote to modify the agenda, pull it out, see if the folks can vote on that by itself and or see if there's enough folks to modify the number as currently stated. >> I have a question still in discussion point um because Todd you said first of all I guess I should ask um do you go out to prospective biders? This is an emergency. is not going to bid on contractors and say our budget is 1.5 million. >> Chris handles the bidding. So >> well uh we handle with campus construction management um and if we have an estimate we we usually if we are
081going to advertise numbers um we usually round down to manage expectations >> and when you say round down you wouldn't be using the 1.5 number you'd be saying 800,000 900,000 >> whatever we think the actual cost is. Yeah, I just want to be clear. I think I think that makes a difference. >> That's why I wanted clarification that we're not advertising 1.5. >> We're the board is voting on up to 1.5. So there's a potential that it will be less and if we don't do the vote now and something comes in within the next two weeks and knowing that I have faith that our audit showed this and reflected that we do our due diligence to make sure everything is as stated and and I know Travis has spoken about from last year some funds
082that we had left over from the 2019 capital project that was re redeployed somewhere else. >> So Todd, do you want to modify the agenda? Should we >> No. I mean, no. This this is a good exercise. I think it's been educational for me. It's not a hill I'm willing to bite on, and I actually feel like I I need more information to even to, you know, to want to change. So, >> can I ask one more clarifying question for tonight, but also for future reference? when I mean I don't if if we had to if for whatever reason go back and repitch you would charge us right like as Tetrate Tech like our contracts like we would be build for that extra work. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So there's also that to consider if
083we were to go under and then have to refile or whatever. >> Sure. >> That'd be >> all right. So, do we feel at this point in time that we're okay to make a take a vote on the entire consent agenda with an understanding we have an OACM meeting tomorrow and folks can go line by line and have some additional conversation about the actual specs and the work being done? Any other questions about the consent agenda in total? And I do think it's been helpful for us and I wish for folks who aren't paying attention um folks may know that we had flooding. I would assume that maybe most folks know but not everyone knows. uh during the last rainstorm was it two weeks ago, right? That there was some serious flooding in the first
084floor, the basement floor of CUGA Heights Elementary School. Uh and this is the emergency project that we're talking about though, uh for lack of a better word, not a disaster, but a natural occurrence. Look like a disaster when you walk the school. All right, then I'm going to call the vote. All in favor? All opposed? Abstensions. Thank you all very much. The consent agenda passes. We'll continue on with our agenda. And that brings us to the superintendent's report. >> Thank you for the opportunity to share, Professor Brad. Well, just one item. I know we have much to get to tonight, but uh one item and word I haven't heard much, but uh thank you. Well, thank you to the special folks that are connected in Heights Elementary School. U in your room today, the educators
085who uh over spring break learned that their rooms would not be the same room. Some folks who've been in a classroom for 20 plus years are now moving to a different space. Um people were coming in on weekends. Um they were making phone calls. They were doing everything they could to get the space ready and have kept them ready for young people to be served. I know we're going to talk a lot about money tonight and budget and capital project. But at the end of the day, we're um we're tasked with the teaching and learning and being in the space, Miss Granger, with your colleagues, seeing that it was not interrupted and it was still delivered at a high level, um was not only impressive, but it just reminded me of why it's so good
086to be a employee here in the school districts. So, let's not get lost in all the numbers tonight, but to recognize the humanity of what happened. It was a natural disaster and we can't predict those. Also, I've got email that blame me for it, but things happen, but how you respond is much more important. And we will get that school fixed and we will get some other things going um that will benefit the young people and your staff, too. But please hear me say uh thank you for your leadership and share that with your staff as well. >> Thank you, Dr. Brown. Thank you. Good folks. Uh we'll continue on with agenda which brings us to agenda item 10.1 which is a resolution to appoint election officials for annual meeting and budget vote on May
08719th 2026 and we will entertain motions. >> Uh motion to approve the resolution appointing election officials for the annual meeting and budget vote May 191. >> Moved by uh Emily, second by Jacob. Um this as some folks may know or folks who may be new to this is I don't want to call it sort of a pro- fora but this is simply identifying the uh election officials at each polling site. Um there's not much for us to say. We work in collaboration with uh the board of we run this and we >> we run it. That's right. So there you go. >> What happens with the DBDs? >> They'll they'll complete that by hopefully by the time they're required but we're required to >> only down to three TVDs. We're in shape >> at this
088state. Yeah. I just >> questions, comments, discussion, debate. Hearing none, we'll call the question. All in favor. Motion passes. Thank you all very much. Bring us to agenda item 10.2. And uh we can do this the way which we normally do a good folks which would be to entertain motions and then discussion or we can begin with the discussion before we get to the uh motion given that uh this is a conversation about adopting the budget for next year. How would you like to proceed? >> Begin with the discussion. >> Are we all okay with that? Recognizing that we're doing a slight beer away from Robert's rules. There's no Are there any objections? I just want to know what's the rationale. I don't have an objection. I just want to know what the rational discussion
089>> to have a discussion per to know what we're discussing and the exact amount because I'm seeing a lower amount that I saw. So >> I have no >> so discussion or not sure how anything that you were looking to discuss with us Dr. Brown. I know that there was a finance and facilities committee meeting on Thursday in which uh this information was reviewed. >> Yeah. >> Um and I know a number of board members were in attendance and asking questions there as well reviewing it. But I don't know if there's anything that you wanted to say to us >> with the opportunity. Yes. Um and yeah, let me begin again with a thank you. Um and thank you to Don Ley and Emily Scythe and the folks in the business office. I think what
090they put together um for the board and hopefully for the entire community to navigate what we're thinking about as far as a proposed budget is uh not only transformative but it's super innovative innovative and transformative. Um maybe I turn it over to you Dr. Ley. >> Sure. >> To share the tool that the team has created that is allowing for us to have even richer discussions about our proposed budget. have discussions about how our budget not only sets us up for the short term but for the long term the next few years. How it's transparent in a way that is going to allow for every taxpayer in our organ in our community to see the implications of the proposed budget and it on their individual tax bills. Um, I had an opportunity to share this
091tool with uh regional superintendents on Friday and since Friday I've had 12 different folks asked to bar Dom to help them build their own out over the next two weeks before they put and I said no. Maybe you can do this as a side gig or something. Um I just want maybe an opportunity for Don to share with the community um with this opportunity now to sort of set the stage for what we hope to discuss how we got here and how we u are using this tool to plan out this year and the next couple of years. >> Do that first Emily Sh I I do want to thank Emily for all of her hard work. Um she puts AI to shame in terms of checking math let me tell you fantastic and Dr.
092Block certainly for helping us put this together as well. Did a lot of work uh in getting his insight. So happy to share that. >> Uh first I'd like to start with uh just mentioning these will be online for the community to see and to utilize as part of the tools and understanding our budget process and so on and so forth. I'll start first of all and I I've mentioned this several times about the budget book. Again a different way of looking at the budget, understanding what we're putting forth, understanding the numbers and so on and so forth. So um I would encourage everyone to look at the budget book. >> Um >> I'll just close. Yeah, we knew this was going to happen. >> There you go. This is just one page of the
093budget book and it walked you through the whole process of the budget start to finish. Breaks it down for everyone. And the goal was to be as transparent as possible in providing this information. This is how we hope to accomplish that. Um, I chose a particular page, three-part budget. That's what we're required under New York State to report the budget how we're supposed to report it to you in general. Um, again, we've been through this the previous board meetings. I won't put it again, but at the very bottom, if you wouldn't mind scrolling all the way to the bottom there. Good. The budget figure we're looking at is here, the 177,638,41. That's the budget figure that we're hoping to have approved in May. Uh within the budget book, there is a link to the uh
094fund projection. It's actually the ICSB budget projection application that we have created. Erin, we're going to call it crystal wall. There you go. editori. So, if you wouldn't mind switching to that, we'll go over to that. Can you refresh the page actually first before we start? I did change make a couple changes to it. There we go. More of a wow factor there. So, again, anyone can use this online. You can play with the various variables in here. So, for example, uh the budget growth rate, we set 4%. That's what we determined to be the average over the past few years. the additional revenue that just historically we've seen additional revenue to the be about 3% per year overall and the projected under spending we always try to uh we can we can never go
095over the budget so we try to budget a little bit higher where we think we're going to be so that typically been about 2%. Those can be changed and it will change our trajectory in terms of the budget outcome for the next three years. So you can see where that is. This green and green and red line here is our fund balance and what it's projected to be over the next three years. Um, and if any changes are made to the variables, it will change that either way. So, you can see where our fund balance is. And for folks at home, our fund balance is kind of like our savings account. It's it's our rainy day fund. It's it's it's what gives us our great rating because we actually have a very healthy fund balance,
096which is great great news. The center here is our reserves. So, we have within the fund balance our restricted reserves. those reserves think for things like health care and there's other factors there as well. We we'll talk a little bit more about that in subsequent meetings about what that looks like and what's healthy and so on. So so far that it's very healthy looks great. The yellow line down here is uh what New York State says we can keep as a rainy day fund true fund for for whatever purpose to help us in uh in an emergency situation not flood. >> You can't call it rainy day after last week. >> Yeah, it's good. But yes, it's 4% of your budget. We keep that and we want to keep that. That's very important. All of
097this together gives us a great rating for bonds. And so for like a capital project that we're going out for now, we use municipal bonds to pay for that. We pay for it over a long period of time. And as we do that, it is part of our debt. Uh we receive aid back on it. So if you wouldn't mind scrolling down just a little bit. So here's where we can really play. Uh state a growth. This is what we project. This is actual for 9 9.48 this year. These are our projections for subsequent years. We try to be conservative with that because we don't know what New York State will do. And this is what happens when we don't pay the bill. Oh, I was just getting going. >> There you go. >> There
098we go. >> May not want to touch the screen. >> I guess not. >> It is touch. >> I can't. uh tax levy percent by year in there right now is 4.18 only because that was our tax cap. Why don't we go ahead and change that figure to 3.4. That's I think what we're proposing. So we'll go ahead and change that. You type that right in and click anywhere on the outside and scroll up. You can see how the trajectory changes. The red is the baseline where we were. The green is what changed because of that because if we go out for the tax level 3.4, this is what it will change. And these show the differences in our fund balance. the the essential loss if we do that. But it's fine. Our fund balance
099is still quite healthy. So again, we can look and change it here. So if we go out at 3.4 this year and we change these two to something else, four and so on, we can see how the line might change, but we won't go through that because we don't have air conditioning or starting to feel it. So other revenue growth by year, we can change those as well. So just some fun stuff for um math geeks like myself. But scroll down a little bit if you could. And we're going to hit the expand button there real quick. This shows the projection for the budget out over the next four years. So when you change the figures up there, it changes all the dollar amounts here. I did it again. I broke it. I just can't
100help it. You know, I used to teach how to use smart. >> I don't believe either at this point. So I know fun stuff. So you can see the actual figures for 2425. This is based on our audit. uh this is where we currently are. This is what we project throughout this year to the to the end. And given the figures we put up there, uh this is how it projects the next three years. Fun stuff. And we'll go ahead and minimize that if you wouldn't mind. And we'll scroll up. And at the very top, this is folks at home can uh you utilize this. I imagine they might. Uh the tax rate calculator link in the upper right hand corner. So for folks at home, you want to make sure you choose the correct
101municipality because the equalization rates are different for at least two of our municipalities, Canandor and Richmond. The rest are the same. Right now we're at 95% equalization. I really don't want to bore you to death with that, but that did change this year. Was 100% last year. Has minimal effect on our overall texture. If you have questions, by all means, ask me. Also, we we put a uh key terms and definition section up here. if you just in case you don't understand any of the terms, it gives you a brief definition of what those are. So, we'll go ahead and get rid of that if you wouldn't mind. And then, so the projected tax rate, this was last year's per 10,000. It's $1512 and it carries it out every time you move by move to
102great. So, um it's $15 about 13. this year at 4.18 it would be $1561ish if you round. So we're going to go ahead and change that 4.18 to 3.14 3.4 3.4 thank you for the maths this why I have Emily click outside 15.48 fluoride. So, it's a reduction from 1561 to 1540 now. Okay. And we're going to go ahead and reset to baseline up there on the top. Scroll down a little bit. So, if you want to find out what this will cost you for your home, uh we're going, by the way, this is the historical reference. You asked for the historical allowable tax cap and what that would have been for the levy, and these were our actual tax levy increases year-to-year. So this shows you what are increases of quarters since 201617 and
103the rate per $1,00. That's a historical perspective. If you can expand the comparative section here so I can on here I can kind of play with it with my particular home. The average home value in Ithaca I'm told is $350,000. Um so I use that as a baseline figure. So we'll keep either one at 4.18. We'll change the other one to 3.4. outside so you can see what your tax bill would be and what the increase would be at each rate. Okay, this does not include the star exemptions. That was a bridge too far for us at this point. So that's it for the most part. That's what this application will. >> Tom, I'm sure there's gonna be some questions, but I wrote this weekend when this was shared, uh, and I think I said
104to both you and our fellow board members, having served on the board for 17 years, uh, this is one of the more innovative tools that I've seen to have our community be able to understand long-term fiscal planning and how we're thinking about this. Uh, I'm very excited by it. It doesn't change the numbers that we still have to have conversations about, but the ability to engage in a tool like this and actually have see it change in real time and the levers that we have to explore as a board to be able to maintain cost and also ensure that we can provide benefits, salaries, etc. Um, I have a community here from me that I'm greatly appreciative and I think this is a uh I can see why 12 superintendents, if not more, would call
105you and I'm sure after today you get more phone calls of other districts wanting to use something similar to this. So, um, thank you to you and your team for putting this together. It's a pretty pretty phenomenal tool. Again, it doesn't address the numbers that we have to get to, but the tool itself is absolutely phenomenal. So, I'm just greatly appreciative. I wanted you to hear that from you. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. questions, comments? >> Yeah. No, I mean I I I echo that. Um I think it was super helpful for me. I think it's going to be super helpful for the community. Um I I want to acknowledge Dr. Prow and your team. I mean, for having the district be in the position that we're in. Um I mean, I don't
106know what the numbers are, but I know the districts in general aren't in great 80 or 90% of them are in trouble, but it's an exceptionally high number. and for us to be in the fiscal position that we are right now. We were able to give teachers raises. We're talking about, you know, uh uh being able to use a fund balance in general to kind of help us get through tough, you know, difficult times. Like, I mean, my hats off to you guys because I think that's one of the things uh you know, as a superintendent, as a district that often doesn't really get acknowledged until it's too late. And um you know, so I'm grateful for being in the position that we are. I just wanted to, you know, say thank you to team
107for um you know for me per well I guess I'm curious if like everyone even understands like the inputs on these things and if you guys don't I think it I maybe it'd be helpful sort of like calling out but like maybe it would be helpful to go through some of the inputs just to make sure everyone is understanding might be helpful for the community too because I think like understanding the different levers that are in here is kind of important with us making a decision on on mel the tax levy and where we actually want to fall and things like that. Sure. >> Um I know where I personally stand. Um but I want everyone, you know, I guess to be as educated as possible on this tool because it is a new tool,
108right? Like we're all seeing this for the first time. Um so making sure that like um the comprehension is there to be able to use it effectively. Sure. >> And I don't know if you're open to kind of talking through like some of the par like the projection parameters. Like I think one that might be helpful for people is my >> um like like the additional revenue, right? Like so I mean every one of these variables makes it go up or down. >> Yes. >> Um but like what's the correlation between additional revenue like what first what is additional re what makes up additional revenue? What's the correlation between that and the tax levy? >> Sure. Uh for example, receive receive funds from Corn. That's additional revenue, right? So >> we don't anticipate that changing
109in the near future, but that's part of it. What what is that in terms of dollars per year? >> 10 million. Is it five million? >> I'm just point out I'm talking about additional revenue. Additional revenue out >> or no house about 750. >> But some years we've seen a significant increase with our investments. >> Yeah. Right now doing well, but the last five years we've been able to build some fun. >> Yeah. >> And our refund. And you know, and the reason I'm asking that is because like it's easy for people to go on here and play and like move the numbers around, but it's like if you don't know what you're moving, it's kind of hard to to make decisions. So, >> I just wanted to call that out because I think it
110might be helpful for everybody. >> Um, I think the other one, oh, projected under spending. I mean, like that that's basically, and you know, you taught me this. So, um, like right now it shows 2% like that's a part of the budget. So, we usually don't spend 2% of the budget and that gets rolled into fund balance. So that's like that's actually a net positive, correct? >> Um and then the budget growth rate. I mean that I think that's self-explanatory, but maybe just explain it again just uh just the average of our budget. So uh last year we're at 3.76 budget increase because it's kind of a soft increase based on inflation and so on and so forth. So the average this year we're looking at a 5.09 increase. The average is 4% for budget
111growth. That could change. Um, and I'm just going to go through the other ones just just because I think it's helpful. The the state aid growth percentage by year. Right now it's 9.4%. That's an anomaly. That's usually not that high, >> right? >> Um, and you guys are forecasting 3% going forward and that's pretty much normally what it is >> conservative >> and we've been less than that in years. >> Yeah. So, so like ideally that might be one of the things that we don't kind of play around with right now because it's probably you got that pretty accurate. >> In our humble opinion, I would only play with the tax rate at this point. >> There you go. >> But that state number is also informed by what we get back from capital projects.
112Okay. >> And I know we're going to be talking about a capital project as well too if not borrowing that line that goes. >> That's correct. Is there what is the reason if you can speak to it? Sure. What is the reason for the anomaly of much higher state aid growth this year? >> Uh so some of that is expense based aid. So if we expend more we receive more aid back. So that's really why that's one of the main issues why that's changed. The other is the foundation aid that really hasn't seen huge jump. It did for one year but we've seen years where it was far less and a couple years were negative. So, uh, foundation is just general funds to help support the district. The others are based on what he's done.
113>> Building a most of that. >> Some of the definitions are there, but they're very light. Then the drop down B just kind of gives you a basic idea what each of those are, but we can expand. >> Additional questions, board members. >> Just quickly adding on to Sean complment. Um, I agree it's a very helpful tool. I hope you I think you should share with NISPA because I can definitely say that like the new board of member onboarding could benefit from something like this. trade. We got trademark trademark license. Yeah. >> Rand it. Put your name all over. >> Is my attorney here? >> Just back up on the screen just as if that's possible. Might be help. >> Um, one last thing. >> And one last thing I just wanted to to point
114out just the tax levy percentage by year. Um, so you know for 27 28 and then 20 28 29 it's lowered to 3%. Can you explain what what the re for the tax levy percentage by year? >> Um, right. Got it. >> You know, so right now we're talking like 3.4, but you're forecasting 3% for those subsequent years. Can you explain that? >> Sure. Again, given uh it's a conservative figure, um, I know that costs are rising for the community, so we want to be careful. I didn't want to put it so high that we couldn't achieve that if we needed to and didn't want to show that as a as a false curvature in the trajection of the budget. So three is a conservative thing in terms of project. I think our tax cap
115will probably be in the four range again next year but that doesn't go down. >> Yep. >> Emily, can you go to the tax rate calculator on the right hand top side and then the bottom which shows the historic data to that question as well. For a number of years I'll go to the bottom right there. Um, for a number of years the conversation was that we were always living in a 2% world, >> right? And so I'm sure you know this, but that also limited even what the max was. So even though you may see a tax rate of 2.19, that may have been the max that the district was allowed to increase its budget one year over the other. Those formulas have changed slightly over the past couple years. that. So even though
116it's sort of a 2% world, it still may come out to be a 4.12% possible increase in the budget. And so we're not looking at going to what we're allowed max without going over without a supermajority vote, right? Because you can always we can make the the tax levy a 7% increase. I would not recommend it. Would not be advisable, but that's possible to do with a supermajority vote. And so the conversation we're having is not even going to our max for a simple majority vote, but going to a the number that's being discussed or at least that's being presented is 3.4. And I know that's the you know when we get to it, that's the real conversation we have to have >> like what's going to be the increase in the tax levy and
117the that also impacts the share of the local property taxes. >> And I know you know that as well. I'm also speaking for >> No, no. Yeah. Yep. >> Speaking of that specifically, uh the tax levy increase that was put in one side was the 4.18, the other was the 3.4. Am I correct in understanding that the difference in that um on the impact of the taxpayers like $40? >> Yeah. At a home assessed $350,000, right? >> Okay. Right. So yeah, you if you change the value of the home, it'll happen. You change it. >> And it we we are a complicated community. I know we all know that. Um but we have one of the lowest tax rates in the county, but we have the highest assessments. >> Yeah. So, our taxes are more
118even though the actual rate puts us near the bottom half of our other uh component school districts, which has always been confusing for folks when you're looking at it per 10,000 of assessed property, right? Um our rate is relatively I I don't want to use that term because we we all feel the impact of taxes, right? But but that's a thing for us to consider as well. >> Thanks for changing those numbers around, Emily. So, it does look like regardless of what the value of the home is like it's about >> no it's double but you say would you >> comparing it across the two >> changing not much different between three four >> right that's what I'm saying like for the same no matter what this the home value is the difference between the
119two I'm just trying to understand is is not >> same percentage >> yeah it's not huge >> uh I'll take those $29 >> I mean that's But >> it's helpful to see. >> Yes. >> And it have a multi-million dollar impact on the front balance. Let's not leave that >> by going >> back to less >> less. Right. Right. Right. >> Year over year over year. >> Right. So if you're looking at the impact on the fund balance versus the impact on taxpayer, which I don't mean to minimize at all the impact of that, >> but it is helpful to see that it's not like hundreds of dollars >> without beating that horse, so to speak. I I do want to mention the equalization rate. I think that's important. That's one of the most confusing
120figures on there for folks. Um although our your homes haven't been assessed in two years. I think it's been two years and supposedly won't be for another two years. That equalization rate changed from 100% down to 95%. What it's saying is you're being assessed at 95% of what the actual value of your home is. >> And that does have a minor, but it does have an implication your bill itself. I to the degree possible, can you define minor? >> I'd rather show you because it's it's not an easy definition. So that's fine. >> Why don't we go ahead and uh scroll up if you will and change the equalization rate to 100. >> Where is that? >> Uh right under tax increase. >> Yeah, you just slide that right over. >> Yep. And then yeah,
121it did show you up there, but I guess it Yeah, very minor. So look at the tax rate per thousand at 15.6058. 60 58 >> and let's go ahead and change it back to 95 minor. It's minor but when you're talking about thousands and if it goes down further obviously we'll have a greater than that. So min minor change that went up to 0066 >> per thousand so we can continue to have conversations again about this amazing tool. We're looking to put this out to the community to do it as well. I think it's time for us to have a conversation about the actual budget andor the tax levy increase that board members can support uh putting forward. >> I have one question. What's the uh what's the rationale for uh taking seven ten of
122a percent out of the fund balance? I mean, we have a number of 3.4 and I'm just kind of wondering why why is it 3.4 discussion at the finance and facilities committee meeting last week in form on us making some adjustment. Initially we were at 4.18 um and then the conversation among board members we thought we would I don't want to use the word compromise but to lower that number a bit landed on 34 as a place is not as comfortable or as conservative as we started but it's a place we still feel comfortable coming in. Um, so that's why we >> um, can you pro that I wasn't here the other day? So when you say like hearing from board members like are you saying that like the board spoke as a whole and
123said that or are you talking about like one or two? >> No, I think it was the board committee. Again, that that's probably a better question for your house. Um, why not 418? Um again the recommendation for 418 and then the discussion other numbers are proposed and then I think the ultimate statement and it's online um but we can tell you what 3.4 looks like. So that was where we were the I guess a better answer the rationale from us is because you asked us to >> but I would love to hear y'all thinking about why did >> so just to clarify you're not recommending 3.4. >> No we came in at 418. Um but today we were have to prepare 34. I was one of the people that recommended uh a tax levy increase
124at 3.4 uh which would also mean an additional uh funds coming out of the uh fund balance. And my thought was whatever we could do uh fund balances are there for a reason, right? Yes, they're savings account. Yes, they're not necessarily renewable unless you fund them again. I get that. Uh but we also know that we're in some difficult times and so if there's ways in which we could find a happy medium to help whatever it is our taxpayers uh then that for me was was what it was. I mean you have a healthy fund balance for a reason. Hopefully some things change. Hopefully we continue to make sound financial decisions, do sound financial long-term planning along with our capital projects. And that seemed like a number to me that was feasible to be like,
125yes, we realize that things everything's getting expensive, things cost more, and for the district to be able to provide the level of service, to be able to provide benefits and raises that that was a number that I felt like we could do that, still maintain a very strong bond rate in as one board member. That's why I recommended that I think two board meetings ago was the number that I put forward. >> And you landed on that specifically using this tool like >> I didn't even see this tool. until was introduced at last financing. >> So like 3.2 3.4. Did you just >> I'm I'm thinking about as a taxpayer, you want me to approve a school district budget and I'm in a world where I'm paying $5 for a gallon of gas and there's
126an opportunity to raise the budget by the levy by 4.12 or 3.4. I feel better going to taxpayers saying we're gonna ask you for 3.4 understanding all these other financial constraints that folks have. Yeah, >> that was my rationale for making that so hard. >> No, I I'm with you. I personally think we we should go lower. And you know, my rationale is we have a very unique opportunity to do that. And this is not like I I when you forecast out, you know, 3% over over three years. It it's I I think it's too much of a burden for us to bear. I would like to do it for just this year because I feel like we can do it this year. When you hear 3% versus 2.4 versus 4.8, like that doesn't mean
127anything. Like, so I'm thinking about in terms of dollars. So at a 3% tax levy, we would take 1.4 out of the fund balance. To me, we can recoup that right off the bat just by selling. And I know that we're doing like the, you know, um, we still have to study and everything, but to No, hold on. Hold on. Hear me out. That to me is mutually exclusive of talking about like school consolidation and everything like that. That is an asset that has sat on our books for 40 years that we don't use for anything but storage. you pay to heat the thing every year. You spend tens of thousands of dollars just to maintain it. It's not on the tax roll. It's probably worth a million dollars if you just put it on
128the market. We could recoup that 1.4 just from that one sale. And to me, that has zero impact on the study that we're doing in terms of like, you know, enrollment data. And even when you look at enrollment data, like enrollment is going down. That is a long-term issue that we need to address. That should be something that we need to address the strategic plan. But to me, we can easily tap into the fund balance and then recoup that money through that sale, which I think we could be doing immediately. And I think it'd be crazy that we don't. Um, so to me, it's like we we have a rare opportunity to provide some relief to the community. The comm is it's a balance, right? Like we have to balance the the needs to pay
129our teachers fairly. We have to balance the need to, you know, have like good facilities. And, you know, I think Dr. Brown's team have done that. You know, like I think as a board we've helped do that. So I think we now have an opportunity like that we're all in this together. We're a community and I think we're saying to the community like hey we know you guys are struggling. We know tax price are up. We know gas or nice egg is up and maybe it's not a lot but like this is this is something that we can do to give back. And I I do think that we could sustain the 3% again. I don't I don't think we could do that three years in a row. I don't even know if we could
130do it next year. But to me I think we could do it as a one-time thing and then I think we could reevaluate the tax levy next year. >> Todd, I love that thinking. Can I ask some questions? Yeah. And not to I'm thinking again long term, right? >> Yeah. >> So what would happen long term if uh next year we come back and our tax levy cap is 2.69? >> Do you think that's realistic? And I know you don't have a crystal ball, but like no >> I I don't know. Um I just a couple caveats. >> Great idea. Right. Um there's a couple of procedural issues with selling buildings. Uh it has to go to public vote. >> Yeah. in the same way that you do vote for board members. So all of
131that has to happen. I we still have to do some investigation. We talked about this. Um if you sell a building and we actually recoup all the funds, not entirely sure about that. So there's a lot of >> I I and I agree and I with that said I think that we can we can handle it without selling it anyway but it's like if the concern was like what do we do to recoup like I think we have leverage that we can pull to put money back into the fund balance and um so that that's my rationale like I think this is like a unique opportunity to be able to just you know offer something back to the community because the community is you know they they fund our budget. So, >> so when you're
132saying 3% you're talk you're not talking about you're talking about pulling money out of reserves. >> Yes. Which which would be which would equate to 1.4 million from the fund balance in order to fund for one year. For one year only >> and then let me but next year next year you could go up to 3.5 if we if we need to next year if if the tax law is 4.1 we need to go 4.1 next year and then it could put money back into the fund level. So humbly humbly as I'm sitting at the table with one of the top economists in the world, I think we're talking about two different things because the tax levy is something that's perpetual and compounds. >> And if we where we tax this year, then next year
133we're able to raise on where we start from this year. That is very different from a one-time sale that will recruit, let's say, a million dollars. >> I understand. >> I just want to make sure everyone is understanding that we're talking about two things and I'll lean on Dr. Bla to help me with some of the very specific language on that. I I just don't want to confuse the two. >> No. Yeah. I I get compound interest. I I get all of that. Um again, like I I personally feel like we could do this without the sale of of DAMI, but I think that is a way to to, you know, put money back into the fund balance if people are concerned about the fund balance being where it's at. But I I you that's
134a good point. You're right, >> Garrick. You were going to say something. Go ahead. >> I just have a question. Can you I want to better understand how the tax cap is um determined from year to year. So like sure can you just help me understand that formulation? >> It would be easier to pull up the formula for you because it's it's there's a lot to it. We can go through the whole formula but >> I want to have better >> give somebody somebody how >> it's it's dependent upon our combined wealth ratio community. That's one of the the primary factors for it. Um is uh the there's exclusions. So, uh, basically New York State says we can go up to 2%, but then when you throw in all of the exclusives and so on
135and so forth, it tends to go over that based on those those figures. So, for example, if you don't go to 4.18 this year, um, a small percentage of what we don't utilize can be carried over to the next year, but it's a very small percentage. >> So, that could actually be a benefit if we don't go much, >> right? But, but it's not a negative. It's a benefit, but it's not correct. So if we don't go to the full 4.1% that's actually a positive force next year. Not not that it makes much of an impact, >> right? But >> yeah. Yeah. >> I think it's 1.5% of the total >> okay of the total tax um cap limit >> or what the actual savings is which number is less. >> So in in the
136case with the 3.4 it would be what we do hold over and it's a one year. We got one shot to use it next year. But it also skews and takes your percentage up, your levy up. So, >> but the one thing you I'm sorry. >> No, no, but >> the one thing when you do the tax cap calculation, you start out with your tax levy from the prior year. That's why they're saying that if you take that down, you're not starting at your levy limit. So, it compounds and so your limit is lesser next year than it would be if you went out. So >> one of the cons just I want to just lay it out for you. It's not so much a concern but we've already seen the equalization rate drop and
137I realize it only has a small impact that could happen again. And so uh if we're looking at potential of a tax cap next year between let's say three and 4% that's probably realistic. It'll land somewhere in the north. But if the then the equalization rate changes to 90 because we're unassessed again, that's a double whammy and that can continue to to occur. That's just something to be aware of. But on the other hand hand the budget growth could be lower or you know some of these other levers might be to our benefit. This is our best projection based on what we know at this point. >> I really appreciate >> additional questions, comments, thoughts or members? Well, I just say um you know, thanks to Dr. Lis's patience. I mean, we've gone through since
138the last meeting, we've gone through over and over and over again tailoring these numbers and Todd, a lot of that was driven by I I share your sentiment and the question was, you know, you know, how much relief can we give to taxpayers but still feel like the district's health is being maintained for perpetuity? And we went back and forth and we just >> I mean, how many times we've done this? I mean, I just think 34 is in my view the the right number that that balances those things. We're going to come in significantly below tax cap. We're going to give some relief to taxpayers, but I think we're also leading the district in a in a healthy position for the kind of unobables that we're talking about here. So, to me, this is
139a strikes the perfect balance. I think it's a reasonable number. And I just know that I hear you. Um, this is down from what I was saying last week. So, you know, I think you kind of challenged us, you know, how how low can we go? And I think 34 for me is is is the right number. >> Can you just when you say we have gone back and forth? >> Dr. Lis. >> So you you two have been >> the Yeah. Just putting different numbers in and looking at the fund balance and thinking about how do we feel about this being you would end up being two years from now, three years from now. I mean obviously you we're all I mean all the numbers that go into this are all best guesses but
140you know I think 34 is the number that gives us um healthy fund balance healthy reserves uh and it also recognizes the pressure the tax you know the inflationary pressure that taxpayers are under. >> So is this kind of your record it's just interesting to I'm just trying to get clarification it's not we the board it's >> it's a collaborative approach and and using Dr. really understanding of economics and and my history. I've been doing this for 30 years and this is and looking at the district's audits over the past several years, looking at our financial position, understanding what your concerns and needs were over the past several meetings. Our finance and facilities meetings have been uh we've had a number of discussions around these figures and and our overall health. I'm also looking at
141districts around us and in New York in general and the picture's bleak. >> We're lucky. Um, I just want to throw that out there. I have colleagues that are struggling right now. >> I would dare say uh we're not lucky. We have been very planful and intentional about what we've been doing. Yes. >> But to your point, I think one of the things I would answer is I understand the question, but um >> Dr. Bllelock as chair of the finance committee and doc and Dr. Lesey as our business official uh have been working both in terms of agenda setting for finance facilities and this is not the first time this conversation is taking place. There's been this has been an it's a year-long budget process and so there's been multiple conversations about what the budget
142could look like at finance and facilities and a couple of them at the full board meeting. >> I would I would just I would I have watched every if I haven't been present at the finance and facilities meeting I've watched every single one. I just like I don't I don't agree that these conversations have been happening especially like in depth about the budget. I think that we've heard a lot of this kind of like we've sat and talked about this, this is what we're bringing. And so I just, you know, we can go back and watch every single one, but I think that there's a lot of kind of missing. It's a little hard to like understand what conversations have really happened in public versus in in private meetings and other things. And it's it's
143a little hard to kind of I think that we might be coming with like very different information depending on what committee we're on or I what other private meetings we've been in and it's hard like even to hear you say like you know we've taken all of your concern concerns into consideration. I don't I don't know that I've had an opportunity to really share my concerns all that much and I know that some of the questions that I've had about the budget specifically I' I've raised like countless times and have not so I'm just I'm a little it's not so much about this specifically but it is a little hard to kind of understand even like the 3.4% Dr. around says like well we did this for you all like not not for us as
144a board. It's like it seems like things like conversations are happening amongst some people or some people are voicing things and then adjustments and recommendations are being made. So >> no because there were seven board members at last week's finance and facilities committee where at the end of the committee meeting we did say let's lower the number to 3.4. So at and at the at that committee was the first time we saw this. We're seeing it clearer today. Thank you very much for getting this screen because um I I feel for those who were watching it online, they weren't able to see it clearly like that. And previously I haven't been in any private meeting. I know that I've been at finance and facilities as well as a board meeting all board meeting and we
145we the board had asked for like narrow it down to three. We had three scenarios 4.18 um 3.12 or something like that and some other number and at the last meeting March 24th um board meeting I know I was in favor of the 4.1 because we were not 4.18% because we were not touching the fund balance lots happened since then Kuga heights right and gas prices continue to grow and at last week's finance and facilities committee needed. I said, "Let's go down a little bit, but not all the way to 3.1 where we have to tap into some of the money in the in the reserve account." So, I'm glad that we narrowed it down to that to see and we kept having the question asked of us from the superintendent as well as um
146Dr. Lesie is what do you want me to present? And we narrowed it down to this. And a point of clarity on that that we would not touch the fund balance if we're at 4.18 >> but anything below 4.18 we are dipping into the fund balance and I can't remember if it was like for every um you know 10 basis points or like.1% it adds or you take $100,000 out. So if you go from 4% to 3.9% you have to take $100,000 out of the fund balance. It just it ends up just being that way but I think that's if I remember from from last week. So >> anything below 4.18 we are taking from the fund balance. The question is like how much are we comfortable taking? That helps clarify. >> Yeah. And I
147I would just I mean I understanding coming out of the meeting I I did not think that we ended the last finance committee meeting with consensus. I remember the number 3.9 was thrown out. It was sort of backed up by another board member. Then another board member said 3.0. And then I remember Dr. Brown said 3.4. I I don't feel like at the end we are all not as yes and people could go and watch that >> and that's the purpose of this tonight for us to walk away whatever that number may be to come to consensus or at least have a a vote of a majority of folks that would feel com with a number that folks would feel comfortable >> doing the golf we're having conversation a little history on the you know
148speaking from the finance committee we started out uh you know challenging Dr. really easy to do high, medium and low projections. I I asked for that. Um and he he came back at me and started working on this tool and we were able to do better than that. We went from, you know, high, medium, low to infinite projections because now anybody can put any number in there. So we're not looking at three scenarios. We're looking at infinite scenarios. Uh and then we talked about various numbers. I think Adam summarized it right. We I heard numbers from, you know, 31 to 39 last week. We went back and forth. uh you know Todd I think to his credit really challenged us to see if we could do more for taxpayers and so you know we were
149looking at 39 and we took Todd's challenge went back to the numbers and went through this again and tried to see if we could get a little bit lower uh and then you on top of that the question was well what does this mean for the average taxpayer so the question I was asked last week at the meeting was well what does this mean for the you know median homeowner and we have the answer to that it means $40 right so you know I just feel like the the finance committee is responding to the board. You know, we were asked to do something last week and we did it and now we're presenting the results. Um, and you know, based on the work that I was asked to do last week and now I guess
150what I'm seeing just me personally, just one board member, I'm comfortable going to 34, but that's kind of the limit of where I feel comfortable. That's just me. Um, >> do you guys feel like >> I think 34 is, you know, Thomas challenged us to see if we could go a little lower on that and and I think the answer is yes, we could do that and I think 34 is what I'm comfortable with. >> Do do you guys feel like there's more information that you're looking for right now to help you kind of make the decision? Is that is there anything else um that you guys need or >> I mean yeah I mean I I personally I think that it's a it's a tough conversation when you're looking at the percentiles because it's
151not to to the point that you just made like we're not talking about dollar amounts and to be thinking about it more from the perspective of what's happening to the fund balance. Yeah. and what that actually means and what the concerns are and can you really reap the benefits of a one-time sale and can you not and all of these things and what that actually means for like not just this year but like one or two or three years down the line. Dr. Brown in the meeting in the finance meeting last Thursday you said the only levers that we're talking about right now are fund bal balances but we have other levels levers and the first thing that you listed was staffing. So to me, I suddenly was like, you know, when do we need
152to be thinking about, you know, the levers need needing to change to something else and would we need to turn to something like cuts to staffing if we when if we cut more from the fund balance now? Like how all of those things interact and so that it's not just like let's talk about should it be 3.4 or 3.2 or 3.0 zero which feels a little bit like not a very meaningful number but to really understand from you all about what you feel completely 100% or not 100 you can't say but like you really feel like confident being able to do to Karen's point that she just raised like you know you just said you know you had been thinking about 4.18% before and then you listed like chess and um gas prices going up
153and it made you kind of rethink and I'm like >> and I fed that last weekend. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, no. I'm just saying I think that's a good good example of if we if we suddenly have like a a another disaster like what happened at chess or gas prices go up even more or like whatever. Are we suddenly going to say, "Oh my gosh, we should have made the rate even lower. We should have made it higher." Like if if something like that like what happened at chess would make anyone and I'm not using an example anymore but would make us suddenly think >> oh my gosh if we still had the opportunity to change the rate would we change it now like what happens if another school if we're just like one
154disaster away from feeling like we needed to change numbers >> that's what we have the fund balance for any >> right but that's like >> once we decide on it and once it goes to vote and we bring it to the community a budget is fluid We have to we have certain projections line by line but yet knowing there might be some expenses here that increase and some revenue comes in >> but then we're like we have less of the fund balance to be able to dip into for those things if we chose to say do 3% and go into the fund balance more now which is why I'm just curious about like where that line is where it becomes like >> are we shooting ourselves in the foot two or three years out and
155I'm having a hard time like understanding the tax levy grace. So because I I've had I actually remember asking this question something similar when Amanda was here several years ago and what happened at chess is pretty rare and in these conversations well I mean yeah okay global warming climate change like no it's unfortunately not that rare anymore right but having these conversations in the past one what we're doing is getting the state aid back for that but also the reason that we have capital improvement projects is to have money available to make the improvements needed when the time comes so we don't have to react in an emergency crisis. Um, and I'm going to be really really honest here. I It's a little weird to me that this late in the game we're talking about
156selling dandy because that's something like that to me is not a factor in what we're talking about now. Like maybe next year, but for the budget, we've got to have we've got to vote. We've got timelines. We got to move forward. Like okay, next year let's let's put that on the table. But now we've got to really think about like what do we get done tonight? And I feel like I'm losing my mind here. But Thursday's meeting um you know we we pitched out 4.18. We said and then Dr. Brown said I say 3.9 and then we were talking about figures and we kind of didn't necessarily decide but I think like everyone said let's let's go with 3.4 for Tuesday. And so I'm a little confused about why we're all confused about what we're
157talking about here. I understand wanting to go back and forth and having a discussion. I'm totally totally supportive of that, but >> I process wise I think I want to What are we trying to Right. We have to adopt a budget this evening that we're going to send out to taxpayers. >> Are we seems like we're having multiple conversations? We're not all on the same page. part of that. Um I also I will admit I'm also a little confused given the number of meetings that have taken place, the invitations to have conversations, but again we all process information in different ways and and I have to realize that this is my 17th year of going through a budget. So I get that as well. But what is our goal to adopt a budget this evening
158or is our goal to call a special meeting tomorrow? like >> no >> I understand >> March 24th meeting we stated that we're going to vote on the budget on today 4:14 and you even posed to us is there a possibility that we could vote on it at the finance and facilities committee and no because not all board members were present. So therefore we have today because we have to notify the state what it is and start to get the records out. So >> in email inviting people to ask questions >> ask questions and go through every process. >> So I'm trying to figure out what is the best path for >> I would I would love to hear from you Dr. round about the question that I asked about like your your comfort with
159the dipping into the fund fund balances at these different rates. Like it's it correct me if I'm wrong like you said today 4.18 was what your recommendation was and then you brought 3.4 because that's what some people on the board had asked for. Do you continue to feel like 4.18 is the most and I'm not saying you said this but like is that because you thought that was the most responsible thing to do as it relates to the fund balance or like what is your >> recommendation? Can I can I interject and not not to like take take over the question but like I I personally feel like and it might be helpful for other people. I think when we're talking it might help to talk in terms of dollars because saying like >> can
160we have Dr. run into the question first and then >> I I was going to try to help him answer the question in a way that might actually help people understand you got I was trying to help. So >> I appreciate >> what we're talking about right now y'all is long range fiscal planning and every individual board and this is my se 17th I believe um it's just a plan. Many of the things that you were ruminating about keeping me up at night too and their hypothetical, who would have thought we would have had a pandemic five years ago, which blew up our budget and plan and we had to adjust various levers including our fund balances and reserves, including our staffing, including our planned unspending of the budget. And that's what you task us
161to do. So, please hear me when I hear your hypothetical questions. because I just rarely answer them because I don't like to answer hypotheticals, but I know how to adjust if we need to put the plan that we have in place. The original budget we proposed at at the tax cap and there let me be clear the number that we get from our state that tax cap formula is one that they're saying to superintendent that's the number we suggest you go to not over but to that number so that you can be in a situation like this is right now where we can plan out three to five years. So my original suggestion and recommendation was to go to the cap because that would set us up and keep our strong compensation model in place
162that we now have in place. I could see that far beyond my tenure and when I'm living there my children like I can see us being able to have a competitive approach to staffing pay and everything with the number I propose because it it would be at least next year the year after before we would touch fund balances at all. Now I understand the wishes for us to adjust that number and we can and looking at the formulas and the tool here it does push us to use fund balances very minimally. I've been here where we've used eight, nine and 10 million in a year to close a budget gap. At the same time, we were reducing staff. Those were hard conversation. This room was full. To go into fund balances for a million and
163a half dollars as a projection for whatif is something I'm very comfortable doing and we will. And if we need to go further, we will do that too. And that will push me maybe to adjust some of those other levers. When we underspend our budget because it's illegal to overspend it, we do that by managing open positions. We do that by managing what we spend on supplies. You've tked a seasoned superintendent and team to manage that. So, we're underspending. At times, we need to underspend a lot. You've heard me say hiring chills here. We did hiring chills and we've done those the last couple years. And I know the educators in the room have felt that when your classes are high or when we haven't been able to immediately get a assistant at DJM. But
164those numbers look like us putting money into fun balance which allow for us to have a competitive compensation strategy which allows for us to be in a position right now where our bond rating is high and our fund balance is in a place where unlike most of our small city school district colleagues of mine, we're not cutting staffing. We're actually talking about it. For me, it's fascinating to be at this table with this kind of discussion about 34 versus 39. >> So, I'm comfortable with everything because we've been doing this a while. We know how to manage a budget and we're going to enhance what we do programmatically, not take away from it. That's a good place to be. As my mom, I was raised at a place in a time when you're presented with
165something like this and you don't know exactly what to say. You just say thank you because that's where I feel like we are. We're in a good spot and we can I'm gonna be comfortable with every number and yeah, we talked about this a lot on Thursday and you t me to come back and hit with a 34 and I've had no traffic. Every conversation I've had about this budget, I'm looking at every one of y'all has been with the cameras rolling and I've said the same things each time. >> My apologies. I stopped Todd. So Todd, you >> I I could have helped you articulate that so much better. No, no, you did great. No, I just I just I I I I think record shows. >> Yeah. No, I will lose. I know
166that. Um No, but I I just I I think it's helpful for everyone in the room for everyone at this table. We're talking about dollars instead of percentages because percentages are abstract and it doesn't really mean anything. Like it really doesn't. But if we're talking about can we afford to to tap 1.4 take $ 1.4 million off the fund balance like that that to me is like the better conversation to have. And I think I think it is more help. So that was all I was going to say because you were asking in terms of percentages. So I was going to say maybe it's it's help first respond in terms of dollars. >> I think we heard from Dr. Brown is yes it may not be his preference but can we afford to do that
167and will we make the necessary changes? The answer is yes. >> Did I capture that? >> Yeah. I I I do want to just add one thing um Erin to your point about Dami. Again my me dami does not factor does not change my opinion on whether I think we can take 1.4 million fund balance. That to me is a caveat of like, hey, we have this lever that number, we should dispose of that asset and I'm happy to do that this year, next year, whenever it is as soon as possible. I think we should >> knowing it's going to be a year process for that. So, you're you're putting on the table as something you're thinking, >> right? Like, so if people are on the fence, like there are some some things that we
168could do to then put money back into the fund balance. And to your point, compound interest, all that other stuff, it's it's not a onetoone, but I think there are ways that people are on the fence. That was kind of why I was throwing that out there. So I think that was it. >> Just Dr. Ren, you mentioned like that you feel like with the you're also like we're enhancing things appropriately. Can you speak to what you mean by that? >> Because for the first time in a long time I'm not talking about taking things away. >> Um at this table we've talked about reducing administrative costs significantly and we're now well below where our state where our benchmark districts are. Um this will be the first time we're not removing assistant principal from a
169school where we worked 10 years to get one or we're not removing a deputy superintendent which nobody mentioned step we don't have anymore like so for me this is the first time we're not reducing our administrative cost more than we have in the past and there other places where we're not reducing what we've done in the past at this table at this time that's why I feel like we're >> okay so like maintaining >> I mean yeah >> I would say yeah >> I think again It's important for us and one I want to go on record. I think I was the first person to say 3.4 a couple weeks ago, but that's our we'll get there anyway. Uh the idea being again, if we take a look around what's happening around the state, um
170all we hear is district after district who finds themselves in significant uh financial constraints about not just hiring freezes, but uh you know trying to close eight n$10 million gaps, especially at small city school districts. the fact that that's not a conversation we're having. I will say to you it's also feels strange to me, right? Because normally we're having a conversation about how do we close this delta, right, between what we have promised folks and what we can come in and not overburden and not go to a 7% increase in the tax level. Uh this is a phenomenal conversation to have because it's informative and it it's we're uniquely positioned this year and maybe that lends more credence to your argument, but we are uniquely positioned this year than I think we have in years
171prior which we've all been what program are we going to cut? >> Yeah. >> How many staff are we going to have to not hire? What's class size going to be? Is it going to go from 18 to 24? That's not the dialogue we're having at this point in time. And not saying it's perfect. No budget can be perfect, but that's a a good place to be in. And I see you want to respond. And with a few more minutes, seconds to think about it, Jacob. The enhancement will be we have competitive salaries in a way for next year that has been unlike anything in my time. So to reward the people who are here and the ways in which we're going to do it from my perspective is a bit of an enhancement and
172the working conditions that are also come at a cost at times those are enhancements. >> Thank you. >> I I want to want to add one thing. I I think this might answer one of your questions Emily or one of your comments when you're talking about like replenishing the fund balance like if you look on this model the projected under spending like in the top right hand corner what and I think D historically 2%. So basically what it is is we don't spend 2% of our budget and it's through like maybe not hiring people and like whatever other things that we need to do in order to get that. So that 2% then goes into the fund balance for the following year. So ideally we are replenishing the fund balance every year. So, if we
173ever got to a difficult position, we're like, "Hey, the fund balance is starting to get lower. We might need to tighten up this year on the projected under spending to then put more money in." Like, there is a way to to potentially do that. So, >> doesn't the FAQs right now say that this year we have a um we have like an excess that the next two years is showing that we're that we're going to be have having greater expenses than we are revenue next year and then it's going to get even bigger the year after that. So, >> that's why the trajectory still goes down. >> Right. >> So, can I ask not? >> Yeah. Are you asking some of these questions because you think are you of the mindset that we should be
174considering 4.18? >> I am of the mindset that I wanted to hear from Dr. Brown about what his recommendation was as opposed to >> people throwing out numbers because I feel like the percentiles were kind of are kind of arbitrary. So >> that was really my goal was to be able to >> and then some of us said I don't care what you said Dr. Brown. We want to go a different direction. I also yeah I mean I guess like for the 3.4 or whatever anything lower than 4.18 I hear people saying like I think we can do that. I think I'm I I think that the reason that folks are suggesting that is to give relief to taxpayer payers. I think that that's what I'm hear if that's like >> I just want to
175be like really clear on like why the things that are being recommended are being recommended and I think that I just keep hearing so many things being thrown around y >> without >> that context. So what we're what I'm hearing is the thing that would be most most comfortable to Dr. Brown would be from a budget perspective would be 4.18 but he feels comfortable going down to 3.4 for because of a shared interest, an assumed share in shared interest from the board to lower the tax burden our taxpayers as much as we can this year while still feeling confident in the budget. >> And I am completely joking when I say I don't care what Dr. Brown says, right? Some of this conversation we've been having in these meetings as well. But to your point,
176the idea being if we can maintain the programming, the staffing, the budget, bond, the right, the reserves. Um, how we make that happen is the question part that we we've been having. And when I heard Dr. Brown say, listen, honestly, if you tell me to go to two, I wouldn't like it. But my job is to make that happen. And we're saying that's not the some of us are saying that's not the position that we're at. We're not saying to go to two or go to one. We're saying, some of us are saying, okay, a median between this long-term planning um 4.18, let's be real, would be ideal long-term fiscally, right? And um that also has financial implications for local for everybody, right? Right. So, it's I'm aware that, you know, it's not just taxpayers,
177it's renters, right? It's a whole host of folks. So, that was the idea for me. And I do think talking about the actual number like can we take 1.4 for can we take a hundred, you know, a million dollars out of the fund balance and still be in good financial standing. Seems like we're in a position to do that as >> and I do appreciate um I will say that uh Garrick and I did have a conversation about about this, but it was about four minutes and that was it. And I said 3.4. I I want I want to add one thing with the chart, too. It it it is continuing to go down, but we're also forecasting 3% in 27 year 2728 and we're forecasting 3% in 2829, right? >> I'm not saying we
178go to 3% in those years. I would be saying we do it for this year. So that curve that's dipping down. It can be misle like it can be misleading because again like for me it's like we do it this year, we reevaluate next year. Next year could need to be 4.18 or it could need to be at the at the tax level, you know. So >> that even completely >> but but that reverses the curve and to me like this tool is super helpful but it's only helpful if you understand how to use it you understand the inputs and stuff can you put in 3.4 for the tax levy the first year up top the very first one and then put in 4.2 2 for the second year. >> Change that. >> Yeah, you
179can. Yeah, just type a number in type four and then you can >> so you see the difference. So like now now instead of being look millions of dollars, it's 651,000 that you're tapping. So like it makes that's why I was saying I only want to do this for this year >> because we have an opportunity to do it this year and then next year we can reevaluate and maybe next year we have more clarity on the strategic plan. We have more information about what's going to happen with all the schools. you have a better like understanding what is the value of D&D what is the value of some of these assets and then we can really re-evaluate next year what we want to do maybe again we need to be at 4.18 next year
180but I to me tax >> right or with like I'm not concerned with going to 3% this year which is about 1.4 4 million to out of the the balance. So for the funders point out though that um I mean we don't know what tax cap will be. >> So I I I know and I'm follow >> that's setting us up for a super majority. >> No no no I'm not saying we need to go over the tax cap. I'm I'm saying based on the what Dom was sharing is that he feels it's going to be between three and four. Again like I I'm just explaining this like I'm not I'm not the crystal ball. I want everyone to understand like that there's other things that you need to take into consideration because we see
181this chart going down. Does everyone under like I want everyone to understand why it's going down and how it could go up, how like >> that was my intention of like you need to look at the various years in order to get the different uh you know outputs. So >> let's take a an idea about where we're at. Are we comfortable with trying to put a motion forward? Do we feel like additional conversation is needed? Um the reality is yes we do need to adopt a budget this evening to be within the time frame. I believe the deadline is Thursday, right? Which we have to get everything out to make sure it gets to the papers, it's posted, right? So today is the day that we decided that we are going to adopt a budget.
182So which includes adopting the tax levy. Uh it's the primary thing that we're talking about >> because that was going to be my question is like could we do the budget and then the tax levy separate? Okay. >> Yeah. I mean all that. >> Yeah, I I I'm I'm good with the budget and I'm I would want to be at 3% because again I think we have a very unique opportunity to be at 3%. I don't think it puts us in financial um you know in a bad financial position for next year because we have a lot of opportunities next year to be able to kind of like reverse the curve and we have ways to bring in revenue and other things like that. So that's where I stand is this 3% tax levy. >>
183Can you comment on that Dr. Brown? process wise, professor, you could uh someone could finally move the resolution agenda now and have be a second and then see where we are. As I'm sitting here watching this, folks in you either may all be in the same place except for one or two or you may all be in very different places. Until we get a sense of where we are right now, it's kind of hard for me to comment. Um I think we're just saying the same things over and over again. I move to adopt the ICSD 2026 2027 budget in the amount of $177,638,041. >> And can we add the second part as well? >> Note that this amount is reflective of a 3.4% increase in the tax level. >> Moved by Karen, second by
184Jacob. Additional I dare to say this but additional question comments. Yes. >> Yeah. I I have some additional comments. >> Yes. >> I just he wrote something that I want to read to explain my vote for tonight. Um I'm going to abstain from the budget vote because I disagree with the process uh by which the budget was developed. Um from my perspective the budget was developed by the administration and presented to the board. I feel like we as a collective board have not had substantive public discussions at the full board meetings to provide collective input about how to fund categories included in the budget and if the recommended allocations by administration align with the goals and wants of this specific group of nine members of the board of education. There are so many things that
185we could be deciding as a board that would direct budget spending that I feel like we should discuss. Do we need more teachers in the classroom? Are larger class sizes impacting student learning? Should we spend more money on teachers professional development? Should we offer more courses to students? When we cut Mandarin and the standalone AVID program two years ago, what was the impact? Uh, should we bring them back? Do we have enough aids in the classroom to support the needs of students with IEPs and 504s? Do we need more money to support the middle school heterogeneous learning model? And should we allocate more money toward transportation? Um, with meaningful input from stakeholders, the board should be talking through questions like these and answering them before deciding on a final budget that determines how much the
186community will spend. How different this is from the process by which capital projects are developed, where each item is discussed at length, the rationale is provided, and board members weigh in before we move it forward to the community for a vote. We've talked a lot about using the reserves to save taxpayers some money this year, but we haven't even discussed making budget cuts to save money. Not that we would necessarily do that or want to do that, but we haven't talked about it together. And if we want to save taxpayers money, could we spend less? What impact would that have? And my board members collectively wish to cut spending in a category if we thoroughly discussed it. Um, regardless of the board's decision tonight, I urge the community to vote yes on the budget in
187May, as I will when I go to the polls. I wanted to bring attention to a process that I disagree with, but I certainly want whatever budget is proposed to pass. I just wanted to explain my my ration, >> additional comments to be questions. >> I I have I think I have some similar sentiments. I I do want to share um I have tremendous gratitude to everyone who worked on this. I know there's been a lot of thank yous, but I just want to add them. Dom, I see that you copyrighted your tool. Well done, sir. Um and and I think that like you know the administrators like done a really excellent job of like working things out within their teams. I I am less concerned about the process for the tax cap and more
188I think to what Adam said around like the content. I think about like conversations that I assume a board should be having around like do we have the appropriate number of administrators? Are we instructional coaching? Are schools adequately staffed? Do we have the are we setting aside the appropriate money for curricula and curricula initiatives? Um, I know I had one like one board meeting there was sort of like a oneoff it felt like a one-off conversation but like a grant writer and I feel like um I think there should be more public conversations about how that works based on board goals, district initiatives and then data where we see what's working, what's not, and how can we support that. Um, so I'm you know I guess I'll see in a minute whenever we vote. I
189think I'm going to vote listing too, but similar to Adam, like as I always have, I will vote yes um on the budget when it comes my way. But I don't feel like as a board member that I have sufficient information on sort of like the content of the budget to make an informed vote for yes as a board member as opposed to a voter where I definitely feel like I do and I hope that the community does as well. >> Additional comments. I'm trying to think about how best to say my comments because I'm I'm somewhat flabbergasted because I had to look up who's on curriculum committee because some of the categories of the budget could have been discussed in certain curric curriculum committee HR committee if there were concerns about staffing and all
190those are that's our work in sessions where we have indepth discussions I'm on finance and facilities committee and I know that we've been discing in this and presentation to the board as to the capital project the budget and so forth as well as I do recall seeing several emails either um if there was clarification answering questions from Dr. um Brown or Dr. Lisi, if you have any questions or need further explanation because I know some of my board colleagues have gone to them for more explanation of things in case we we sometimes we don't have sufficient time here, but I'd like to um Yeah, I'm just kind of Yeah. And and there is no frequently asked question at this time on the budget for 2627, right? Because we don't put FAQs up. I think you
191had mentioned the frequently asked question that's from last year. We don't put FAQs up until we vote and then have all of that information on the um website. >> Yeah, I think I mean just to respond I think I'm talking about full full board meetings where we have >> but we did have full board meetings and and if and we as board members can definitely say I want more information at this time. But >> well no I just want to say but but I I think starting I think sort of starting with with board goals that we talk about as a board and agree upon and then use that framework to go back and look at specific things make decisions about what we think about those specific things then you know as a board and
192and this is a little bit I'm bringing it up also because of a question of process that maybe I'd like to to come back to and look at maybe next year the next time we do this but then you know as as a board to to come to the administration and basically say like this is what we think about a particular topic like a particular specific topic like um you know again like I just I mentioned some things when I was when I was talking um and then for us to to sort of inform the the specifics of how much is going to be spent in a particular category you know based on a board consensus as opposed to you know a couple of people and I think you know we saw that in certain
193cases is committees I mean committees can definitely talk about things but committees can't make decisions for the whole board um and maybe you know the curriculum committee can work with the finance committee in a different way next year to talk about specific items you know that are curriculum based and funded by the budget to be brought to the board for the board to weigh in and say oh yeah you know what we we do want to bring back the language or we don't mind that we cut that language it's we're doing fine with the three languages I think those are the specific questions that I'd like to see addressed a little bit more you rather than just saying like this is the budget for teachers, this is the budget for health insurance, this is the
194budget for supplies. I think I'm trying to just bring up that point. >> I just want to sorry the budget process is a year-long process and so the fact that you have a you have written that in preparation knowing how you were going to speak tonight despite the questions you asked. So clearly that was your agenda to come in tonight and state your case that you prepped in advance. So you knew you wanted to have this agenda and say this. We had all year to have these conversations all year to bring up all of these items, but you're doing it tonight in this format with a can speech. So I appreciate your points and and that's awesome. But as all of us forum members know, we are welcome to go to any other committee meeting
195that we care to to have these discussions and be involved in the entire process the whole year. So sure, yeah, let's look at it more closely, but you're a board member. You know your responsibilities. You know the questions you should have asked. This is not your first year on the board. You could have asked them throughout the entire process, but you wrote a can speech tonight coming to the meeting to present. >> I'd like to see if there's a way in which um if there's questions or conversations, it seems like the we have conversations about the process, but now our process is also off as well. >> We have a motion on the floor. If there are additional comments or questions or debates about the motion, I would like to see if we can't keep
196the conversation there with an understanding that additional conversations are clearly needed. >> I um had not planned to say anything. However, I and I hear you completely and I often like to get things moving and I feel like now some people have said things and some people haven't and I feel like that would be really challenging to just leave it at that. Thank you. um >> to leave it to what I understand. I like like Erin for example just had an opportunity to like respond and disagree or whatever with so I feel like it's a little hard for us to just like cut the conversation off that move on >> and where so where would we like to >> I mean >> you want to should we take a a break to take a break
197>> people you're asking for additional conversation I'm asking how best to proceed forward we have a motion on the table >> is this conversation inappropriate to have is >> No, it's not inappropriate. I'm not sure if this is going to get us past the vote, right? I mean, if there we're not going to be able to work out the way Adam feels, right, and what Adam stated, it's not going to be able it's not going to like someone's going to say, "Well, you're wrong and I'm right." We're not going to be able to solve that and still get to the vote that's on the table. And I So, if there's something that people want to say about the particular vote, then by all means, let's do that. I'm not trying to rush the conversation. I'm
198trying to say that we have a vote on the table and how best do we proceed. >> Cool. I would just like to say one thing in response to Erin and then I don't have any more comments. Um I know I just want to say that I I felt like it was important for me because I decided yes in advance of tonight's meeting that I was going to abstain from the vote. I decided that it would be important for me to present my rationale for abstaining from the vote. And these are some things that that I wanted to express. But I also think that if I just didn't raise my hand and abstain, you know, or didn't vote yes, it would be odd without the context. So I don't I don't really have an agenda
199by doing this. I I mean, I understand how that how it can come across and I appreciate your feedback, but there's not much to do at the last minute. And I totally understand what you're saying. I think that there have been I have done things over the course of the year to try to do certain things that I feel like I wasn't able to accomplish. But I do appreciate the feedback and I I don't disagree with you and that was that was what I was thinking in my mind when I wrote this and I said, "Oh, I know this is what's going to be said is how could he say this at the last minute, but I I but yeah, I but I but I just wanted to I just wanted to justify my perspective
200and I didn't think it would be right to do that without saying this. So that was why I offered this and I don't have any other agenda other than just to say what I had to say and the vote can of course continue unless anybody else wants to say anything that they want to say but that's that was my only intention just add look you look at the budget there's a lot of part of the budget gasoline for the buses repairing you know a lot of heating the buildings there's there's a lot of budget that's just there you really not much you can do about right you put that aside and then what's left salaries and salaries are people. So you know we've had this debate almost a year now and what I've always remarked
201on up until today is how focused the conversation has been narrowly on the revenue side the books you know what can we do for taxpayers etc. And there's been really up until now no discussion. I'm going to use the term expense as an accounting term. I'm not saying that people are expenses. People are resources. But from accounting point of view, people are an expense. And there's really been almost no discussion on the expense side of the equation until now. And I think part of the reason there's not a lot of discussion about is because when you're talking about people, you're talking about people's jobs and their livelihoods. And you know to come and say we should restructure how we educate children in you know in this district. I mean that's a good question to ask
202and maybe a good question to ask in a strategic plan but it's really beyond the scope of what you can do in a year budget discussion because you know a lot of the kind of the questions you're asking would for example mean totally restructuring our teaching workforce. And so that's partly why it doesn't you know occur. Maybe maybe it should be in the strategic plan. Um but you know we are where we are. Uh, you know, I I I'm you know, I don't know what to say. >> When you say totally restruct Where's that coming from? The total restructure. >> Well, what I'm saying is that when you put aside the things like feeding the building and gasoline, the things you just kind of have to do paper and so on. You know, most of
203the budgets is people. And so, you know, when you think about like, you know, the reason I think perhaps we haven't had a lot of focus on the expense side of the books is because the expense means, you know, changing expenses means changing the people and how they teach, how this district educates. Uh, and that might be a good conversation to have, you know, again, in the strategic plan, but it's kind of beyond what you do, uh, you know, in a in a year-to-year budgeting process if, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. I mean, no, we didn't ask I mean, we could have asked them. They weren't asked, but we didn't ask deep questions like, should we just take a sponge and wipe the blackboard of our education model down and start over again?
204>> I want to I want to intervene. We're having a conversation about trying to solve a budget process that folks may or may not agree with. That is not going to change the conversation and the vote on the floor. This is not an attempt to stop dialogue. This is attempt to say that this may not be the appropriate place to have that dialogue. The vote still has to take place. Clearly, additional conversations need to take place. Clearly, there needs to be right part of the reason we do have goals. We may not see that we may align those. Part of the reason why we're going out for a strategic plan is to do that very work. And it may be a completely different process moving forward. So, that's my point. I'm not trying to stop
205that. You still have a motion on the table. I think our conversation now is trying to solve a process problem that we don't have the ability to solve with the vote that's in front of us. So I hope I hope I'm also being clear. I'm trying to be >> I'm trying to be I'm trying to acknowledge where we're at which is we can't solve the process problem with the vote that's in front of us at this >> right and like I said that was this is just my explanation and and it didn't go into a conversation. >> I I appreciate you one board member. I appreciate your shift. >> Yeah. Likewise. >> Well, I'm happy to move forward with the vote, but I guess I want to say very loudly and clearly that I think
206that we have had many conversations over the last year about wanting to talk. Some of us have asked many many times to want to talk about process, revising processes, reviewing them, talking about goals, all of the things that people are debating right now where I I disagree with so many things that I just heard. So, I would love to like advocate very strongly for like our next board meeting for us to be able to continue this conversation because I think that it speaks to so much of the work that we are doing on the board and why this year has seemed to many people as as much more challenging and contentious than years past. And I mean I hate the idea of just stopping the conversation now. Although I completely agree with you that it
207is irrelevant to the vote that we are having right now. So I would love to for us to make a commitment to return back to it. >> Against my better judgment, I am opposed to a number of things that were also said about the process. >> Let me put that forward as well. >> Why is that against your judgement? because I'm saying let's stop this conversation and stay away. >> Yeah, I'm adding commentary to it as as well. >> I'm not saying the process can't be improved, but I think it's a long process with lots of conversations. There may be some way obviously there's some things that we need to address. I don't know that it will be on the next agenda. Let me also say that as well, but a conversation for us. >>
208Can I call the question, >> please? All in favor of the motion that was presented. I believe it was moved by Karen. Am I correct? I don't know how >> by Jacob. We'll call the question. All in favor? All opposed? Abstensions. The budget passes. We're not done. The last agenda item on our agenda is 10.3, a resolution to adopt the property the property tax report card. We will entertain motion. >> A move to approve the resolution to adopt the property tax report card to the company annual school district budget for the 2026 2027 school year. >> Second. Moved by Emily, second by Jacob. Questions, comments, debate. Hearing none, we'll call the question. All in favor? That passes unanimously. Uh we have some other business with some meetings coming up. I'd ask folks to take a
209look. Clearly, we will have some additional conversations and we will bring the meeting to a close. Have a good evening. inside. Yeah.