001Testing. Thank you. Uh good afternoon. We're going to go ahead and get started with the budget and finance committee. Uh And is Dr. Battle online? >> Yes. >> Awesome. Uh we'll kick it over to Dr. Battle. >> Thank you so much, um budget chair, Mama Kinney. Um we appreciate um the board and the convening of the budget and finance committee meeting this evening. Um in just a moment, I'm going to turn it over to our chief financial officer, um Olvin Robles, who is going to walk us through the current draft and proposed um budget um after the team has come back to do some really thoughtful thinking around um what may be the best um proposed budget to recommend to the board, of course, with any discussion and consideration on behalf of the board members.
002So, at this time, I'll welcome up our CFO, Olvin Robles, to walk us through the presentation. >> Thank you, Dr. Battle. Um committee chair, board chair, members of the board. Um good to be with you today. Um and uh this is the final step of the budget. So, um we're almost there. So, what I'll share with you today, as Dr. Battle referenced, is uh the proposed revisions to our FY '27 operating budget. We'll also talk about Excuse me, [clears throat] the proposed FY '27 budget for our federal programs fund and for our nutrition services fund. We know this information around celebrations uh already, um but I think it's important to remind ourselves and the public what this budget is funding and what is making possible. And as you know, our students have the highest achieve
003the highest TCAP and EOC scores in MPS history. >> [snorts] >> And we've achieved double digit gains in achievements in 2021. Which is absolutely outstanding. Not only that, we're a four-time level five in advanced in district. Our students have outpaced the state growth. And we have reached historical high graduation rates. And as we get to the final step in this long process, we are grateful for the support of this board. The mayor, the Metro Council, and our educators and family. We know that we need everyone to make this possible. So now let's talk about our proposed FY27 budget. As we said in the past throughout the process, we have remained anchored in our focused outcomes. And on the four priorities that this board established to guide the process. So today I'm sharing the revised budget
004proposal based on the substitute budget that was approved by Metro Council on June 16th. The approved substitute budget as you know reduced MNPS allocated revenues by $550,000. This translated into a reduction of MNPS operating budget by $470,000. The difference is because the amount we need to restore the fund balance also goes down. So it lowers essentially the impact to our operating budget from 550 to 470. So as a reference to keep us, this is the journey that we've been in and now we're the final step um when this board will um vote on the final budget um that is based on the substitute budget approved by Metro Council um on June 16th. All right, so let's talk about the proposed budget that addresses the change in the MMPS revenue allocation. Um this is a revised
005summary of the allocation. Um what right now the allocation is is 55 million. Um so the incremental allocation over our FY26 operating budget is 55 million 400,000 uh thousand 800. Um and when you add to that the 372,000 reduction to property tax increment, you get the um the um budget increase of 55 million dollars 772,800. Which um this allocation allows us to continue to support the priorities of the board as set out. So, well um we are able and focus on the maintaining the continuity of operations uh by funding all of the inflationary and contractual increases. Um this funds the salary step increase for our employees, the student based budgeting allocation change, and all of the health and pension benefits increases estimated for next year. It also supports the Metro government set across the board
006COLA adjustment of 1.7%. And what it does, the reduced um revenue, is that it um requires an adjustment or reduction on the amount available for the key investments from the aspirational budget that we have previously proposed to this board. So, let's let's talk a little bit about that. >> [clears throat] >> These were the five aspirational budget items that we have proposed the board. And we considered and evaluated every one of this as we worked on a recommendation to figure out how to best incorporate the revenue reduction approved by the Metro Council. When we talked about the pre-K seats at Haywood Early Learning Center, this is an investment where we know that we have a wait list. So, these are seats >> [snorts] >> that are needed in the area. And it really also supports
007not just the need right now, but it supports future enrollment growth as we bring families into MMPS. So, it given the demand and and and what is already manifested as a need, we are proposing that this is an investment that continues because of its importance to serve our families and for future enrollment growth. When we talked about and discussed at length the proposed investment on extending the support staff calendar, this is an item that we had included as we shared with you because we heard our teams raising this as an issue. We devised a proposed solution supporting an investment, and but this is here this investment is one where um we are proposing to actually move from 2 days to one additional day. I think it gets us on the right direction, but it help
008us address some of the challenges that the reduction in revenue proposed that I'll go in a little bit more detail. We also discussed at length the stipend amounts. This investment is something um this stipends have not been adjusted for quite some time. Um this is something that we've heard repeatedly from our teachers and we believe that it's important to make this investment to support teachers in that important work as they engage in professional development and support the extended hours. Um we had um discussions and evaluations around the investment on before and after care. >> [snorts] >> Um we evaluated what's needed here. And we believe this investment is important not only because it supports the new start times and initiative. Uh but it's also critical to support regular attendance, provide extra academic time and enrichment,
009and then strengthening engagement support for our families. Um [snorts] therefore we're proposing that this is an ongoing an investment that continues um as proposed. And last but not least uh the investment on the philanthropic arm. Um this is a small total amount of investment that specially in light of um the revenue decreases an initiative that can actually help us offset down the road um by building that philanthropic arm and help us identify and seek uh new revenue streams in the future. So after um um lengthy evaluation and discussion um what we're recommending to the board um to adjust as an adjustment to our FY27 operating budget is um one to reduce the operational budgeting um strategy of extending the support staff calendar from 2 days to 1 day. What that does is a reducing investment
010from 2 million to 1 million. >> [snorts] >> And then we're proposing to repurpose that 1 million um that is not invested on that strategy to um offset the revenue decrease, the $470,000 in all by $470,000 and then put the remainder towards reducing the liability of vacancy savings. If you recall, there's a a set of [clears throat] expenses on the metro pass-through that we had shared with you that we need to cover. This will help us reduce the liability as we rely on vacancy savings to cover those those expenses. So, this is just a revised summary with the proposed change what the investments would look like. You can see at the top what the total investment on continued operations is, 38.6 million. That doesn't change from what we had brought to you before and it
011includes the inflationary contractual increases, salary step, this two-in-base budget allocation change, and the health and pension benefits. We also It also includes the across-the-board cola that remains the same as what we had presented to you in the past. And then in aspirational investment, that's the amount that is reduced by $1 million and part of that is used to offset the metro pass-throughs and to balance the budget given the $470,000 reduction on revenue. And then below you see then what the proposed aspirational investment aspirational budget investment items would be. Um The pre-K assets at Hillwood will remain the same as our original proposal. Um the extended support staff calendar will be moving to one day instead of two. The increased stipend amounts will remain the same and before and after care and the philanthropic arm will
012be the same as originally proposed. Um and as we move forward, just want to remind that >> [clears throat] >> we um this revised budget that's continued to reflect the board priority and investment on talent strategy as we continue to invest on the salary step increase, the extended support staff calendar which is an added uh investment, um increase the stipend amounts for teachers, it's an added investment, um and the across the board column. So, we continue to try to improve um our investments on talent strategy. And this is just a representation of uh what you already have on a printed version, the summary page of all the proposed um budget with um supporting the back by all the line item detail. So, this is the um section of the proposed changes for the operating budget.
013I'm going to quickly go through the um federal grants, uh the federal programs and grants fund, and the um nutrition services grants, and then we'll open it up for questions, um any questions that you may have. So, let's talk first about the federal programs and grants fund. This um as we have shared with you, I believe um on April the the federal government thankfully maintained the level funding across all major K-12 programs, so there was no expected reduction um on education investments. There wasn't an increase either for um inflationary costs, but they maintain it is what they call level funding. Um when we look at the total projected amount for all grants in FY27, uh we're estimating 134.6 million dollars. That is down from 143 million that [snorts] um we had in uh fiscal year
01426. The main drivers for that um 8.4 million dollar decrease is a reduction on IDA grant funding. Um if you recall, we discussed this when we were talking about the budget amendment. Um the the um overall allocation at the state level has um continuously decreased and our our share also relative to other uh districts in the state the state has um this decreased so that translates into that um change. Um and the bigger portion of the reduction is driven um by the uh innovative schools model grant state grant. Um this is a grant that is ending next year. Um so right now um we only are budgeting for the carryover uh and that is less than um what we have had in in previous years. We also have uh the AMS up grants from AMS
015up 21 um was the magnet uh grant that it's uh also spending carryover and that drives also a small portion of the reduction. As I said, um this funding has been already approved by the state based on the estimates of level funding from the federal government. The actual allocations uh we will receive them or we expect to receive receive them in the um July-August time frame. And that is just a snapshot of the detail that um you received with the board um packet. And last but not least, uh our nutrition services fund for FY27. Um the proposed nutrition services fund is approximately um 4 million higher than uh FY26, so it's a total of 72.5 million dollars. Um and the main contributions to that increase are um an estimated um growth in the revenue collected
016from uh on commodities based on what we're seeing as actual revenue from this year. And um the adjustment that happens with compensation as we incorporate the salary step increase and cost of living from the prior year. Um there's also a small amount um increase that is anticipated due to um a commodity product um rebate um that is incorporated in there. But really um nothing out of the ordinary um from prior years. And that is just a snapshot of what the details that you already have. So with that, I know it's a lot of information, but I'm going to uh turn it back over to committee chair and open it up for questions. >> Thank you, Chief Robles. I'm going to open the floor for uh questions. Uh and the easiest way to do so is
017just to go around. We'll start with board member Tyler and make our way around. Thank you. Um I know the process of balancing a budget is extremely difficult and I understand that tough decisions must be made. Um but where I have a fundamental problem is when we make those tough decisions on the backs of our employees when there might be other options. Um our support staff provides a vital function to both students and teachers. And when they came to us like years ago talking about how some of their pay periods are light and they were having trouble paying their rent or getting groceries during those particular pay periods. Um we recognized that as a problem that we needed to try to address. And I was really thankful and I know they were very thankful that
018we did everything we could to address it and included that 2 million so that those pay periods would not be light during those two times. Um So knowing that we are now being forced to partially pay for an audit that is causing us to re-examine the current budget structure. Um and We're not I know that they originally said we were going to have to pay $1 million for this budget. It's not for the audit that is being removed from us and and then they came back and said, "Hey, we're not even going to make you pay the full amount." And so therefore that's why we got to that 470 um one. And 100. And so I'm I'm just a little concerned that if we're not being required to pay a full million dollars that we're
019that we're still choosing to take that out of our budget when there are other options. Um So I would like for us to consider some other options. Um and so one I have two and one of them is to um wait on the philanthropic starting that and I understand that the point of that is to bring in additional dollars and so that was a tough decision and that's why I have two options. Um so one of them is to wait on that which would get us 200,000 back and then the other one would be to um look at the rate of raising the stipends. So we would take the remaining amount from that meaning that we would put the stipend amount from 591,505 to 391,405. While that would mean that the stipend, percentage-wise, that we
020would raise some of those would not be as high as we had hoped or anticipated, it is possible cuz we get to decide how much we're going to There's not like a rate that we have to raise it by. We get to decide how much we're raising it by. So, it would mean that stipends would still have the opportunity to be more than they were previously, although they would not be as much as we had hoped. The stipends would still be more than they had been previously. Um and then the philanthropic arm would be something that we could put as a priority for next year. If the board thinks that that philanthropic arm is extremely important and they don't want to wait on that, then the alternative would be to take the full amount from
021the stipend. And the reason I chose that is because if I'm having to choose between increasing stipend amounts and taking away an entire day, I'm going to choose the stipend amounts every time because no teacher takes a professional day to help pay for their groceries. No teacher goes to a summer professional programming to add to their so that they can afford their rent that month. But, our our school support staff rely on their rely on what we give them to pay for those exact things. And I'm not being very eloquent about this because I feel very strongly about it and I'm I'm trying to say it in a way that it can be heard. Um So, I I apologize that I'm a little bumbling on this. But, I I really strongly believe that we need
022to keep the extra day for our support staff. Um and and then even cuz even if we take 470 out of the total amount from the stipend amounts, yeah, that's not going to be raising them by hardly anything at all, whatever's remaining in there. But it's better than nothing. And also um if we just take that whole amount out altogether, where you had said we could use that extra amount to offset part of metro pass-through charges and then reduce liability on vacant seats savings. And I understand that that's important and we have to pay attention to that. And so I'm not trying to say that that's not important. However, if it was if it was critical, we would have already budgeted for it. And so I think that to me, I think there's a different
023way to go about it. So that would be my proposal and something that I would like to hear the thoughts on from other people on the board. >> Thank you, board member Block. >> Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly um with board member Tyler. I I think I was under potentially a mistaken understanding that we don't actually that there might not be two calendar days. So we might only be able to fill one and that's not a budgetary question. That's a calendaring question. Is that correct or incorrect? Cuz if that's correct, then that's a different conversation than one that is a budgeting decision. >> I'll certainly let Chief Spencer weigh in. The team's looked at all those options. I think it's correct to say we can fit two days in, but it won't fit neatly inside the
024calendar. It'll probably be an added at least one added day either before or after the calendar starts or ends for one of those groups. Uh for some school-based groups, uh the the two days become a little bit easier. Um when I say school-based, I'm talking support employees literally housed in the school for nutrition and operations. It becomes a little little bit logistically challenging on some of those others, but Chief Spencer, if you have anything else to add? >> So, it is literally possible. >> Yes. >> Okay, that's all I need to know. >> Thank you, Board Member Maze. >> So, thank you. And so, uh Board Member Tyler raised up basically the same concerns that I had. Um going into this budget cycle, we knew that this was aspirational for these uh two days for
025our uh support staff. And my concern is when we start to decrease that, we start to there is an implication of value. And um I fear that our support staff won't feel the value if we continue to kick the can down the road. And uh I completely agree with uh with uh Board Member Tyler's uh assessments on the changes of And I'm not going to be eloquent either, so I can tell you that right now. Um can reconsidering the philanthropic services arm um could potentially provide some support in that area. Uh decreasing the stipend amounts could also su- provide some support in that area. My my biggest concern is that even though the discussions were aspirational, um we have folks that are um depending on us to continue to support them. And while it may
026not I won't say that it doesn't make a difference, but um the difference in 1 day or 2 days to some people will make a huge difference in what they're able to do in their households. And I definitely want to remind us that without these individuals, we we can't really run our schools the way we need to. Our children's are dependent on the support team and they deserve to be paid for what they're doing. We value them and we need to show them that we value them. So I would I would urge us to reconsider removing that extra day. That may not seem on paper like it's a lot, but it's a big deal to a lot of our team members. So thank you. >> Thank you, board member player. Chair player. >> Um So
027for the exceptional pay, can you just review one more time what was that What are the examples of that will be covered under the exceptional pay? The No. The ex Uh The The stipend amount. Sorry. So that's more like just PD So that would be extra stipends for certificated staff to do to do what? Like Does that make sense? I'm I feel like the inarticulate virus is coming down the row. >> [laughter] >> We have two rates that go within that. So one is exception pay at an hourly rate, which has been $25 an hour for 12 to 15 years, I believe. And the other is a daily rate. So if they're doing PD during the summertime, when we give them the five days that they can work, that's an $85 a day rate. Um
028and we had looked at increases on both those lines upwards to $35 for the hourly rate and upwards to $100 for the daily rate. >> So this would be PD for >> me >> Please. >> Yeah, let me Let me zoom out a little bit cuz I don't want to get this mis- misconstrued. When we're We're about exception pay and professional um um stipend pay for educators. This is the rate at which they are compensated for professional development and professional learning, which is essential to their jobs. And they do depend on particularly also during breaks and summer as well. So, I just want to clarify that piece that that exception pay um either through PD stipends or the extra pay that they work beyond normal school hours um is an essential function to their jobs
029as well. >> Thank you. Um And when we say reduced liability on vacancy savings, can we Can you Can you explain that again for the public what that means? >> Yes. So, um right now in our budget um and you can see it in the in the detail line item um there is an amount which right now is um approximately um $18 million, which is essentially um what we call vacancy savings. So, we understand that throughout the year we aim to hire all positions and have all positions filled, but that doesn't always work out that way. Um so, there are savings because I don't know a person that we anticipate to hire in July may be hired in October or you know, a position may take longer to fill. So, there are savings that are
030harvested that way that we essentially leverage to optimize our budget that essentially are considered as part of our budget. They Right now, the amount that we have budgeted, which is a line at the end of budget which which close to 18 million is anchored on essentially all the monitoring and and evaluation that we do of our historical vacancy rates on both teacher and support staff. So, we aim to be at a conservative rate of you know, we assume a conservative vacancy rate to say we do not want to use more than that amount. Um if we start increasing the dependency on that, then we are increasing the liability to say, well, if we hire more, which we want to, then we have a bigger problem because essentially you're spending more than than what we do.
031So, by directing this amount there, it help is it not only help us manage next year's budget, but it help us manage future budgets because essentially it you know, it essentially compounds unless you get an injection of of cash. Okay. Thank you. Um This was my frustration with the audit. Um this is why um I know I advocated for the postponement of the audit um and and how it was paid for um for various reasons. Um especially that since the audit does not have a scope or a objective um and the vagueness of it um and even how it would be who would implement it. There was a lot of unanswered questions that put us in this tough put this would put the position back on us or tough position back on us. Um that
032wasn't fully um that wasn't fully thought through. Um And one of the reasons why, you know, we wanted a postponement to give us time to um really understand the implications of it and then also um give us time to really have a thorough conversation of what information's already there that we already have through third-party sources within our own information and our own assessments and our own data points that we keep um with it. So um I do have a frustration of that and the cause of that. Um Part of me I'm open to the options of that board member Tyler said. Um I'm a little hesitant of the philanthropic arm cuz I believe once we set that up, the money that will come back and that it can do and that that could help bring
033in income for the revenue for the school, whether it be grants or partnerships or things like that. Um and I think starting that sooner than later helps get revenues in sooner than um sooner than later. The um the exceptional um the stipend increase stipend amount you know, you we want our employees to be um doing professional development. Um that's important to be on top to continue the growth that we've done, continue continuing the um improvements that were done. Um If I had to make a choice between the two I'll lean towards more the increased stipend amount. Um I don't like it cuz this is both pay on both on both parts. Um but I guess my thought is would be uh if I had to choose would be more of the increased stipend amount over
034the Philip philanthropic arm services. Um just really seeing the benefit that has happened over the past couple years um with um the improvements to Percy Priest Lakeview and Paragon Mills. Um the effort that the community did, you know, to raise was it 70 56 million in 3 months or not even was it or 50 It was 5 million in like 76 days or something. >> Okay, sorry. It's 76 days. I don't know. >> Some number of six and seven. Yes, 6 million. Yes, I'm getting the millions and the days mixed up which is very important to get correct. Um and then I mean that was actual tangible results that made a difference. Um and so having philanthropic arm would help if we could do that, you know, in the future. Um So that's my initial
035thoughts. I'm still processing but that's that's where I am. >> Thank you, Board Member Fain. Okay, Board Member Elrod. >> Thank you. Um my response is seemingly quite different from my colleagues. So if we are trying to find an essence an additional million ask dollars to focus on employee compensation which we have historically said as a board is our number one priority for the past several years. The most obvious place to make sure that it's more than funded would be the Hillwood Early Learning Center seats. Um I understand that those seats are desired, that they are the quadrant that does not have those seats. I also understand according to some previous questions that I asked about it that pre-K expansion has been a long-standing district goal. I don't disagree with that goal. Um, I mean,
036I was a early childhood major. I very much believe in the power of pre-K and how it has academic coherence and it's deeply desired by our families, including that we have over 1,400 people on the waitlist and then the majority of them are in that Southwest quadrant. And that we cannot build on to the Antioch and Cane Ridge clusters. However, those are priorities for the board, but it has not been the main priority of the board. And the main priority of our board has always been employee compensation. And so my feeling would be that that would be the most natural place to go. Additionally, if we are supposed to be considering our purchases and our um, operating budget based upon what is the actual return on investment and what makes the most sense, are we
037performing at the level that they think that we should be performing at and that seems to not be obvious somehow to them. I would think pre-K seats is a place that they would have a problem with as the ROI for that is incredibly hard to prove. Doing a performance audit is tedious for many reasons. But the biggest reason is is performance audits are typically done by auditors that have no performance experience. They have They are not performance consultants. They have not gone through the Academy of training and training and development. They have They are not They don't know what they're looking for a lot of times and what is the end performance goal. What is the ROI measure that they are trying to indicate? With pre-K, that's going to be something long-standing besides just parental
038happiness, quite frankly. And that's hard to value. And if we are looking ahead and being concerned about this now audit that's standing over us, and the message was kind of provided to us of we need to spend our money on direct services um because of performance needs, those are things that we do we don't have to provide pre-K seats. We are doing that purely because it's the best practice. And we are doing that purely from our funding from the city. Um and so if the city is telling us that's not the priority for them, maybe it's worth listening to. Now, I don't think that's a long good term. Um I don't like this option. I wish it wasn't a discussion I was having. But it seems to be the most obvious uh to me. And
039again, I don't like the conversation. I am grateful to have pre-K seats in the Southeast district. I know how valuable those are to families, not only as a family member that took advantage of them, but also through my constituents. They're obviously very valuable because we they're so large now we can't even build onto them. That's how valuable they are to families. And there's a huge conversation within the city of how there's a desperate need for child care, whether that's high-quality child care like a true pre-K or something day care. And we do have a responsibility to do some of that. Um but that seems to be if we're trying to do something different, that seems to be the place that I would consider. More so than removing the philanthropic services arm, I think that that
040is short-sided. Um I mean, admittedly, removing pre-K seats is also a bit short I mean, all of these options are short-sided when I get right down to it. Quite frankly, they're all short-sided, but with my hand being forced, I think the philanthropic services arm has the highest possibility of generating more value and that strategically would do us potentially more fiscal harm. Maybe they'd be able to do some better work, find some better grants for pre-K. You know, we were all frankly hoping for pre-K to be expanded nationally and that's a whole long gone conversation. Um the talent strategy of exception pay admittedly uh between the the finite differences between the different kinds of exception pay and the other conversations we've had here, I just want to make sure that that's done appropriately and I trust
041our staff to do that. Um but I feel like little I'm a little lost in the sauce of some of the conversations here at the board. Um my biggest concern of course is that if we're trying to get to the two days, which we've been requested to do and I know that's been a big goal for us, if we feel like that's what we're trying to do as a board, it that seems the pre-K seats seems pre-K seats seems to be the most obvious place to start. My only follow-up question to that, may I ask a follow-up question since this is discussion, is the current plan at Hillwood of course includes the build-out, includes pre-K seats and it other expansion opportunities including a health center and other things. But I know that's in the future
042because Hillwood will be used as a holding space for some elementary schools and I apologize if I don't reme- I don't remember exactly which school that I'm That was I was going to say West Mead but that was Thank you. I was afraid to say West Mead and then be like very wrong and then people would quote me and then they'd be like West Mead is getting something. So thank you. Um I understand that that's going to be the holding place for West Mead and that seems like a good option. Um so what are the long-term plans for those pre-K seats and what is the impact? I guess this is more than one question, I apologize. What is the impact if we choose not to do it this year? What's the long-term strategic impact to
043that besides it's going to be held off years. Like, financially, how does that become more expensive for us? How does that impact? How does that What does that do for us? I don't know who I'm asking that to. Um Dr. Battle, you want to start off? >> Yes, Rachel, I need you to repeat your question for me please. >> Sure. It was multi-level. >> Just just the end. Yeah, just the end of it. >> It's basically, what's the long-term plan at Hillwood? What's the long-term plan and if we don't do the pre-K seats this year, but we prioritize them next years next in the hopefully next year, what is the What would we lose? What would be the effect of that? >> Um yes, so that as you mentioned, there's a larger term um vision
044for the Hillwood um campus. Um right now it is around expanding the pre-K seats and building out an early learning center in the Southwest quadrant. Part of the building is said to be um maintained and set up for um the transition space once we get to the capital um budget um spending plan for West Mead um uh elementary as well as some other early learning center um space there. Um to Silver, please remember the child minute if I'm forgetting something. It's a major part um of of that build out. And to your question, I mean, the I guess if we uh halted um that, then um because it is a need, um we would definitely be looking to bring that back um as aspirational budget item in next year's budget. >> Does it put the
045usage of that building in any type of danger or our ownership of that building in any kind of danger? >> Um it could um based upon the new utilization um requirements. Um if there is a delay or definitely a longer term delay, it could put it at risk for that. But feel free to reach out to me or Chief Bracy to chime in if needed. >> Talked about all that Samara. Um we um we do have since we do have a plan for the use of that school as a temporary school for for for emergency uses and for the replacement of West Meade. That does keep us in the schooling there. And that does meet the requirements that you're referencing. And we also will be utilizing part of that school for our special ed department.
046We're building out offices there. So and we'll also have special ed students and services there as well. So so we'll be we'll be okay on that. We are already in construction for the early childhood centers the beginning of that work now. So we'll be we'll be ready when we can operationalize it. >> Okay. Okay. So the building is not in immediate concern but it is obviously something we would need to reprioritize in future years. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you uh board member Taylor. >> Good afternoon everybody. Um I had just a couple of questions. Um the first question that I have is around the the last line on the budget document that you gave us that talks about the reduced um property the is the pass-through. Can you just explain what that is? I
047know that um, we had some savings with the pass-through, but why is that savings not being realized in the same way? >> So, every year, um, there's an an amount that we get, um, called the metro pass-through charges. So, for IT services, uh, radio, there's a number of things. That amount, um, was essentially allocated or communicated to us after the budget, uh, initial [clears throat] allocation. So, essentially, when we balance the budget, there's a $3.6 million when we first brought this to you. That essentially we needed to figure out how to cover that. The way that we can cover a portion of that is by leveraging vacancy savings, as I was explaining before, um, Chair Player asked. Um, putting all that amount increases the pressure, you know, increases the the liability on the vacancy savings.
048So, by essentially, uh, apportioning, reducing that amount, um, by the $500,000 or so, um, helped us essentially be in a better position for this year and future years on how much are we depending on vacancy savings, um, to balance the budget. So, let me just Oh, go ahead. >> Well, and I will also want to add to that, we've it's been a somewhat of a strategy over a number of the years, but if everyone recalls the last few years, we've had pretty historic lows, um, in vacancies. And so, with that trending in that direction, it's something that, um, where we've been a little more aggressive around. We've got a, um, really, um, look at the trends and be more mindful around what truly could be realized through those target savings. >> That's a disagree for
049me cuz we have actively been working to reduce that. Because we are actively working on getting all the positions filled as early as possible so then the dependency needs to decrease. >> Got it. I just you know, I see you know, $3 million that that we're reducing our dependency on for this year. Is there a way to spread that out over the next few years to be able to cobble together the other million dollars that we would need to keep that day. I think you know, from what I'm hearing from my colleagues that we want to keep the additional day. I know we do forecast and so forth. And I'm sure you probably forecasted that we may have wanted to keep that extra day as a board. And so like what is another option for
050us in order to make that happen? >> So I mean what the option that we presented to you is the result of the collective evaluation of of this leadership team considering all the pros and cons of the different strategic investments. And in that calculus is also the assessment around you know how do we you know increase in the liability of leveraging vacancy savings when we are pushing our principals to you know, do the best that they can to hire everybody have all of the positions filled. We have a responsibility to also reduce the liability to be able to meet essentially the efforts of their work and not create a problem for the district. So, um in terms of of recommendation, what we put forward um to this board is what we think is the best
051um approach at this moment. Um we are building towards a better solution for our um staff support and work calendar by adding an additional day that didn't doesn't exist currently. Um it, you know, it we can work towards, like we've done many other investments, continue to build towards improving those conditions down the road, but at least we're taking a a step in the right direction. Like we're not essentially cutting anything. We're adding, which is not adding as much as we had originally brought forward. >> Okay. Um you know, this is a this is frustrating only because um you know, I I see we have a council member here in the uh in the room tonight. Um but our Metro Council made a decision that put us in this situation um with very limited time to
052do the research and the work to be able to uh make an adjustment like this. Um and we sit in their meetings and listen to them and try to figure out how we can work together and so forth. Um Now, I'm just on my soapbox, y'all. I didn't get a chance to say this. Um we wrote a letter and all of that, but I just want to say I'm very frustrated by the way that we've been treated by Metro Council uh through this process. And being put in a situation like this uh where really I just don't feel like they recognize um the responsibility that we have as a school board uh to manage uh these resources and then also um to not be accountable uh for the decisions that they made and how it
053impacts us and the work that we're forced to do um based on the decisions that they make. And so I just wanted to voice that publicly that um >> [clears throat] >> you know, we work very hard here as school board members to ensure that this district is operating effectively, that uh we are living up to the standard that we have of every student known and that we are holding um the director of schools accountable for the work that she's been tasked to do. Um and so for the Metro Council to then come in and um quite frankly operate as our state operates and make decisions for us um is very challenging. And so I want to just publicly say that and um like I said before, I'm not hard to find if uh if
054they want to respond and uh would like to have some dialogue and conversation about uh what it looks like to collaborate so that we can do what's in the best interest of all Nashvillians, especially the employees that serve our schools every day. Um I'm more than open for those conversations. Um so back to the business at hand. Um I am like-minded with uh my colleague uh Rachel Anne Elrod that um if we are still working to build out the uh pre-K site uh and we have uh a use for that building already in mind that will allow us to maintain that facility um I would like to see some savings from the uh the pre-K programming. Um, and my question around that is um we have $2 million allocated to that pre-K program. If we
055were to reduce that >> 1.1 >> Oh, I'm sorry. It's 1.1. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'm sorry. Oh, you know what? I need my readers on. Sorry. Um, I'm looking at the before and aftercare. Okay, so then the um would that allow us to have at least some funding that would go towards the preparation for that pre-K program going forward into the future if that was something that we were to prioritize in next year's budget. So, my question is will we be able to put some funding towards the pre-K programming that would at least prepare us going forward? Is the Those are construction funds. Is Is that what I'm hearing? Go ahead. >> So, I'm happy to kick off and team feel free to chime in. So, there's a separation between the capital um renovation
056that's happening there to get ready for the ELC and the operational which is mostly around um people and personnel to actually run the site. Um, if we move in that direction, we can look at what our options are to begin to move things forward in that space um including some of the instructional supplies and equipment and resources that would be necessary based upon the funding that is left. Um, but the majority of it just like our operating budget and in general is usually people. Um, and so we could balance it out that way if that is the decision um that we choose to move forward. >> I think that's all the questions I have for now. I appreciate the uh the answers. >> We're going to go back to board member Fain, but before we
057do so uh for the viewing audience, it's 4:59 currently. Our general board meeting starts at 5:00, but we're going to extend this budget meeting um to finish up. Uh so board member Fain. >> Thank you. Um first and foremost uh I piggyback off of Rachel um when I when we talk about the importance of pre-K. Um I don't know if anyone else has looked at childcare um prices these days, but I would assume that it's very important and highly on the radar of our neighborhood that we get this done. Um yeah. So I mean it's it's for numerous reasons important that we do this. I did notice, however, that we're allocating 4 million higher towards the nutrition service budget, and so I had a question in regards to that. Are we getting a new vendor?
058What what what is that I saw that there was some like I guess funding for like uh increases in raises or something like that for the for the staff maybe, but I'm like was it for like why did it raise so much from last year to this year? 4 million is a big jump. >> That is essentially a Go ahead. >> Go ahead, Chief Robles. >> It's essentially a primarily driven by commodity that we get essentially from the federal government, so it's a combination of volume expected to be served as well as when they adjust the prices. So, it's a it's a product of child nutrition is for all intents and purposes a self-funded operation. So, it doesn't really generate revenue that we then distribute across other efforts. It's mainly driven by reimbursement like almost
05970% of it is reimbursement of meals from USDA that we serve and then get reimbursed for. And then the rest are reimbursable programs like supper or summer feeding that we do and then there's a portion that it is to fund the no-cost meal for the students. >> So, the price was driven by the number of students as well as the products that are being used. >> USDA sets the reimbursement the reimbursement price per meal. >> Mhm. >> And then is how many meals that we anticipate to get reimbursed for, you know, like how many meals we're going to serve. Then that multiple is what how much we expect to get back. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, we're going to do one more round. Um board member Tyler. >> Great. Um in defense of the
060pre-K um for multiple reasons, but you had talked about how you can't really find a return of investment on pre-K and I'm going to push back on that cuz there are actually a lot of studies that do show a return on investment for pre-K. In 2019 there was one in Boston where they actually had this really cool opportunity because they did a lottery system for their pre-K students and so it wasn't predicated on which area of town you lived in. It was truly randomized and they found that up the kids who got those seats versus the kids who didn't and there were similar groups because it was a mixture for everybody and then they followed them all the way up through into college. And they found that um the kids who went to pre-K showed
061a 6% higher graduation rate from high school and an 8% higher college enrollment over students who didn't attend pre-K. And then somebody has put in funding to follow those students even further into life, but that's still ongoing. So, we don't know the outcome of that. Um there was a Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman who has done a lot of research into return on investment on pre-K's. And they have found that um in a particular program that he studied that the return on investment for that was 7 to 10% per year, which is roughly more than the stock market would give you. And so, to me that shows that we are being able to show that. And something else that I think is really interesting about pre-K is that it doesn't always equate to higher
062test scores, but it does equate to better life outcomes. And so, if we're looking at what do we want to get for our students out of school, I don't care if their test score is the highest in the world as long as their life outcome is what they want for themselves. And so, Heckman did another study and he found that the pre-K kids were less likely to get arrested, they were less likely to get on welfare, they were less likely to be unemployed as adults. And they um were they earned more than the kids who did not have any pre-K programs. And um so, again to me these are the things that that have the greatest impact. And it really comes from kind of those soft skills that you're right are hard to put a
063number to. Um but when you're teaching those soft skills of self-determination and grit and um are you able to persevere, are you able to have self-control, are you able to make yourself able to hear what somebody else is saying and and can you focus yourself and learn? A lot of those are skills that when they get them as young as they can, as in pre-K, it positively impacts them for life. And Heckman's research not only found that it helped families the kids who went to pre-K were able to, you know, have better jobs, get paid more, and not be on welfare, all those good things, not go to jail, all those really good things we would like to see for our um future. But also, they found that this the kids of the kids who
064went to preschool also had better life outcomes. So, it's generational because once you have those skills, you're able to then teach them to your offspring. And so, I would I would push back on that saying there is absolutely a return on investment for pre-K, and one that I would not want to take away. Um so, I would again say my preference would be to um look at the stipend amounts instead of taking away the pre-K seats at Hillwood. Um and now, my questions for you for the second round. Um have we ever overextended when we've had to use our vacancy savings? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay, have we ever come close? Like, do we have a number where we were like, "Oh, this was really scary. We were we almost didn't make
065it."? >> Um I would have to look back since since I don't have a lot of, you know, years to speak to. But I don't know Dr. Battle. >> Yeah, Yeah, I I can speak to that. Um and and to your point, in in prior to our chief role list, we have had years um where it has been extremely close um based upon the aggressiveness um and what we budgeted for target assistance. >> Okay. Um but at this point, we have never overextended using those savings. Again, I am not saying we should always rely on them. I do think it is important for us to build in some fail-safes there. I I absolutely understand why you would like to put money into that. But I don't necessarily think that we should build in some flexibility
066for might happen things on the backs of existing support staff that have asked for this and have told us about this issue for years and years. Um and so knowing that although we have come close, we have never in in your time being the chief um financial officer, we have never come close to overextending with our vacancy savings. I think that that is a gamble I'm willing to take for another year to um >> The The consideration [clears throat] that I would add um that is part of the equation is that uh there's a lot of variability on the revenue that comes from the state. Especially um voucher reductions as well as growth of um approved charters by the state. That's another factor that we consider on We predict that there is a revenue that
067will come from the state, but um legislation keeps proving us wrong on their additional things that get passed that take more out of the revenue. So, it's not just on the burden, you know, on on this aspect of it. It's also on um decrease revenue then then we need that safety net to manage. >> I get I absolutely agree. >> echo that. I think the context has also changed um given that obviously both at the state and the federal level. And so, while we had past sustainability and continuity, that is not there um currently for that predictive measure to account for um the balance of the budget. And just just for clarity in language, this is actually not putting money in somewhere. Mhm. Um It's just accounting for so I just I just wanted to
068be clear about that. This is not like a allocated budget line item. It's the consideration of where there could be given the pass-through and the vacancy rate throughout the course of the year. >> Understood. Thank you. Um Again, and I understand that circumstances are changing year to year. However, I think that our our people here and now are more important than than something that we are are worried about when we do already have the ability to have that. And I'm not saying we shouldn't look at it in the future. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to do build in something for it more in the future. I don't have an issue with that whatsoever because you're absolutely right with everything you said. I don't disagree with you one bit. Um but to me that's not
069a higher priority than meeting the needs of the people that we are elected to represent. Um >> Yeah, and I'll if I can just um share like one of the thought processes around the proposed is also trying to consider how through the aspirational um priorities you could keep we actually could keep everything moving in a positive direction. And so, not at the sake of because we all know and believe that every educator, support services certificated, are critically important to the work we do in educating our students. We definitely are not in a position of wanting to pit anyone um role against another. Everyone is critically important, but also thinking about both PD investments, how we could continue to improve and move the needle for all educators. Um as a result of what was proposed. So,
070just wanted to like very difficult conversation. I echo the comments that have already been shared. This is also a downfall of the budget and process which we'll come back to, which we've been able to not be in this particular situation. We can talk about that at a later date because we've been able to pass a budget. Um but I understand the tension across um the board with regards to how we come to terms with balance in this budget given the aspirations, given the improvements, given the care um that we all want to provide for all of our employees and our families. >> Um so one last thing I wanted to say um when I'm looking at the difference if it because I believe that if we're looking at stipend amounts and and chair player had
071said that she believes that she would like to keep the philanthropic services arm in there. I am fine with supporting that. Um if we want to take the full amount out of the stipend amounts, that is that is a decision that I'm happy to support. It's one that I I offered off originally. Um and I think your reasoning is very valid and so that's why I offered two separate Um so one thing I did want to say about the difference between the stipend amounts, the exception pay versus um the support staff extra day. Um while I do think that it is important to compensate our teachers and and staff for taking professional development days, I think it is extremely important to recognize that those are necessary for them to do. I took them when I
072was a teacher. I absolutely encourage current teachers and support staff to use them. Um but however, it is still above and beyond their base pay. It is still it is not in lieu of their base pay. It is above and beyond um especially when you're in the summer time if that's what you're doing, you're taking those days, then then that is in addition to your 12-month payout plan that you already are getting. So if you chose not to go to something that one day, you're not losing money for going to it. You're just not gaining money. Um so, to me it's not it's it's not going to it's going to be something that adds to as opposed to um is making them have tough decisions about using the pay money that they have about whether
073or not they can afford their groceries or pay their rent or those things. However, the support staff has told us on multiple occasions over multiple years that these two pay periods are so light that they literally cannot afford groceries during those pay periods. They have told us this. That is their base pay. This is not above and beyond. We have to make sure that we're supporting the people who support us. >> but we got to get around the room one more time if you don't mind me stopping and >> I think we should take the money from increasing the stipend amounts and I think we should leave the extra two days for our um for our people that support our students. >> Thank you. >> Um so, okay. >> I'm sorry before you move forward,
074if we can kind of short >> to make a proposal. I'm happy to take a vote. I think >> No, can can I just make one amendment for friendly amendment I think? Cuz I actually want you to make your proposal cuz I don't totally understand what we're talking about, but here's what I know. We need to find a million dollars because we're going to fund from what I've heard of every comment, we're going to fund two days for support staff. Everyone is in It seems as though everyone's pretty well in agreement on that. Am I I mean I'm not I don't need to ask that question cuz we'll deal with that in a vote. Am I correct in assuming we need to pass a budget tonight, which means we need to vote now on something?
075Like we don't have time to go, oh well, let's go back and you guys can You know the sentiment of the board now more clearly, come back with a proposal that clearly funds our two days, but also gives us something else. I mean cuz I I think we can move forward if that's the case, but I just want to know like I'm assuming we got to do this tonight. I don't And let me answer the question in a second. I don't know the same as y'all. I don't appreciate I don't like being put in the position of having to hash this out in this way because these are very difficult decisions to make and we're choosing between funding the future of our kids and funding our staff. Okay, right? That no one enjoys being put
076in that position by choices made at the council level. Yet at the same time they are a funding body and they do get to make these types of choices. It would be nice if we could all work together in the process leading up to this so we're not in this position. That could have happened a variety of different ways and did not. So let me just have said that. So, do we need to pass a budget tonight? Therefore, I mean I'm wondering if we go ahead my amendment to your my friendly amendment I think would be if we can slow down anything the pre-K such that we move forward the stuff we need to move forward on but if there's like some savings we could grab there for the next year and fund in the
077following year so that we can have so that we can put that into the stipend pay. But otherwise, I'm fine with the proposal that you suggested. So let me stop there. I've gone in four different directions. We have We have to pass this tonight. >> Board needs to adopt a budget, yes. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay, so So that would be my friendly amendment. >> So before we get to that point, I just we we got a couple of questions around here. We're going to hold your proposal and we'll come back to it. Um, board member Block, uh, Mays Elrod Taylor Player >> Okay. >> Honestly, I think at this point I just uh have a couple of things that I want to say. Uh, we clearly are feeling the frustration at this table tonight.
078And that frustration and I'm going to say this out loud because I think it's important. Um while Metro Council is our funding body, uh there were ample opportunities to have this discussion in person. They were literally invited to two different budget meetings where these conversations could have been had before it ended in a proposed audit. And um I know I attended one of those meetings that was held on this property and four Metro Council members showed up out of the 40-member body. Four members showed up. And uh that could have This conversation could very easily have been avoided if we'd had those conversations earlier. Um one other thing that I will say is at this point I think it is um basically [clears throat] irresponsible for uh Metro Council members to publicly share information that
079is uh incorrect in an effort to what it seems to be an effort for them to support the decision to move forward with this audit that will ultimately negatively impact our uh support staff. So, um I understand that we have to uh approve a budget and uh I will not be any less frustrated about that budget than I am right now. And I do I will encourage Metro Council members to um come to the table and work with us going forward so that we can avoid this type of situation in the future. >> Thank you, board member Elrod. >> Thank you, thank you, superintendent. >> Thank you. Um Okay. I You're not going to get any arguments argument from me that there's not value in pre-K seats. I'm saying that I mean I'm well aware
080of all the studies that are mentioned. Uh that is a professional and personal deep interest of mine in early childhood and school preparedness. It is a whole child approach that is valuable in many different ways, whether monetarily or not. Extremely valuable, worth investing in. What I'm saying is that council does not feel like it's worth investing in, or they would not push it, um particularly considering the person that wanted the audit the most comes from that district. I also should say that that quadrant has received an exceptional amount of investments as of recent. And so, I feel like it could be paused. Um if we're trying to find a million dollars, again, reducing the increased stipend amounts of 5915 doesn't get us to a million dollars. We still have another half. So, if we're trying
081to get to a million, and that sounds like what we're trying to do, so that we can get back from uh slide 14 that says we want to re- repurpose the million dollars from reduced aspirational budget items to offset the reduction of the operating budget and the 530 that offsets the pass-through on vacancy settings. If we're trying to get to that, then the pre-K seats, again, seem to make the most sense. So, if there is confusion there, I would like to say that that is because that we have not been fully informed of that clearly. And that again goes along with my frustration from within, not just the council, but within our own body. We should have better clarification on what the amount of money is. It also should be known for our staff that
082they should not be in this difficult perception or difficult perce- situation, position. Uh thank you so much of trying to say what it is that we want. They are not mind readers. And we have all come to a very different conclusion than what is on this piece of paper. And we've gone way over time, and none of that is acceptable. And we should have known more. I am disappointed in that. I do not understand how we are not clear on what we are looking for. And how there is this much confusion. I also do not understand why there's a discussion about an amendment when there's not even a motion on this floor. We are to follow the rules. >> We haven't gotten to a proposal yet to >> I am making a motion. My motion
083is to move on. >> we do so, No, we have to move on to the next person. And then we will come back up for a motion. Yes. If you if you would just bear with me, please. Thank you. Board member Taylor. >> All right. I just have three quick things. Um on this return on investment, yes, there's a return on investment for pre-K. We all know that. That's why we want to invest on in it. Um but there's also a return on investment in keeping our word to support our staff, right? And so when I think about that, the I think about how do we equitably distribute resources. That's part of our job, right? And I think about the investments that have been made in that cluster over the past several years um through
084new buildings and other support that we provided in that area. And I think that the investment in our staff is one that is going to be felt across the entire district. And so I'll my suggestion is that we look at postponing the pre-K because we know that that's something that we want to do. Um right now we don't have the time that we would like to have to really discuss what some of the other options are as far as maybe piecemealing this the amount of money that we need in order to provide the second day. Um if we had more time, we probably could come up with a better solution. Um However, I do know that um utilizing the funding from that pre-K program uh would get us to where we need to be. It
085would be to me, it would be an equitable redistribution of the funds because it would support our staff. Um we have made some very uh major investments in that part of town uh over the past few years uh that haven't been made in other parts. They haven't been made in other parts of town. I I know because I'm in District 1. And so, I want to make sure that when we think about those uh the way that we allocate the funds, that that's what we're doing. And the other piece is I'm just have a question about the $200,000 for the philanthropic arm. Is there a way to leverage other partnerships to be able to achieve that same goal by working with um organizations like PENCIL and so forth, people that support Metro Schools already? And
086that's just a question that I have. Is there a way to leverage other partnerships to be able to accomplish that goal? >> One of the >> [clears throat] >> One of the things that this investment does is to allow us to actually build the capacity to leverage the partnerships as well as the opportunities that exist so that we have dedicated capacity to actually go after the opportunities, have a focused approach to, you know, leverage the partnership with PENCILS, with, you know, Align Nashville, and other organizations, and other philanthropic sources that we haven't been able to explore because there isn't a dedicated philanthropic arm. So, everything that we've learned from other um districts around the country that do this well. One of the first recommendations that they make is you got to build an arm that
087actually focuses on doing that. >> Thank you. So, if you could give me just a moment. So, we have a couple of thank you you all for your comments and your feedback. Some of the things that have come out of this discussion, one I want to clarify um Chief Robles, what is the what is the amount that we are being reduced by? Is it 471? >> $407,100. >> 100, right? That we're looking at and we were looking to remove that one day of support staff to to account for that 470,000 and then take the remainder to help with um offsetting >> the the liability >> the liabilities, correct? All right, so I want to make a recommendation. This is a pretty intense meeting that is going to require um potentially more discussion and thought because
088we're not clear at as to where we are. Dr. Battle, what is the deadline to pass a budget for this for this FY 26? Is it June 30th? >> Yeah. Yes, it's June 30th. >> Yes. Um our fiscal year starts on July 1. >> On July 1. I do want to open this question for the board and for you, Dr. Battle, the potential of calling a specially called meeting to give you time to go back and look at a couple of the proposals that we potentially want to recommend. Um and we're doing it would have to be next week. >> I I think it depends on what the >> is. Some of these are pretty simple. >> Yeah. >> Um some maybe not so much. So >> So the >> depends. >> Thank you. So
089a couple of proposals that have come out of this is one removing pre-K seats and potentially allocating the remaining funds from the 1.107 to either pre-K or to the uh the other allocation that we were going to do with removing the support staff. The second recommendation was um removing stipend amounts. Um and then the third I think a third recommendation was around philanthropic services arms. Um that one I think the board really wants to keep from what I hear as the consensus. So your two is that pre-K seat as well as the the stipend amounts. >> Do you have a proposal to have a discussion on? >> Yeah. >> There's no motion on the floor. So >> Sure. >> I move that we make that we take the $470,100 from the increased stipend amounts instead
090of taking it from the support staff calendar. >> Um I'll second. >> All right. So we have a motion and we have a second. Um Do we want to open it Yeah, we're going to open any discussion, any comments, questions? >> I just want >> Uh my one Can I say something since I'm the one who made the motion? >> Yes. >> Great. We are the only quadrant that does not have a pre-K center. >> Okay. >> And to insinuate or flat out say that we are getting more money than the other districts is just not true. If we look I'm not I'm not going to go through it because of time, but we I'm happy to look through this with you which is this we've gotten a new high school. We've had West Meads
091been on here for over a decade. We don't have a pre-K center whereas every other quadrant has a pre-K center and I don't like this idea that we are being that it is unequitable because we are not we are getting more than other quadrants. To me that whether that's an insinuation or you're just flat out saying that I would like to see you just show me those numbers because I do not believe that. I would love to see them because I don't think we're getting more operational dollars than other districts and I don't and we are absolutely not getting any sort of help with pre-K when the vast majority of the seat requests are coming from our area. And we're the only one who doesn't have that. >> Thank you. Any other Board member Mays.
092>> Yeah, I just have a clarifying question on your motion. Um do we need to in that motion say that uh the $470,100 move from one um move from the stipends to directly to support the one additional one day? Because it was just a reallocation. >> No, I'm I'm saying that we do not take any money away from we don't have to take a million dollars out of the budget. >> No, no, I know. I understand that. I'm just asking for clarification on your motion. >> So, my motion is to not pass the proposed this and instead only remove $470,100 from our total budget as opposed to removing 1 million. Only remove the required amount and to get that money from the stipend amounts as opposed to That's what my >> And do what with
093it? That's my question. >> And use that to pay for the audit. >> Thank you. That's That's where I was going with that. That's what wasn't clear with me. So, thank you. >> Board member Elrod. >> So, the 530 to offset part of Metro's pass-through charges and reduce our liability on vacancy savings, that would uh that would or would not exist in this hypothetical. >> In mine, it would not exist because it did not exist in our original one. >> Correct. But, it is still a good We need to be doing that. We need to be offsetting our pass-through charges and we absolutely need to be reducing our liability on vacancy savings. I think that is just good financial planning, particularly considering the ongoing costs that we're going to have with charter growth and the
094potential 11 million coming up with vouchers. Um if it doesn't become more than that, I think that was the last digit we got the last amount. Um so, that just seems like good financial health is to make sure reducing or not including that within the I'm saying 1 million dollars and it sounds like we have just a difference in agreement on the amount that needs to be found. I believe it needs to be a million dollars to offset the reduction, but also to offset that pass-through and to reduce our liability on vacancy savings uh just for best financial health. That's how I'm coming back to my number um so that we're not using up our savings and the other question that was had before. So, I just wanted to make sure that we were clear
095that the 530 would not be happening. Okay. Does anyone have any other question clarifying questions on the proposal? All right. Or the motion. All right. So, we're going to go ahead and take a vote on the motion. Uh if you Yes, I'm going to have to ask her. Um uh board member Tyler, if you could restate the motion. Yes, instead of the proposed budget, I would like to propose that we only remove $470,100 to pay for the audit and that that money comes from the stipend increased stipend amounts. Our All right, that motion has been said and second. Um all of those in favor of board member Tyler's motion, please raise your hand. All of those against, please raise your hands. All right, that motion uh fails. So, we're going to go on to the
096next proposal. Um I think that there was a proposal to remove or motion. Yes, I think that I'm sorry, we're going to entertain a motion um by board member Elrod. My motion is to remove the aspirational investment of 1.107734 for pre-K seats at Hillwood Early Learning Center just for this year ideally. My motion is to remove those in order to repurpose that million dollars to offset the reduction of the operating budget and to offset the pass-through charges and reduce the liability of agency savings. >> Second. >> So the motion has been made and it has been seconded by board member Tyler Taylor. We'll open it up for discussion. Go ahead. So again, I have kind of made my reasonings there. I think it's just going to be a decision upon us as a board on
097if we want to save the million dollars or if we think it needs to be less than and we want to do the we don't care about the liability of agency savings. We want to we don't care about reducing that. And so I think I've made all my the rest of my points. I know that that's probably going to be the the strongest sticking point that seems to be between all of us is how much are we trying to find. Um Okay. Um we have a clarifying question on that 1.107. There was two discussions that came out of that. One was to reduce that to take that entire amount reduce it by 470,000 to allocate towards the audit. The other remaining would be attributed to the vacancy savings that we're looking to have. The second
098option on that recommendation was to continue to reduce it by 470 and the remainder remain with pre-K uh, for future investments. Um, I think that was part of the the conversation that we had earlier. >> That's not what I understood the motion to be. That was not the motion. >> Okay. So, you want to take it all and allocate it. Got you. All right. All of those >> I'd like to say something. >> Sure. >> I think if it was absolutely necessary to reduce our liability, it should have already been included in our original budget. And the fact that that money was not already included in our original budget tells me it's maybe not quite as high of a necessity as we're claiming it is this very second. And so, for you to then take
099all that money away from a pre-K program that does not exist, to me, feels like a slap in the face. And it's very frustrating. Um, obviously, you know I'm not going to be voting for it. But, my my point is that you you harp on how this is a nece- a necessity and how this is something that we have to be doing, but the truth is if we had to be doing it, if this was such a high priority and such a necessity, why wasn't it already in our budget? >> Do we have an answer for why that wasn't in the budget previously? >> Just to clarify, target of savings was in the budget proposal that the board approved. So, it was 3,697,600 in the board adopted budget and then it was reduced by that
100amount of whatever 500,000 or so, um, in order to make up that money. So, in order to amend that proposed budget that that we have submitted, you would have to >> Fix it. >> it decrease the the or in I guess decrease the targeted savings essentially by by expo- increasing the exposure liability and then finding the savings in a different amount. So, just it wasn't in there. It just it was a reduced amount in this proposed budget just for the people listening. >> Yes. >> Yeah, and I'll I'll echo it it was in there and we also communicated that there was still work to be done and that is the process every year until we get to the final budget process. >> Thank you. >> So, yes, it it was previously in past conversations. Now,
101that amount has changed because what we're seeing in front of us has changed, but the the actual reduce of liability has changed. Um, that reduce of liability vacancy savings and the offset that passed through has always been a discussion to my understanding in past meetings that we've had on the budget and in directors' reports. But again, the amount has increased. I think it sounds like maybe is it like a hundred thousand dollars? Am I doing that off the top of my head? >> [clears throat] >> What Chief Bracey was referencing in the last version that was approved before taking it to council >> Yes. >> that amount was 3.6 that needed to be offset and change. So, in this up in this version, we essentially adjusted by that in in in light of the proposal,
102essentially we reduce it by five hundred and thirty thousand dollars that line so now is 3.1 and change. >> Got it. That's what I thought. Okay. Okay. >> All righty, we're going to go ahead and take it to a vote. Uh, if board member Elrod, if you could restate the motion. >> My motion is to remove the 1. 1,107,734 thousand dollars in the aspirational investment of pre-K seats at the Hillwood Learning Center um, to offset the reduction of the operating budget and to offset the pass-through charges and reduce our liability on vacancy savings. All right, the motion has been stated and second. All of those in favor? All right, that motion passes. Um we will uh if we don't have any other comments or questions, we can go ahead and adjourn this meeting. Thank you.
103Oh, I'm sorry. We need to make a motion to uh pass the budget the nutrition funding budget. Uh >> I make a motion to pass uh the nutritional services budget and the federal programs budget. >> Second. >> All of those in favor? >> I. All right, anyone opposed? All right, it passes unanimously. And that will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.