5/12/2026: School Board Meeting

001Good morning. We're going to call our meeting to order at Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. It is 10:07 a.m. in the boardroom. This is a special AST school board meeting. present our members Lessons Mcdana, Higgins, Jacobs, Bellamy, and Blakesley. And online, we have member Wilson. We've called ourselves to order engaged in a roll call. Um, member Lessons, could you please lead us in the flag salute and then read our land acknowledgement? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We acknowledge that we gather here today on the traditional lands of the Dina people of Upper Cook Inlet. For thousands of years, the Dina people have been and continue to be the stewards of this

002land. ASD is committed to diversity and inclusion, and it is with honor and respect that we recognize all indigenous people who live and learn in our community. >> Thank you, member lessons. We're on A3, approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? >> Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda as presented. Motion made by member Bellamy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion made by member Bellamy, seconded by member lessons. Is there any um opposed to the approving the agenda drafted? >> Mr. President, move to add section E member comments prior to adjournment. >> There a second. >> I second. >> Is there discussion? I can explain the intent of the motion. So, I'm moving this because this is not a typical special meeting and even then special meetings are not typical

003orders of business. Um, we're meeting here at 10:00 which is during the school day and 45,000 of our most important stakeholders can't structurally engage. So, with an unusual circumstance, I hope that the body approves um this request to add our ability to comment as individual members. Um, the business on the agenda is one of our largest of the year and we have a rule set that forbids the two-way communication to show that we're responding to the public. And I also want to make um and ask that if this motion clears and if it's approved, time is precious and brevity is the soul of wit. So, if we do approve it, I would ask that each of the members observe an honor system to keep comments to 3 minutes and to keep them only related to

004the business that we have resolved during this meeting. Uh, thank you all. I hope that we get this added to the agenda. >> Um, is there additional discussion? Member Blakeley. Um I my discussion is that I I agree and I think that the um nature of this meeting this meeting is sort of an emergent uh opportunity just in that it is the last uh the last few days that we have of the legislative session. So it is the last sort of hail Mary that we have in order to talk about what could be possible with increased education funding. And that said, it is um unfortunate and I hate that it's not in a way that is able to engage the public fully um because it's really important. So I agree that we should prioritize public

005comment first in in the time that people are spending here. >> Is there additional discussion? Member Bony >> just have clarification. So, we just want to have public. We're moving our If I understand the motion correctly, we're just going to move public comment to the top. >> Nope. Uh, this motion is to >> Oh, okay. >> So, for for clarity for the body, this motion >> right before Yeah. member comments. >> So, we're going to call our meeting back to order. We have one speaker at a time. The chair was addressing the question. The purpose of this amendment is to add member comments as our last item before adjournment. That's the only thing this amendment's um set to do. Thank you. Is there additional discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, is there any opposition to

006adding member comments as our last agenda item? Okay. A change to our agenda is uh been made. We've amended our agenda. Is there additional amendments or discussion on adopting our agenda? Seeing none, is there any opposition to adopting our agenda as amended? Okay, we've adopted a amended agenda with the only change being that we'll add member comments as our last agenda item before journ. Okay, we'll move forward with public comment. We want to welcome you to the board's opportunity for public comment uh for this special meeting. Uh the board typically sets aside a 1-hour time slot um at the start of our meetings for most of public comment. We we will be able to accommodate all speakers um during this time. ASD conducts public meetings under Robert's rules of order. A set of rules for

007orderly meetings uh that have been used since the late 1800s. Examples of um Robert's rules provisions include do not attack a member speaker motives. Please no profanity or foul language. Refrain from disturbing our meeting, no cheering, outbursts, applause or waving of signs or posters. And if you have handouts you wish to share with the board, please give them to Miss Sullivan, who's seated to my left. Um, the board will not answer questions or engage in discussion with members of the public during public comment. This is the public's time to speak and the board's time to listen. With that said, we will move straight to our community speakers to be heard list. Our first two community speakers to be heard are Katrina Hanganger who's available might be available via phone. Oh, I'm sorry. We have one

008student testifier. Um, we'll move to first. Ava Lance. Is Ava Lance with us? Okay. Not seeing Ava. We'll move back to Miss Katrina Hangar who is online. Okay, we don't see Miss Hangar online. Uh we'll move to Stacy Dixon. Should be here in person. >> Welcome, Mr. Dixon. You have three minutes. Please begin when you're ready. >> Keep this short and sweet. I am Stacy Dixon. Oh, thanks guys. Uh I'm the mom of two uh kids in the highly gifted program. And I realize how rare it is to have a school district that understands and provides education for these very specific learners who have high needs, who are often twice exceptional, and who really do learn at a different pace than their peers. My family is super grateful for this program and we are just

009very upset uh as well as have talked to many other families who are really discouraged by the fact that what was a needs-based program has now become an optional program because you guys took busing away from it. Um busing is the only thing that makes this program uh have equal access. kids are coming from Gerwood, Chugak, Eagle River, and J Bear, and those kids are unlikely to be able to transport um to get there without transportation next year. So, my ask of the board today and of the administration is to reaffirm your belief that this is a needs-based program and restore funding for HG busing next year. I am super excited to talk with anyone about how to uh increase efficiencies in busing. I understand busing is very expensive. I understand that in terms of

010the pupil to bus cost ratio, it is very expensive to get these kids to this school. But if y'all believe that this is a needs-based program that should provide for kids who actually have the need to go to a highly gifted program, you will reinstate busing. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. Our next community speaker to be heard is Marty John Sanchez who may be online. Okay, not seeing Marty online. We'll move to Katherine Townley. >> Welcome. You have three minutes. Please begin when you're ready. >> Glad it's three minutes. I can talk a lot slower now. Good morning. My name is Katie Tonley. I've lived in Eagle River since 2018. I have four kids who have attended five different ASD schools. While I appreciate you having this meeting at the perfect

011time for a stay-at-home mom, I am frustrated that the people who probably most need to be here are currently at work. I am just one parent, but please imagine half this room filled with HG parents who would like to be here because they absolutely rely on this busing to get their kid to Rogers Park every day. In order to get my youngest to school, it is a 30-minute drive without traffic to Rogers Park. Thankfully, my child is currently able to ride an ASD provided bus, which is full, I might add. A few of the buses have maybe five, six kids. The bus from Eagle River is full because it also stops at J Bear. Um, he rides an hour each way to get to this school to a program that he tested into before second

012grade. Because of the HD program, he is a grade ahead in his math, grade ahead in math than his peers, and he's surrounded by students at the same academic and social level. The HD program is not like a language immersion program, not just a nice option for students who want to be challenged. It is tailored to a specific population of students in our district, many who might be considered twice exceptional learners. They are exceptional in the way we consider gifted, but also have a second exception, which might be a disability or a neurody divergent condition. These students require specialized education that nurtures their strengths while providing for their challenges. The HG bus isn't just a nice to have. It is meeting a need for many students from Gerwood all the way to Chudy Chugiak. When

013you cut this busing, you were saying only those families with resources deserve to have their kiddo attend this highly gifted program. It is illegal in this country to deny students with special needs the services they need to thrive. Why should our twice exceptional students be punished when there are many other optional things that can be cut? My 11th grader flew to Juno last month for soccer on ASD's dime. And while it was cool, it definitely wasn't a need. An ASD provided bus, particularly for HD families like mine living on the northern edge of the district, is a need. Surely there are lowerc cost ways to provide transportation, smaller buses, fewer stops. Just because these kids are smart, please don't assume they will be fine if they have to stop attending Rogers Park because of the

014lack of a bus or if the if they really need the HD program, their parents will just find a way to drive them. I trust you all will make the right decision for my son and his classmates and make sure this resolution be amended to include a restoration of funding for transportation for HD students who attend Rogers Park. Thank you for your time and your service for all the ASD students and families. >> Thank you for your testimony. Our next community speaker to be heard is Mike Neil. >> Welcome. You have three minutes. Please begin your reading. Morning. During the First World War, the British made it mandatory part of their uniform to wear helmets. As a result of this, they saw over a 3,000% increase in head injuries. That's a true fact. This is

015the way the administration presents facts to you guys to lead you to believe that it was the helmet that's the problem. Not not the rest of that, which in my mind is a lie by omission. That uh prior to that, a head injury was was a casualty. Nobody survived. You guys are going to have to toughen up on the way that you're addressing the administration. You ask questions to them, they give evasive answers and they don't answer. Call them out. Make them make them fear you. You They work for you and you work for us. You have a chance here to um spend some more money. You know, you've been talking about saving money. Watching these proceedings has been um astounding to me. I mean, the mental gymnastics that I'm seeing is Olympic level. You

016guys deserve medals for this. You You talk about the savings of money. Campbell STEM is going to be my example. $900,000, right? $900,000 to to close a school. But what about the 260 for buses? What about the hundred for moving? Almost half of that savings is gone. So, you got a chance here that there's more money coming. And um I don't see it on the agenda. It's never on the agenda. You don't want to talk to us about it. You're like the schoolyard bully who's made a mistake and rather than be accountable, you just dig in your heels because nobody's going to hold you to it. I'm still here. I'm still trying to hold you to it. And the longer this goes, the worse it becomes for trust. I cannot trust you. Oh, I mean,

017my apologies to the new members that haven't had a chance to vote yet, but as things sit, I want you to know how serious it is. I would sooner trust a group of blind monkeys flipping coins to make policy decisions than the way you're going about these things. Think about it. Think about everything that everybody said to you. You can change it. You can fix it. You can make it better. I expect you to do so. Everybody expects you to do so. You're supposed to be our voices here. You're supposed to listen to us. I mean, what I I sit here and I talk to you every couple of weeks and um I just don't know what more I can say. I don't know how I can get through. I have expressionless faces looking back

018at me. I don't even feel that anybody's listening to what I'm saying. So, I guess I'm just talking to my own community behind me. Thank you. and thank you for your testimony. The next community speaker to be heard is Michael Chesperson. Welcome. You have three minutes. Please begin when you're ready. I missed the last uh regularly scheduled meeting you guys had because I was at what turns out is going to be my son's last band concert in high school. He's a junior at East and you've cut the band program at East. The principal claims he wants it back, but the administration won't let him. Um, there's been numerous studies done by Harvard and other Ivy League schools and Stanford down in California that show music education increases graduation rates and decreases dropout rates. In fact,

019schools that have full music programs have a or schools that don't have full full music programs have an 18% higher dropout rate. That's official dropouts. That's not kids that just stop showing up. That's official. Fill out the paperwork dropout 18% higher. And we're going to cut band at East. We're going to cut beginning band at Begage Middle School. We're going to cut sixth grade band and all the elementary schools from one year to half a year. This isn't wise. This doesn't help anything. Band is band and other music programs are proven to increase brain activity. Proven to increase grades in math, science, reading, language, including English as a second language, English as a first language, and other foreign languages. It is ridiculous that we are cutting the band program. East High got a $10,000 donation

020from a company um in mid in downtown. They got another company that's doing a fundraiser for them on the 23rd. They had a band concert that you had your last meeting at where they put out a tuba case and people put money in it to help them stay there. I don't know how much money got put in. My wife and I couldn't really afford to, but we put in the $100 we had in cash. People are willing to help keep programs that matter. There are many financial fundraising opportunities that bands can do during the school year and the summer. I'm willing to help with that, but you guys have never taken me up on it. I've had two kids graduate from East. I've offered it every year. Please put the band back. Make the kids

021whole and help them learn. We've got a bad enough graduation pro problem in this district. We can't afford to make it worse by cutting music. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony. Um we'll move to Cadence Gigos. Welcome. You have three minutes. Please begin when you're ready. >> Yeah. Usually I write out what I'm going to say, but I hadn't even decided to speak today and then my pen died. So, um, first I want to thank you guys for changing the middle and high school boundaries in my little neighborhood near Campbell because we used to go to Hanuin service, which is crazy to me, but all my kids are small, so I didn't really think about it. So, I am grateful for that. I'm also grateful to see that on this proposed budget you're

022going to send to the legislature that you're trying to bring back Ignite because one of my kids only goes to school for Ignite and he barely misses the highly gifted testing to get there. Um, I also wanted to talk about how um, the phrase two things can be true at once has come up a lot this spring. And I agree with that to some extent, but some things that cannot be true at once is having a school be listed as an alternative school, but then not treating them like one, like opening the lottery in the spring. Um, also, um, touting that the district has so many choice programs, but then you cut one when it's too late for two of my three elementary school kids to get into any language immersion programs because they're over

023the first semester of first grade. So, we picked the science immersion program and now it's going away and we don't have the chance to get to any of those other schools. we might have chosen five years ago when my oldest went to school. Um, sorry I'm jumping around because technical difficulties. Um, I also am thankful for this whole thing even being put on the chopping block because I have become very versed in going through board docks and I've watched so many schoolboard meetings. I was naive thinking that things were happening how they should for years. I never really thought about it. you know, I put my kids in school. Our teachers are amazing. We were in this tiny tiny tiny based um school. So, I didn't really think about the big workings. And now I'm

024thankful because I will be following I will probably be attending when I don't have my other commitments on Tuesday nights. But um I just wanted to remind people that the reason that we are here and the reason that our parents are so passionate about fighting for our school is the same thing that um we are fighting for excellent quality education opportunities and academic growth for all students especially the disadvantaged which Campbell STEM has served. Um so I'm just curious if that 2.2 million debt bond reimbursement wasn't there would we really be here? would we be in this situation? Because that that's really lame. I'm trying not to use any words. I tell my children not to. So, I just want to leave it that. And at the very least, if Campbell closes for real, I

025hope that when you're making further right sizing decisions, you're thinking about all those kids that have lost their school. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony. U we'll move back to Marty John Sanchez who's online. If you could hit star six to unmute and you will have three minutes. Good morning. Did I do that correctly? >> You did. Welcome. >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Uh good morning and thanks for the opportunity to speak. Uh my name is Dr. Marty Sanchez. I'm a parent with Anchorage School District. I'm here to respectfully request that the resolution um be amended for the restoration of funding and services for the highly gifted program at Rogers Park Elementary. Uh my son Sullivan participated in the program from kindergarten through third grade. is documented needs related to ADHD and emotional

026dysregulation supported um with an established IEP. Uh about one year ago during a critical period uh the supports outlined in his IEP were not implemented. And I want to be clear, individual staff did everything within their capacity. Um unfortunately the program lacked the staffing and the resources necessary to meet his needs. When he required the one-on-one support, it was not available. Instead, he was suspended on multiple occasions. This repeated exclusion contributed to a significant decline in his condition. Unfortunately, my family, my wife Emily, we made the difficult decision to take him to impatient psychiatric care at at Rady's Children's Hospital in San Diego. This reflects more than an isolated situation. It rep represents a failure to implement required supports and a gap in the system that is both intolerable and inexcusable. As a result, we

027made the decision that Sullivan would not return to the program. At the same time, my younger son remains in the HD program at Rogers Park. His needs are different and we chose to keep him there because of the relationship he has built. And I share this to emphasize that this is not a blanket criticism. It is to call to address a specific and serious gap. My experience is documented and it's highlighting a system level issue that will affect other children if not addressed. There will be other students with similar needs and those needs must be met. I respectfully ask the resolution be amended to include restoration of funding for the HT program at Rogers Park Elementary. I really appreciate your time and consideration and thank you for your testimony. That completes our public comment of

028those who have signed up for today. We'll move to item C1, superintendent report. Dr. Bryant. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I'll invite my team members up um to the um spaces up front. And while they get settled, uh I uh want to state that we did prepare some slides for the board members involved in crafting this resolution to support the deliberation later today. Um a few things that we'll go over in this brief PowerPoint presentation. One will review the cuts to date um due to the $90 million structural deficit for FY27 next school year that resulted in a number of very difficult decisions that were made um during the budget adoption process. And then we'll also explain to the public the positive benefits of a permanent base student allocation increase which would allow the district

029to restore many of the opportunities that have been lost as a result of such a large structural deficit. Uh another thing that we'll go over would be discussing the FY27 short-term needs against the FY28 projected $40 million structural deficit. And I say all of this because uh we do recognize that if a base student allocation were not to pass, there's certainly an opportunity. There's certainly the possibility of one-time funding being allocated to the district from the legislature. But this is a complicated calculus for the board to make because um if the district were to receive one-time funding, we have to decide which investments would be most prudent for next school year, which is FY27. And then this board also needs to decide to what extent should ASD allocate one-time dollars to specific FY28 needs that

030we anticipate. So here's the fundamental trade-off that the board is going to have to make these coming weeks. So if we use any one-time funds for recurring costs, what that means is that on the flip side, that's going to increase the FY28 structural deficit, which is something that our CFO will walk through in just a few moments. And that will have a domino effect, which for example would result in a larger structural deficit, which means larger reductions that would need to be discussed over the next 6 to 12 months. Uh I also have invited guests from Alaska survey research. We actually asked them to pull the public on this very question. So we'd like to provide the board with that feedback from what the community felt as of that snapshot um to also advise in

031your decision-m. And lastly, uh, our team over the past couple of days in collaboration with the sponsors of the resolution have done initial analysis on the positive impact of a permanent increase to the base student allocation because a permanent increase is important in that we can one make investments for FY28, but we can also invest in short-term needs for FY27. That would be the best case scenario. Again, if we were only to receive one-time funding, we're in this very important decision-making process where you have to either restore things in the short term for FY27 against the FY28 deficit or focus solely long-term knowing that we have urgent needs for this upcoming school year. And the last thing I want to say is that it's my opinion that the most urgent need for Anchorage School District

032in this moment are teacher positions. I think the through line between everything that we've been discussing these past few weeks is that we simply do not have enough teaching positions to fulfill some of these incredible opportunities for our students. So, I'd like for board members to keep that in mind as we discuss what investments should we make and during which fiscal year should we make them. So, I'll go ahead and hand it off to our CFO Andy Ratiff. Right. >> Thank you. Uh for the record, I'm chief financial officer Andy Ratliff. And really we put together these slides to set the stage after discussing kind of the the resolution that's coming before you um really to kind of provide those impacts that's going to happen if we get money whether it be recurring or one

033time those impacts on our FY27 budget and our subsequent FY28 budget depending on how we uh spend those funds. Um and really kind of the timing on this. This is our budget development calendar. We are in the legislative budget development right now. I believe they're in their last 10 days of session, which uh kind of triggers this 24-hour rule where they can introduce bills with 24 hours notice or hear have the hearings within those 24 hours. So, we're getting down to a time crunch at the legislative level. And I think that's kind of the reasoning for putting this out on a special meeting is just to get that in front of them to know uh what our plans would be if we get money. kind of the reason that we're having some of this crunch

034is our long-term history of our base student allocation. This is the primary metric for our funding. Um you can see in FY25 we got onetime state funds of approximately $680 base student allocation equivalent. Uh that went up bought to $700 for FY26 and then it stays stagnant for 20 FY27 unless anything is done in the next couple of weeks. Um on this slide is a little bit different than what you've seen before. I did go in and add the fund balance that we've used the one times funds for FY27. It's about a $25 BSA equivalent for the using the FEMA money. The bond debt reimbursement and fund balance was about 14.5 million that we ended up using. Just for context, I know we've reviewed this a lot, but we reduced 497 uh positions out of

035this budget to get it to balance. That's about 10% of our general fund workforce. Um that includes increases to class size, redu or elimination of Ignite, changes to the elementary models, nursing models, supplies went down, principles, counselors, pretty much across the board, we were taking cuts. Um HR, human resources or teaching and learning, they was like 45 or 55% reduction. So all these areas really did take very substantial hits and it's really going to affect the way we do business going forward. Uh the next three slides, I'm not going to read them, but it's just kind of for context to say this is from the proposed budget, the the summary document just to give you give you a reminder of how many positions and what areas we cut. Um it's based kind of separated between

036schoolbased changes, special services, and administration. Not going to read through there, but the one thing I would flag on this, this is was these slides were done prior to the board making the amendment for the middle school model. So you will see the middle school collaboration time on here. However, that'll come off in the subsequent event. Just want to kind of flag that. Um so as you're looking at it, you have that context. You know, here's another 71 positions in special service and then uh 58 positions out of kind of our district-wide administration or our department and organizations are about $13 million. Um we went through the estimated deficit for FY28 at our last finance committee. Just kind of walked through that math. This is same thing. is just in a kind of a calculator

037form. We did provide this calculator to the board on Friday through board connect. So you can go in and play with it uh kind of at your leisure. But it really walks through this is the status quo like if we received nothing for FY27, here's what FY28 would become. And it really takes our current revenue. It backs out those one-time things for fund balance, the bond debt reimbursement and FEMA money to get to a total estimated revenue of about 590 million. And then it shows the 5% or so cost escalation on the $64 million budget that we currently have as our proposed um which is about $30 million. So the delta between what our expenditure budget to keep everything's the same way as we have it now and what our revenue would be is nearly

038$45 million. Now just walk through some scenarios of if we receive some onetime money, what that would do to our FY28 deficits. So, if we get $50 million and we spend that $50 million, our new baseline becomes over here on the right. You can see this, you know, it's really um our budget goes up by that $50 million which increases that deficit because we have to resets that baseline. Um and then we would have to make those reductions to about tune of about 97 million if we were to get all the money and spend it all and keep those want to keep those programs permanent. Uh, conversely, if we get 50 million in onetime funds and we spend 25 million of it, our deficit's going to be about 46 million. Our our kind of our

039baseline budget goes up by that 25 million. Um, and then we can save the other half of that money and that would go towards help offsetting some of those deficits. But this is really close to the scenario in which we didn't get anything. Um, it goes up by a little bit and that's just the inflationary factor on the 25 million. It's the difference between the 45 point or 44.7 million and the 45.9 million shown here. Is there any questions as I'm going along through this? Um I know I was putting this together kind of based on what the board's anticipated uh resolution is going to be. So anyone has any questions or thoughts, you know, can jump into. >> Member McDana. >> Uh thank you, Mr. President. the the comprehensive report a few slides back

040of all the cuts. Can you explain to the board how the school closures are found in that report? Um specifically Lake Otis Fire Lake and Campbell. >> Sure. So most of those are going to be embedded in like for instance on this line you'll see principles. Three of the principles listed on here as reductions are embedded within there. the same with your librarian, counselor, office staff, those are all generally found as people. Um, we don't really do that with like utilities. So, that was another piece of the savings. So, if we have savings for utilities or um you'll see custodians in there to BPOS's, those reductions are all kind of individuals. So, we didn't actually aggregate it by school, it's by position. Um, does that help answer your question? >> Yeah. Um, at least one

041followup, too. Um, I appreciate that. So essentially, you're saying it's it's spread out over categories because those are like the closures were predominantly to eliminate positions. Um, if the board were to possess the will to restore any of those school closures, is the resolution that's on the agenda an opportunity to do that or is that too much backfilling to be able to specify as a single business item? >> I mean, we've estimated the cost of closure for just the operating expense portion of about 900,000 per school. uh just depending on the position or the people that are kind of filling those positions. Um I think if that is the intent with the board the will of the board then you know just having that singular line item would be would suffice enough for me to

042get a budget developed. And then for Campbell in particular, my understanding is there was the ability to move from account A to account B a certain amount of state bond debt reimbursement because the school is in excess. If the will of the board is to restore that school, would we also have to budget in this resolution the total amount of that state bond debt transfer back into the bond debt account? I believe that would be a larger conversation with capital planning because what do we do with that project if the school is open we need to convert the project do the security vestibule things like that what doesn't get done at that point if the school is going to remain open >> member listens >> um I appreciate the question and I would actually ask

043if you could go back to this slide the budget changes 497. Um, as board members may recall, there was when the budget was balanced at the February 24th meeting, the cost dollars from school closures, the three school closures, as well as the school bond debt reimbursement were folded under the restoration of nurses, 16 middle school teachers, and high school and middle school sports. So in effect, although it's not detailed, I would wait. I would suggest that the um savings from those actions are uh part of the first and at least fourth bullet points here. Uh referring specifically to the middle school PTR uh only going up by 1 um 75 and the high school sports changes, right? We didn't eliminate high school sports, we changed the structure. So, we were able to you leverage the

044dollars saved in the consolidations and via the one-time funds to restore what many many community members were saying was uh critical for student opportunities. It was a very challenging conversation. >> Thank you. Uh member Blley. Um, so the cost savings for closing a school is about $900,000 per school when it's closed. Can you speak to what the costs are associated with then moving those students and teachers into other buildings? Is is it a cost savings that's that's reflective of those expenses? That's the cost savings after those expenses are incurred for moving those kids and teachers or is that the cost savings before you're spending that money on one-time moving costs? >> Great. Yeah. So, the 900,000 was the amount we were able to reduce our FY27 budget by. Um, that was not inclusive of the

045money that it's going to cost to move all I think 20ome programs that we're having to do. I call the the domino effects on it. So, it's not just three. There's a lot of schools and programs that are moving around. But the 900,000 would not be inclusive of the I believe it was 200 and some thousand that the board allocated out of FY26 money to fund the uh the school moves. >> Okay. So then if it's about 200 some thousand let's say Campbell STEM as one example one school closure it's a $900,000 initial onetime saving then there's about a $200,000ish onetime expense. So that's like a >> an initial one one time savings of like 700,000 for for like a school. >> Well, I'd say the long-term savings is not just one year. That's multiple

046years. So, and there's a hold harmless provision. So, the first couple years you're held harmless and you achieve that saving by not having that in there for the first few years. Then it goes down over the course of five years to eventually um where that's almost costneutral. And that's kind of the way that that school size factor is set up in the state formula to say, you know, the fewer kids you have in a school, the more money you get per student. Um, so when we combine schools, go from three schools to two or something, they hold you harmless for that revenue reduction for the first couple of years and then you start kind of tapering off the revenue. Um, but you do receive those savings for, you know, probably four out of the five

047years, substantial savings in that fifth year. You're almost at a wash between your operating cost and the revenue loss >> amount of cumulative savings every year goes down every year. So it starts with if we're going with that $700,000 number because you're taking onetime savings onetime expenses then what is it each subsequent is it $700,000 every single year or is the next year oh you're only saving 300,000 and the next year 50,000 like how how does that go across that fiveyear time span that you're talking about? >> Sure. I believe it goes um so the first two years you get the entire amount of hold harmless then it reduces to is 66 or 75. So it goes 60 then you get 60% 66% of the savings the third year 33% the fourth year and then

048it goes down to zero on the fifth year. >> Okay. Um, and what was the total amount of bond debt reimbursement plus onetime savings specifically for Campbell STEM? >> So, it's 2.2 million was the bond debt reimbursement and the >> 900 3.1 >> subtract the expenses. So, like 700,000 real savings, right? Is that No, that's not I'm inter 250,000 is not solely for Campbell. It's quite a bit less to move to one school. I see. >> But there's a lot of school moves happening >> and all this kind of a domino effect. When one school moves out, another one moves in. >> It's not 250 per school, >> right? >> Okay. >> That was the total amount to move all the programs. >> I see. Okay. >> I'm going to bring us back to our

049agenda. I think there's great conversation here, but we can um get especially our new members additional context and data offline. Um I think we've captured our questions so far. Yeah. of uh Mr. Morales, you want to continue? >> Sure. So, we left off with the onetime funding um and kind of the impact that would have if we receive onetime funding and spend about half of it, we still have to address about a 45$46 million deficit the following year. Um if we get recurring money, and that's kind of in the context of just putting it in the base student allocation amount and roughly $700 uh increase to the base student allocation generates about $50 million. If we do spend all of that money, it is recurring, but then we still have that same 47 goes up

050to about $47 million estimated deficit for 28. Um, goes up a little bit just based on the inflationary factor of that going up that baseline going from up to $50 million more. If we were to get $50 million in recurring funds and spend only 25 million of that, save 25 million for the following year, then you can really get to a point where you're having uh a little bit more stability in your FY28 budget. So, we'd estimate a budget surplus about 4 million on this. Again, this is a really rough estimate. It does not include things like enrollment changes, utility increases that are above 5% or anything. Uh fuel costs that have gone up or unsettled contracts that we don't know know about labor contracts for the most part that are the driver of our

051general generally most of our expenditures at this point. Um so that's really kind of where we would end if we were to get 50 million in recurring money and spend half of it. Um, with that, I think next I'm going to turn it over to uh Ivan Moore's team and kind of go over the polling. >> Before you do that, can we go back to the previous slide? >> Um, this this scenario and I guess the ones before it, do they assume for FY28 that the municipality of Anchorage will contribute the new local max? >> It does not. It would does not have a additional 12 million or so built into there. It is really just taken the revenue we have now if it's kind of status quo and reducing that by um the onetime

052funds. >> Okay. So with we would be looking at a surplus of about $8 million with the new local max in this scenario. >> No, this actually shows a surplus. It would be uh if they provided an extra 12 million to that it would be 16. >> I think I don't know what a surplus looks like. uh haven't asked. Yeah, I've been blessed with that opportunity. Um okay. >> Um I I would ask and this is something I've asked before. Um I would ask administration begin calculating and making the assumption in its preparation for various slide decks and and figures we need to discuss that we will get the local max from Anchorage. I understand that they're facing some fiscal uncertainty, but their track record is to contribute the max whenever possible. Um and so

053I think we should be building our budget on that assumption. Um, with that said, I before we hand it off to u Mr. Moore and his team, are there any other questions for administration on what was covered? C >> can I before you close it off, can we I know that more has a question and so do I. Go ahead. >> Okay, member Higgins, why don't you jump in with your question? >> I just had a question. I know some schools get grants and and other money coming in. Is that put affect the cap that we're allowed to have or is that exempt from the cap? Uh grants we get from outside agencies do not affect the local cow. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Member Blakeley, your mic's on. Do you have another question? >>

054Just really quickly because you said that if we got 12 million from the MUN that it would give us a surplus of 16 >> for 28. Yeah, because we got a >> So the four million >> How does that work if you have $4 million deficit and if you got 12? Sorry. >> The four million shown here is a surplus. Sorry, it's in red. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. >> I didn't have time to do the conditional formatting case. So, >> okay. Uh, member Bellamy. >> Uh, Mr. Ratliff, where are we getting the $50 million figure from? We're guessing, hoping, wishing, praying. >> Uh, I took the $50 million figure from the resolution that the board put before me to develop the slides. >> Okay. But as we sit here today, we have no idea

055what the legislature is going to do. We are simply uh tell showing them if we get money this is what we plan to do. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Member Maton. >> Uh yeah this is just a point of personal comfort to the president. Um on the comment that new members I think it was insinuated need a further grasp of the context and data. Um, I think it's safe to say that member Blakesley and I have a very high grasp of the context and data and the purpose of our questioning is so that the public gets a further grasp of the context and data. So, um, I I didn't raise that when it was said in respect for the process, but I would hope that we continue to be allowed to uh

056ask these questions for the sake of transparency. >> Yeah, me certainly. but we just want to do it under the appropriate agenda heading and topic. Um, and so appreciate those comments. Uh, we'll move to the team at Alaska Survey Research. Thank you, Chair Jacobs. Um, uh, Superintendent Bryant, members of the school board, my name is Ivan Moore, Alaska Survey Research. Um, thank you for having the confidence in us to do this work, to show you what the public thinks. Uh, I'm going to kick it straight off to Everett Masterman on my team who was the one who spent certainly the greatest amount of time uh, working on this particular project and the one that preceded that one too. Uh, and he will take you through what we did. Thanks. Thank you, Ivan. So, I'm Everett

057and uh as he mentioned, this is not my first survey that I've worked on for the school district. But today, we're going to talk about a question we asked on the 2026 Spring Alaska survey. So, that was a statewide survey that was fielded uh April 16th to 19th. We and on that statewide survey, we got about 1,11 adults in Anchorage and 718 of those said that they had voted in the recent municipal election here. And the margin of error for the questions we're going to discuss today is about 5.4% based on that sample size. Our the survey was a statewide survey and it's a omnibus survey. So that means that the Anchorage School Board was not the only client on it. there were other clients asking questions in other areas of the state or statewide.

058And we distribute it via text. So we text out um our survey to random Alaskan phone numbers and then we supplement that distribution with our Alaska Survey Researches email panel. And the reason we do that is because if you send out 100,000 text messages, the response that you get back will not necessarily be representative of the state demographically. In particular, people with a stronger educational background are more likely to respond to surveys. So, we use that panel distribution to follow up and target demographic groups that were under reppresented during the text distribution. The data is also weighted to further account for demographic variables. It's weighted to anchorage population demographics that we got from the US census such as race, gender, education level, and income. And then we also weight it based on political demographics like

059party affiliation and who people voted for for president in 2024. And then Ivan Moore has already introduced himself. I'm Everett Masterman. And then a couple other members of our team Blake Bennett and Cena Stanton also worked on this project. So the only question we're going to discuss today is this one. It's rather a long one. I'm going to read it aloud. As a projected response to budget shortfalls, the Anchorage School District has had to make difficult decisions this year about cutting programs and consolidating schools, as well as anticipating a budget for next year that involves a further 40 to $45 million in cuts. It is possible that the legislature could allocate additional funding to the school district this year. If that happens, the school district would have the following options. Option A, apply legislative funds

060to restore some of this year's program and staffing cuts. Keep in mind that any amount used to restore cuts and programs this year will increase the deficit by the same amount next year. So that's spend the money in fiscal year 2027, don't spend it in 2028. Option B, leave this year's cuts in place and use legislative funds to reduce the scale of next year's projected cuts. This approach will help lower the ongoing deficit and limit future reductions. So that option is spend the money in 2028, don't spend it in fiscal year 2027. And then lastly, we gave them option C. Use a blended approach, allocating some of the one-time funds to reverse the most significant classroom impacts now and setting aside the rest of the funds to reduce next year's anticipated cuts. What would you

061do if it was your decision to make? So before I talk about the results, I should mention that we used a split sample for this question. Based on the breakdown of spend the money now, spend the money later and then option C being spend some now, spend some later, we anticipated that a large portion of the public might pick option C, which would give us uh not very much information about which one the public preferred between option A and B. So half the sent public actually got this version of the question with all three options and then the other half of our sample got an option with only option A or option B. So we could dis figure out which one people preferred of spending the money in 2027 or 2028 if they had to

062pick just one. So this is the version where they had all three of of the question where they had all three options. As we can see, about 10% of the respondents favored spending all of the additional money in 2027. 24% favored spending all the additional funds in fiscal year 2028. And then 54% favored the blended approach, spending some now and some later, and 11% had no opinion. I want to draw um attention to this ratio between the people who selected option A and the people who selected option B. It's about three people who selected option A for every seven people who selected option B. And what we see when we ask the question without option C in there is that that same ratio holds true. So 25% of respondents favored spending all of the additional

063money on fiscal year 2027 and 64% favored spending all the additional money in fiscal year 2028 which is again about that three people for 2027 to seven people for 2028 ratio. And then again we had 11% of people say they had no opinion on this issue. So the key takeaways for this survey are that uh 54 54% of our respondents preferred spending some of any additional legislative money now and some money later. But among people who uh had a more distinctive opinion on spending now or spending later or people who were forced to have a more distinctive opinion because we didn't give them the option to say both. Three in 10 prefer spending on the fiscal year 2027 cuts and seven in 10 prefer keeping the fiscal year 2027 cuts and spending to reduce the

064fiscal year 2028 cuts. Thank you. >> Thank you both. Other questions for team at Alaska survey research member Blley. >> Thanks for the presentation. Uh really interesting findings. I also would suspect that people would pick a blended approach if given the option. Um, so what I want to ask is in general, how were the people that were surveyed identified? I know you sort of talked about all these randomized samples and things, but I think what I find surprising about this statistic that more people if only given the option of spend versus save for FY28 would pick save it and spend it in FY28 is is pretty um contradictory. It's pretty opposite of what we hear from the public um about what we want to to restore and the immediate harm being done now. And so

065I guess I'm wondering how many of the people surveyed were actually people that would be impacted by the decisions made by this body. How many of them were teachers or had children in the district versus people seeing this district from an external perspective because it's very different than what we hear in this room. >> That's a very good question. So, we did ask the respondents if they had children in the Anchorage School District. Again, these are uh respondents age 18 plus. So, only a very few number of our respondents could even potentially be students in the district themselves. Um I would don't have the numbers in front of me, but I know that it is not a majority of these respondents who did have children. That that seems pretty illuminating. >> Our responsibility obviously is

066to get a sample that is representative of the population. Not everyone people in the population are connected to the school district to differing degrees obviously. Some have children in the school district, some work for the school district and some have absolutely no connection whatsoever. Um but the important thing from our view was to um get opinions from everyone regardless of that. Sure. And I understand that. But if you want a representative sample, then you would in theory want an equal bearing of participants who have kids in the district or are teachers. They don't have kids but are impacted by the decisions to an equal proportion of that sample who are not impacted. So if many of the participants are people that are not impacted by the decision, that doesn't quite feel representative of the entire

067population. It seems heavily weighted towards people who are not impacted. It depends how you define being impacted. um the percentage of people in the sample and again as Everett said it's difficult to remember the numbers um but the percentage of people who have children 18 and under um uh or under 18 in the household usually comes in in the low 30%s 32 33 34 somewhere in that in that uh range uh and percentage of people who have children in the school district, if I'm remembering, is usually low 20s, something like that. So, a fifth of people have children in the school district, which leaves 80% who don't, but you could argue that everyone pays taxes that contribute um to the school district budget. And so, it's how you define the connectedness. >> Sure. And I'll

068stop talking, but I guess just in a future survey, I think it would be worth asking questions just of the people who are impacted by the decisions that we make to understand sort of that sample. >> Uh thank you, member Lacy. We'll go to member Higgins. >> Yeah, thank you. Um you know, some of the schools out there are state-run and so they're not involved with it at all and you're surveying them as well. It just hits me, you know, spread out looking at it. It's a choice of more money for school or more for the PFD. Um I I remember talking with Copper River Native Association and they want it more for the PFD than they did the BSA because people were using that money to keep the utilities going. So you've got a

069widespread of interest here that looking at it that's not focused on kids. It's not focused on what the kids want. It's a financial situation. I'm just trying to try to separate this out a little bit of the significance of what you've generated as to I hate statements that don't start off with for the benefit of the kids and we're talking about for the benefit of the PFD. We're talking about the benefits of everything else uh within it and they don't want to pay taxes or whatever the issue is. But I just don't I don't know how to use this information meaningful when you've got it diluted with people that don't have half the kids have to st half half the adults don't have kids in Anchorage and you got less with that with schools. You've

070got uh people responding who aren't even in school districts that have control locally at all to you know all over the place. It's difficult for me. Have you got some segregation in here or something of value that shows Anchorage? Yeah. So, in the full report that we're going to be sending to you later this week, we actually will break out the results by people who have children in the school district and people who don't. So, you'll be able to look at all of that data. What we presented today though is the overall is representative of the overall Anchorage population, both people who have children in the school district and those who don't. member listens. >> I appreciate that clarification because it underscores what I understood your how you introduced this. The data that we see

071before us was taken from a statewide survey, but you have pulled out the Anchorage respondents answers to your survey. So, we are not getting data from Copper River or any place else in this subset of1 survey respondents from Anchorage. Is that correct? >> Yeah. The total sample statewide was of which,1 was in Anchorage and the Anchorage School District questions were only asked of the Anchorage sample. Correct. >> Right. So we are getting local answers. >> Totally. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh member M. >> Uh so I just want to thank Mr. Moore, Mr. Masterson um for including these these forked questions and I actually really appreciate that split excuse me the split methodology so we could see um samples of two scenarios um I think to the points of validity there's the margin of

072error which um here is small enough that I think these are statistically sound conclusions and and you can you can interrupt me if I'm speaking for the poll in any inaccurate way. Um, and then for the question of like political validity, I think that's more for us to interpret where this is more of a electorate thing than a stakeholder issue. And there's a an at odds thing where we we actually just don't know what the key stakeholders are needing. um the broader electorate, I don't know the number, but I would assume twothirds do not directly receive services from Anchorage School District, they're more likely to be very conservative with their poll findings. And um so I would back up the request in the future if there is a way to fork to use the not

073to over encumber your methodology and become expensive but um show us the the divergence of stakeholder responses versus general electorate responses that will really help us with the political validity of the decision um as we like strive to meet our mission for our students. Yeah, that's a a great point and we will include the um breakout by people with children in the school district and people without children in the school district when we send you this report. Are there any other I guess my question would be are there any other key stakeholder variables of interest with regard to people who might not have children in ASD but would still be considered a stakeholder? Uh, member McDonald. >> Yeah, I think that's a great conversation when we're commissioning. We could provide you that, but I would

074at least add off the top of the head now. Definitely staff. Uh, because I'm just looking at the motivational factors of what would make somebody less conservative with wanting to fund the future instead of now. And staff are going to have a pretty big voice in that. >> Well, fortunately, we did actually ask them if they work for ASD and we could include that cross tab as well. Great. Okay. Um I just wanted to to note um for a record my stance I appreciate the a desire to want to see the cross tabs. I think um our survey team have said that they're going to introduce that information. Um potentially at a committee meeting coming up. Um I just pulled the the latest figure from the budget. roughly 40% of our budget comes from local

075taxes and by and large that's um property tax here in Anchorage. And so I for one am interested in what um taxpayers have to say. Um it's a factor that I include in my decision- making. Um I I think that's just relevant for the the board to keep in mind that we've got stakeholders that um are directly involved with the district and then we have stakeholders that are directly um funding the district. Sometimes those two overlap and then I think everybody has a vested interest in seeing a public education system that's thriving whether or not they directly contribute or not. We'll go to member Bellamy then member Higgins. Yeah, just a quick uh note that we will be looking at the full report during our comm's meeting later this month. So, I invite all board

076members and the public to listen to that. Thank you. >> Thank you, member Bellamy. We'll go to member Higgins. I >> I appreciate that question. The variables impacting this this the responses is important because we when we do a bond, it's always close to 50/50. Okay. right now. We think I think the swing for the negatives was because of Campbell and people told us that. So they went from a positive three to a negative 12 that that made the difference and cost us 11.8 million and the bonds as well. But everybody's out there's got a different perspective of this. Some they don't want more property taxes. Uh so that was an issue and they will vote against that every time. They think all schools should be over or over overfunded. We got too much administration

077cost is an issue. uh even though I think the data clearly shows that's not true. Uh so it's a lot of it's miscommunication but I I would love to survey it is to capture and say what is the primary reason because uh we're trying to look at that as something to address misinformation. We had a legislator last time telling us you know that you spend you got a hundred and something million dollars out there in reserves that you could spend if you wanted to. Had another one saying that you spent more than that in administration. So a lot of false information. So identifying what the issue is so that it's valid or it isn't is really valuable for us from my standpoint. Why are you why do you support or why do you oppose it

078would be would be significant. >> Um member Higgins I think you'll appreciate the full scope of the data at the upcoming communications meeting. Um with that said I don't see any other discussion. >> Just a quick point of information. Could the president or the chair of communications um let the public know when that meeting is? >> I think it's the 28th. I'll I'll confirm. It's the 28th and we meet at 1:30, I believe. Yeah, May 28th at 1:30. >> Okay. I see no other discussion. Um yeah, thank you both for the the data and the presentation. Um Dr. Brian, do you have anything else? >> We have a few more slides. Please proceed. >> All right. So, that kind of sets the backdrop um and the conditions kind of leading up to the resolution 2526-02.

079Uh which really is I think the impetus is to create a two-year plan to provide that fiscal ability stability and limit additional reductions in 28 give us one year of stability. and it's based on a recurring revenue of about $50 million about $700 BSA increase and restores classroom teachers and other student supports. Uh I will say that this presentation is based on the initial version of the resolution and there are two subst uh two versions that are going to follow after this but what you'll see here is the original one and this is the details of it in decrease the PTR by three. Um it'll restore school nurses, special education for some legally required services and an indigenous education positions that were inadvertently cut. Um would restore money for the dome and rifle programs and

080some sports and activities agenda and then allocate the charter school statutory share which is about 2.8 million. Um and then the other two the last two line items are for FY28. So those monies would be saved for the following fiscal year to limit any further reductions to those programs. What the PTR looks like. Here's the cost of the PTR changes. Um we put together this table just so you and the public have an idea of different levels of funding needed to implement PTR reductions from the current version that was a plus4. Um you'll see H or minus one, two, and three. which is just one, two, and three across the board. The FY or the minus4 actually reverts back to the FY 26, the current year metric, which is a plus4 or it' be a

081minus4 at all school or all levels except middle schools, which was plus 1.75. Uh HB57, as you recall, they put that into statute to have target class sizes, and I'll show you what those are on the next slide, so you can see what those PTR metrics would be. And then the picassad evidence-based model is on there too, which would cost about almost hund00 million to implement. And that really lowers class sizes, particularly at elementary grades. So here's what those uh PTRs would look like. You can see the middle one is what this current the original resolution is based on. We would have them ranging from 24 kids at kindergarten to 33 at high schools. Uh you can see on the right the evidence-based model is 15 at primary grades and then 25 at 4 through

08212. So it does cost considerable amount to get those class sizes down. And then the HP57 metrics of 23 at K through 6 and 30 at 7 through 12. So we did put together this this is the original proposed budget how those um funds are allocated between direct instruction administration ops and maintenance and student supports. Um the bottom table you'll see the total dollars in each category and then the percent of the total um administration is around 5% ops and maintenance 14 students 423. You can see that and we put together another one that looks like this. If the ASDR was approved, um it really doesn't change the percentages that much. You'll see ops and maintenance go down a little bit and instruction go up a little bit and that's really just some a lot

083of this is ends up being rounding at some point. Um but you can see that all the money goes into either direct classroom instruction or those student support. So that's where the funding goes. It's not going to administration or ops and maintenance at this point. Um and then the bottom table you can see there's a comparison of the 27 proposed the 27 uh what would it be if it was amended with the resolution. So also in the one of the attachments that we had we showed how many teachers they would get back at each school based on a PTR minus three. uh Sven Gustin put together some examples based on a few different schools that have with principles that had their kind of changes ready to go if something's implemented. Um so these are coming

084from the principles. This is what they would choose to implement. You know, we do have local control at our schools and that's why you see different programs getting reduced to different ones and we have to make those reductions. Um so Bulma you'd see a kindergarten teacher for the optional program and a first grade teacher. Currently they have 46 uh projected for their first grade classroom. Golden View would have a PE teacher, some partial sections of student government, video production, law studies, a choir, uh photography. Uh Polaris an alternative program would get 1.8 FTE back provide a secondary English teacher and a point8 for math and science. Uh Clark would get 2.2 to FTE out of that restore a language arts position and some math uh sections. Chooiak would restore some AP classes, German and whatever

085FTE English is. I'm not an English person. I'm an accountant. So bear with me. I'm reading spin slides here. Uh but it' provide math and credit recovery. East would restore their band teacher, social studies, math, English, and a little bit for credit recovery. And then West would have the I think the biggest proportion of teachers coming back to 5.2, including some for Russian, choir, uh, band, math, science, English, and social studies. Um, so with that, that's the end of the slide deck. If we have any questions about the specific school changes, we can direct those over to our academic services folks. I see member McDonald. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, yeah, the the information at the end I think is very important and I I would like to invite academic services to explain the

086flow of resources from PTR down into these either student pathways programs, which is what I'm saying for like optional electives and secondary everything. So we'll we'll if this resolution passes we reduce the PTR and then um if if the academic services can explain the mechanism of how that flows downream to these targeted programs. >> Sure I can um try to answer that member Mcdana. So once uh we receive or we decide on what that would be coming back then Mr. Routlft would give us kind of what the FTE is per school. At that point, the school school principles will then look at what their specific schools need with that particular FTE. They would make those decisions at that local controlled level. Many will have brand new positions open. Some will take different that partial FTE

087and put them into other teachers who might have gone to like an 80% contract or less than a 1.0 contract to increase those. I'm an example just on this slide right here down at the very bottom. These additions will also store API PLTW and CT offerings. That's because those would be electives that are getting affected and would come back if we had those math, science, English, and social studies teachers. So the school actually decides what the positions are at that point and then they put in if they have openings they put in the openings through the um human resources talent management team if they're people on the recall list um they'll go into those positions um and otherwise those will be if it happens after June 15th they'll be new hires because transfers um unless

088they're displaced happen um before June 5th. 15th. Does that answer your question? >> Yeah. So, to to clarify in a single nugget, um we've heard from dozens of people whose program was impacted by the PTR rising like band closure, the whole gamut. Would this resolution enable the restoration of most if not all of those program? most, >> not all, because this the the resolution, the first resolution still has a plus one ptr and we're losing students. So, not only does PTR affect um our FT, but enrollment affects our FT as well. So, it this doesn't make everything whole in any way, shape, or form. >> We'll move to member lessons. >> I really appreciate the comment and the clarifications. The only thing I would add for for the public's understanding is that a resolution is

089only as effective as the legislative action that responds to it. So this is a plan. We're talking about a plan. Mr. Ratliff has done a really amazing job to sketch out that sort of ground truth uh you know student level impact to what could change should the legislature make a permanent reliable uh sustainable increase to the base student allocation. Um, so I think the question about a what's the flow, it begins with a statutory change to the base student allocation and then we're ready to go as soon as they make that statutory change and potentially override a ginatorial veto. >> Member lessons, we'll go to member Higgins. >> Just two questions. One is I'm curious about what we're missing here. You got selections. I never would have guessed Bowman optional would have had a kindergarten

090class or other issues out there. So this restores some stuff, but what does it not restore? It's kind of a good question because those are alternatives the board gets to weigh in on and and and that's an important issue to me. So I just don't know. And then when I look at alternatives, I don't know if we we're going to have trouble filling the teacher jobs, okay? And you can if you could increase it, you know, reduce the PTO and not have the teachers anyway. Are there options out there with with teacher aids and other things that we could do that would be beneficial for the kids with the limited funds would it achieve a lot you know more or or beneficial uh to the classroom because I know one of the presentations after co

091was you need that kind of assistance to help bring down the improve the academics and it doesn't have to be within the school it could be outside the school but those benefits are there so if we can't get the teachers if for the for financial you could have so many teacher aids or the others. Uh is that an alternative that was at least explored or considered? >> I can answer >> and I can address the first part of that question to say what are we missing like on the beginning of the slide deck we went through all these things that we cut. So these will rem sands of things that are in this resolution if even if if they do get approved by the legislature. This these list of things most by and large aren't

092coming back. There's a subset of them that would uh based on the resolution, but you can kind of marry those up and see that we're still cutting a whole lot of stuff. I can let SP address >> I can address like um member Higgins with AIDS. We had a lot of openings this year with AIDS and teachers. Anytime we put back things into what we have now, especially at this time of year, yes, we are going to have a hard time filling the positions because we did our staffing so much later this year, but we had so many openings for pair of professionals even this year. Mr. Lang may be able to give us a better number on that. In general, we've done better in our ability to hire pair of professionals into the classroom

093since we um increased the wages through the last contract negotiation. We were carrying over 200 pair of professional openings out of about 700 uh two years ago. We've consistently had somewhere in the magnitude of about 75 openings this year on a consistent basis. So we've done a much better job in filling those para roles and um keeping folks and having less sort of of a re revolving door. Um but we would have the same challenge I think you know in filling those at 100% that we would if we suddenly got a lot of additional teacher FTE and finding teachers this late in the season. And I think if I were to underscore one thing, this just really shows the disconnect with the legislative process in terms of providing adequate forward funding for schools because it's

094just not in line with our budget process and and really ideal staffing timelines for us to fill all of our teacher positions. We would really want to be staffing in February and March when those pools are robust, when teachers are really contemplating moves um from one district to another if they were going to. um the later we get in the season, especially when we get into the summer, those pools are depleted because other districts have already hired a lot of those viable candidates. But if we were given that option, uh we would absolutely make our best effort to hire every qualified teacher we could and fill those. It would be it would be a good challenge to have. If I could add one more thing from M member Higgins when he asked what else. Remember

095this is all we cut this year and we've been cutting and cutting and cutting. We we haven't adopted a new curriculum in six years or some four years and then actually worked on them for the last six years. So we have a lot of stuff in our district that we haven't that we've cut before this actual budget too. >> Thank you all. Uh, Member McDonald. >> Yeah, I have two questions. One is still on PTR because it it's the largest share of this resolution and it it does float many boats. Um, the thing I think we haven't yet discussed um is the presence of like classroom bubbles or basically an overconentration of kids in one age in a school and it's somewhere between one teacher and two teachers. Um, I have a a message here

096from the Creekide principal that he he said I'm I'm welcome to read. Um, and just I I want to highlight and then ask academics, is this common? So, he said if he has 11 teachers, which is the current PTR amount he will receive next year. Of his 11 teachers, three are grade combos. and even just one more teacher through a PTR adjustment of at least two. He said he would cut two of those combos and he would only have one out of 12. So his ratio of combos goes from roughly onethird of his entire school in a combo to less than 10%. Is that a common picture among our elementary schools and the class bubble problem? >> Yes, that is. And that would fix one of or two of three in that particular school. But

097we do have bubbles even with the PTR. Like if we reduce the PTR by three, there are two schools that aren't going to receive any more PT any more FTE because of how small they are with the metric. So those schools if they have a bubble, we don't have an access anything for that particular school to help them and relieve some of that stress. >> Okay. Thank you. And then the second question is what is not in the PTR? I'd like just uh yes no clarification of all of these that I will list. My understanding is they're not in the PTR. So um like gifted ignite teachers in the elementary are not PTR funded. Art, music and elementary are not PTR funded and holdback positions are not PTR funded. Is that correct? >> I I

098can answer part of that. Um, holdbacks are not in PTR. Ignite is not in PTR. However, when there's a PTR decrease or increase, there's a metric and Andy, you could probably answer that better about how what that affects the specialists at elementary, >> right? So, when we do the PTR, we calculate the number of teachers and then we add on a component on that for uh planning time. So, it's really to try to get closer to a class size versus a strictly PTR, which is your total number of students divided by your total number of teachers. Um, so as the PTR goes down, we need to provide more staff to provide that planning time to keep kind of that equitable class size conversation. >> I I also missed one. Nursing, right? That's nursing is not

099in the PTR. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Librarians are not, counselors are not. >> Okay, we're seeing no other discussion. Do we have any additional slides? >> Okay. >> All right. Um, Dr. Bryant, does that complete your superintendent update? >> Yes. >> Okay, we will move back to our agenda to the only action item we have. And thank you team for the presentation. Um, first only action item is a ASD R2602. Is there a motion? >> Mr. President, I move to adopt resolution ASDR25-26-02S2, resolution directing administration to revise the proposed FY27 budget should the 34th legislature approve and fund an $850 increase to the base student allocation prior to June 30th, 2026. >> Second. Motion made by member lessons to adopt the S2 version and seconded by member Mcdana. Member Lessons, um please if

100you would add any clarity that you'd like to content of the original resolution as well as any changes that you've made which in theory would also address the S version and we can allow other members to chime in as well. >> Great. Thank you. I will try to move through this uh as briefly as I can. Really beginning by acknowledging the incredible amount of work our newest board members Blakesley and Mcdana uh put in. Literally 24 hours after being sworn in, the three of us began collaborating on a path forward. And I think that's really extraordinary and needs to be appreciated, celebrated. And I also want to begin by thanking an enormous amount of support from staff, Mr. Ratliff, Mr. Gersonen, Miss Parrot, Dr. Bryant in particular in helping ensure that our conversations were grounded

101in accurate information. So, I really appreciate that that teamwork. Um, so we would not be here today without um essentially the an original version of the resolution which became the basis for calling this meeting as well as a very thoughtful S version which was created and posted yesterday by members Blakeley and Mcdana. Um, S2 begins with and encompasses the original resolution, but it builds on what is added in the S version and makes a few conforming changes. So, uh, if everyone can bear with me, I'm going to be working from the S2 version. For your understanding, items in red were more or less added by the S version and items that have been underlined uh are changed from the S version to the S2 version. So, at a fundamental level, the original resolution, which S2

102continues, outlines what the district has done between FY20, FY12 and FY26, the cuts and reductions that we've made. It highlights the cuts that were made and reductions and efficiencies in the FY27 uh budget balancing exercise. It incorporates additional language offered by members Blakesley and uh Mcdana about uh cuts that were implemented governing gifted instruction and services as well as the reductions for music and art specials at the elementary level. So I appreciate that. Um, it details some of the known cuts to schools. We heard more of them uh today in this presentation. I don't think any board member could actually pin down all of the cuts that have taken place and all of the impacts, but this is just a these are a few bullet points of things we know have already uh been reduced

103from next year's offerings to students. So there are a couple of sections uh focused on high schools and another couple another section focused on elementary schools. Um on page two of the document we go over those reductions and we talk about the fact that class size reductions really promote long-term efficiencies. Right? When we think about the role of the learning environment, a small learning environment exemplified by the pyus odden study and looking at you member Higgins is really what happens uh what you need in order to make an effective learning condition for all students. Um I do want to stress uh on page two there's a bullet point that says or whereas it states any level of class size reduction for FY27 will be untenable without receipt of additional recurring state revenue as we've heard

104today the investment of a dollar today increases and exacerbates our FY28 deficit tomorrow. Um on the bottom of page two in red and underlined you'll see that the S2 version pivots from both the original and S version uh which to get to to offer a PTR reduction of minus4. And here I want to clarify that it is in fact a full PTR reduction minus4. I call it the go big or go home reduction because we've actually already reduced PTR a little bit for our middle school students. This layers the full PTR reduction for those middle school students if that makes sense. So Mr. Ratliff briefed um the version in a chart of a PTR reduction minus4 getting to the FY26 metrics. This would be PTR minus4 for everyone incorporating the middle school students. The added

105bonus, as I'll get to later, is that it actually would get us to PTR levels which align with target class sizes for grades seven and eight established through state statute, which uh would be a remarkable achievement. So, it's an additional investment in students. A PTR reduction minus 4 would cost 24.22 million. So, that's highlighted on the bottom of page two. Um the top of page three, you can see that we acknowledge our FY28 deficit currently projected at 44.7 million. Uh we talked about that at our recent finance committee meeting. Um, we talked about actions the board has taken already to retain the middle school model for FY27 and we outlined the likely need to retain it for FY28 because students in immersion classes, students who require special education intervention, students who require English language interventions,

106uh, those probably aren't going to change between FY 27 and 28. So this is an obligation of funds to retain the middle school model through FY28. Um really to make sure that we are uh serving all students. Um it acknowledges uh community concerns and inputs. There's a there's a whereas in the middle of page three that states that the board is committed to reducing the structural deficit to zero zero dollars over time. So going from a 20 $44.7 million deficit in FY28 to a zero is a critical objective here. It requires significant sustained funding from the state and quite frankly restraint on the board and that's going to be a challenge for all stakeholders to have to grapple with and understand. Um the bottom of page three it gets to the resolution itself. Um, should

107the 34th legislature approve a statutory change to AS14.17.470 prior to June 30th, 2026 and thereby oh, there's an error. I'm sorry. There's going to be need to be a conforming change at the bottom of that page. Um, and thereby provide the Anchorage School District with a stable recurring increase to the base student allocation of and here I'll just say it should read $850 at the bottom of page three um or more per student for FY27. The Anchorage School Board directs the administration to divide and allocate those funds less charter schools statutory share of any new revenue as follows. And I should have begun this entire thing by saying that the very first page uh changes from a resolution to allocate $700 per student to a resolution to allocate an $850 base student uh allocation uh

108an increase to that BSA per student. Um so page four is a longer chart now. It includes the additional um FTE and dollar amount of the PTR minus4 reduction. So we'd be restoring 181 classroom teachers and their accompanying kindergarten pair professional FTE with a PTR reduction of minus4. Um as in the original resolution uh it would restore five and a half nurse FTE to full-time nursing services. So we would be doing away with the regional model that the administration has proposed um because we didn't have the budget to cover a onetoone model. Um it would restore those two critical uh positions in special education and indigenous education. Um, I want to make a note here that there is a slight change from the earlier versions because the board received a really tremendous email from an

109individual leading the dome uh yesterday evening saying that if we were to move forward with uh renewing a contract for the dome, they would offer us a $77,000 discount on uh the cost of next year's dome membership. So, this wraps that into the into the um scale of the adbacks. So this particular item restoring funds for the dome um and also rifle is in that as well. We heard um significant testimony about the rifle programs which is a very nominal amount. Um there is an addition here uh for um secondary sports and activities agenda which is um necessary. The board restored sports and activities but to my understanding not the funds to pay coaches. Um, and maybe there's a better phrase for that. >> That that isn't the case. >> That's not the agenda. Okay,

110I misunderstood that. >> The agenda is that when they went to put it put it back, it was all those other things like student government and class advisors and band and orchestra choir concerts and all those other things that aren't sports. It was sitting in the account and they had when it was figured out, they were taking that money not realizing that they were taking it away from them. >> Okay. So, thank you for that clarification. This is an adback at the uh courtesy of um this being flagged by the administration. Um, this next the next two the next three lines in red are really thanks to members Blakesley and Mcdana whose S version would have and this continues to restore gifted services including 21 Ignite FTE um three bus routes for highly gifted services

111to receive equitable AC academic intervention and restores 27.5 elementary art and art special teachers. Um, critically I want to flag that there's a a minor language change that ultimately ends in creating a task force to for future programming and analysis rather than maybe a pilot program and task force. Um, we can talk about that but right now I'm just introducing this. Um, the second to last line talks about obligating the remaining funds or the obligate funds to retain the 28.4 for classroom teacher FTE needed for the middle school model for FY28. So we're talking about about $36 million in spending for FY27, about just over $4 million for the middle school model for FY28. And then what we would obligate the remaining funds, less unanticipated costs towards retaining nurses and highly qualified classroom teachers in

112FY28. And that's about 141 FTE. So in essence, under an $850 base student allocation increase, we can count on the receipt of $60 million in FY27 and another $60 million in FY28 by spending the $120 million, right? over two years of additional revenue by making a plan to spend 60% of the additional funding we would receive in FY28 and saving about 40% of the FY27 new revenue for FY28. We can overcome that 44.7 million fiscal deficit, come up with a balanced budget in FY28. And I would direct our collective attention to uh the second be for the resolved on page five that we would enable the district to balance the FY28 budget with no expected increases to class sizes or programmatic reductions. So I think that buys time for really thoughtful conversations and community conversations

113about the future of the Anchorage School District. I've spoken a lot. I'm happy to um allow others to chime in. >> Thank you, member lessons. will be the member McDonald. >> Uh thank you, Mr. President. Um so much has happened in a week since member Blakesley and I got sworn in. Um including at least three work meetings till midnight and then we basically one of us passed out on the call and just stopped working. Um, so thank you both to member lessons and member Blakesley for drafting basically like a full budget of what we would spend if we get this money. Um, I want to speak to my support of the resolution and the S2 version. Um, the resolution is fundamentally about planning responsibly for sustainable student outcomes instead of reacting to crisis with basically

114too small a rudder to actually steer out of the way of the iceberg that we will hit. And after all, public education is nothing if not a slowm moving mega barge. I think the other educators in the room understand it is hard to change the direction of an education ship. So forward planning is essential and that's really what all three versions but especially this S2 version looks to. Um it recognizes a very important reality. The board made extraordinarily painful reductions to pass a balanced budget just a few months ago. We closed three schools. We reduced staffing by hundreds. We increased the PTR by four and we removed athletics, many nurses, the middle school schedule, pathway programs throughout the whole district. We did these things because we had to legally balance the budget with the $90

115million shortfall. And now we see the consequences of those reductions. And some are not just painful, but have caused great injury. And this resolution addresses those greatly injured programs that the PTR and other cuts have led to. We see now there are less fortunate cuts that are really eroding core programs far more than we anticipated they would. So for starters, the board before I was sworn in had to revert to the middle school model because we noticed that under a six period day, it would have been impossible for ASD to meet our commitments to the civil rights protections under federal disability protections. And this was just the first domino to fall. Since I've been sworn in, literally less than seven days ago, we have had hundreds of emails that a program that is very important

116to one or more kids, is being inadvertently removed. Another thing we learned this month is how sensitive ASD special programs are to the PTR, the people teacher ratio formula. Since the PTR was raised by four, pathway programs are beginning to collapse under scheduling pressure from the Bowman optional where fewer kindergarten enrollment will have 13 years of consequence as that school is just smaller throughout or I guess seven because it's it's a K through 5, K through six, uh it will have many many years. So these are the snowball is beginning to build in all of these cuts. Uh we also have really taken away our security and our safety and our our commitment that schools will always be safe for all students by removing nurses from or not all nurses but we removed five and

117a half nurses and we shifted to a model where our frontline responders are perhaps on call across Anchorage and won't be available for many minutes 20 30 minutes at at times. Another thing is very important to recognize programs don't bounce back when legislative money comes in um if we don't allow their vitality. Now shrinking enrollment is a critical threat to the way any of these programs operate. Fewer students will increase the rate of attrition in future years which will continue to cut teachers which will continue to make these programs lose money and so on and so on. So we need a lifeline or a lifeboat to go back to our mega barge anal analogy and that is why this resolution calls for the modest $850 increase to the base student allocation. I say it's modest

118because last year the legislature also gave us $700 and they also did that through a historic governor veto override. Um $850 is that $700 plus the identified $150 inflation gap that is just from this year from the the chief financial officer's report earlier today. So $850 is modest. It's basically what they gave us last year and they had the ability politically to override the governor's veto. I'm pretty confident they can do that this year. They need to understand that education has reached its bottom. We've cut the administrators. We've cut the vacant positions. We've cut the programs that serve our mission but don't seemingly relate to math and reading. And what we've realized is if this budget continues, there are so many essential services that will crumble. We really have found the bottom the floor of

119public education as our community has tasked us to operate. One of the things this resolution does that I will give a lot of um credit to the creativity of member lessons is it adopts a novel multi-year investment for BSA funds that addresses both the core lifeboats that we need to be giving these programs now and make sure that these programs don't continue to cost us more in the future. I say this is a unorthodox accounting strategy, but the way that the BSA works is unorthodox anyway. We're one of the only state funded programs that does not receive inflation as an automatic grant into next year's funding. So the the ability to future plan is on us instead of on the state legislature or the governor's departments. So when we ask for an $850 increase, we

120are going to keep some of that to account for the structural costs of maintaining these programs in the future. Now that is the whole resolution. The new S version I'll speak briefly to the reinstatement of highly gifted gifted and the elementary art and music programs that the board had previously cut from February. I think we have an obligation to responsibly understand the way that programmatic changes and cuts are going to affect our students. And I don't think that obligation was met when we were presented with the crisis of finding $90 million. Um, I want to advocate for these programs using the science of implementation and a word from the Dennina language from the Iliamna region in Bristol Bay. Our our cousins over in the Denina say Yagalich, which means we must do things the right

121way. And that would mean the science of implementation, which is fully analyzing a change to a program and understanding fidelity checks, stakeholder engagement, operational analysis, staffing alignment, professional development, evaluation metrics, all of the barriers. We didn't see those assessments to the elementary music and art change. We saw the cost savings and we saw that certain staff found it to be a viable model, but we don't have the science to back that up. So, I really urge the the the strength of this reinstatement of the elementary art and music model. And I also call for the recognition that the gifted program is a needs-based program for Ignite and for the HG parents. My son was a HD student. Um I like to say that we call it HG instead of highly gifted because really first is

122they're highly needy. Our children are identified by teachers because they're disruptive in the core classroom environment. And that's really what triggers the school psychologist to get in and run the tests. So I would urge that these needs-based programs are stayed and even if they are inefficient or costly, it's on us to use the science of implementation to study how to improve them. While the main resolution, if we do not pass this S version, would eliminate these services, the S version restores them and it creates space for ASD to engage in responsive redesign while preserving instructional continuity for students. So again, my cousins in the Iliamna region would say this version is Yagalich. It's done the right way. So I I I'll end my comments there speaking to the S version and I appreciate again member

123lessons member Blakesley for the probably combined 70 hours in one week that we did to get this drafted and to the administration. So many of them gave us their evenings to get this up. Thank you all. >> Thank you. We'll go to member Blakeley. Um yes. So I have my own um sort of comments on support of this resolution. And just quickly like thank you member lessons. Thank you member Mcdana. Thank you to all the administrative team that helped with all of the facts and stats that were embedded into these many different versions in a very quick amount of time. Um it is not lost on me that that takes capacity away from your day jobs and I really appreciate it and I think the public probably does as well. Um but before I I

124speak to why I am supportive of this resolution, I actually have some questions. Um so for the this resolution and the S2 version, I guess this is a question for the the admin team. Um, one specific example that we have heard a lot of public testimony about, um, is about the Bowman open optional program, the boot program, and the loss of the lottery students for kindergarten incoming kindergarten classes. Would this S2 version with the um bringing back of additional teachers to the Bowman open optional program give them back those students for their lottery? >> Yes, member Blakesley. So, in the in the presentation, I actually used Bowman Elementary as one of the examples because of the amount of testimony that we've had. Um, just to kind of give you a a quick version of what

125happened and why there was reduction. The very first year we were going to increase, we increased using a holdback and but last year their PTR covered the kindergarten. And it wasn't until into August that we gave a hold back to work on the fourth and fifth combos and the bumps that were there. So they actually were able to use their FTE that they had for the most part to bring that kindergarten. The plus4 PTR is what ended up taking away that kindergarten position for this year. If they were if this was to pass, that would be one of the things that's why we put included on the slide. So yes. Um, can I ask a follow-up question just to better understand the PTR impacts on optional programs like that? So, I know that the PTR

126itself um affects the number of teachers that you're receiving because the cohort of kids that you need to get another teacher. How does it work though with programs that have these lottery options? So, if there's a weight list for kids, like the PTR, um, you know, you're you're given a PTR and then you're given sort of a estimated number of teachers you're going to get in your public school because that's based off of enrollment projections, right? You know, you like this is the projected enrollment for your school. So, we estimate you're going to get whatever 12 teachers, 11 teachers. How does that work for a program that has a weight list of people waiting to get into it? So the projected enrollment is h higher >> at at this point we utilize what they're the

127metric gives them for PT for FTE um we don't increase because we unless we have extra staff if we have extra staffing that we aren't using for bubbles and that kind of stuff then we can look at that. That's why a few years ago we actually looked at Bowman um to do that increase. Um because when you take if if you take away if you add a teacher say at Bowman for another position, you have to take it away from somewhere else. And where does that somewhere else come from? Because you don't have this like you can't say, okay, we're Bowman is going to get 25 more kindergarteners from say Tutor Elementary. they all they all don't come from the same place. In fact, it's usually a widespread of schools that these kids come from

128for choice schools. So, we don't have a me we don't have a mechanism to actually add positions unless we don't have those big bubbles and we could utilize a a an a hold back. And usually we have to we have to be conservative with that until we see where all the enrollment lands in August, where all the te students are, where where we have those big bubbles. So a lot of that happens in August. We also have another lottery coming up in July because we do have two lotteryies and we are looking at how many are on the wait list and stuff for those, but at this point we don't have money or staffing to be able to add that to it. >> Okay. And yeah, that helps clarify because the PTR is said on

129a district-wide level and then you're allocating among those schools. Okay. So to bring it back though, this resolution does give back optional those kids, right? Because it increases their FTE with the decrease in the PTR. Okay. And I'm um I'm going to uh save my comments just in support of this resolution until later. And um but yeah, I'll keep it open for questions. >> Member Higgins. >> Thank you. Um a few comments here real quick. Chris, our obligation is to every student. And so when it came to the highly gifted and and the Ignite program in the past when I was on the school board, that was equivalent to special education. It's a line you do not cross. So they wouldn't have cut it even when we were cutting a vast amount of money. It

130was considered to be inexcusable. And I I feel that way about it. I don't think they can get an adequate education when they're in that type of category. And all the studies show academically they don't. So I am so glad this is added back in. There's a number of other addins here that I think are very important. Uh and so uh I'm just very supportive of of that particular post. Like I said that you you have to provide the accommodations necessary for the individual kids. That's really the big issue to me. I've listened to a lot of uh principles and parents and uh some teachers in regards to these upcoming uh discussion and they they some of those been long discussions and it wasn't me talking that time, it was them. Um, but it was

131a a pretty detailed discussion and the issue is trying to do the most you can for all the kids versus special needs and giving special money to some groups. Okay. And that's the challenge you've got. I know there are advantages to lowering classroom sizes. I also saw studies out there what when you're trying to lower classroom sizes. If you do it real quick, you don't get the results because teachers have to adjust and schools have to adjust and all that. if you went with real small classes. But um I don't think we can ignore the impact on the individual kids to try to lower an extra one FTE or something like that. I just don't think it's right. Um we've made some long-term changes. Uh Campbell is a great example. It's it's not a lot

132of savings. It's a changing. There are pros and cons. We need to do more of that discussion of what the pros and cons are because in that one I I do think it's a long-term damage. I think u the difference. The optional programs, the emerging programs particularly, you can't cut back at certain points and it's difficult to adjust them. But when you adjust it at kindergarten, first grade, you take away a teacher that's out there, you're you're really damaging the long-term survivability of it. So, I don't want solutions that are going to uh hurt us long term. Okay? And when we are making changes, I just want to understand the pros and cons of of adding helmets. Thought you throw that out there. Uh I like that. I'm going to tell share that story with

133others in the future. But I I just I I like the changes. I really appreciate the two new school board members, the involvement and the commitment they've got. Y'all are doing fantastic job. And Kelly, of course, you um you're always contributing this thing. But I I really do think these changes I can support them. They're dealing with we're listening to the public uh within it. We can't make our decision based upon the public opinion. It has to be best for kids. But we've got parents out there that know what's what's best for their kids. I mean, I've dealt with people that said we have to burn books because I don't want my kids to read it. And I'm going, you don't have to read those kids, but you're not going to make the decision for

134me. We need to recognize that the impact for the parents is they're fighting hard for their kids and these issues that they're raising do impact their kids and their families and it's emotional and it should be and so I am glad that we're making the changes we are. I'm totally supportive of it. Uh and I love some of the changes in here pretty good. Can't do everything we want to do but it's the right approach. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm going to put myself in the queue. Um I uh want to express appreciation for um members Blakesley lessons and Mcdana for drafting the three versions that got us to S2. Um I won't repeat um much of what was said that this resolution would do well um should the legislature allocate permanent funding increase

135of this size. Um what I uh the one thing I will um reiterate u is that I think what this resolution makes clear and hopefully continues to educate the public and legislators in Juno that uh a permanent increase in the foundation formula through the base student allocation and um and maintaining that consistent level of funding is the key for school districts in our state to maintain the lowest possible class sizes. Um I think that the challenge the legislature will have in um implementing this is is their own lack of a sustainable long-term fiscal plan. Um with that said, uh to administration, is there a estimated cost for what a BSA increase of this size would cost the state? Um total statewide we have about a little over 250,000 adjusted ADM. So take the whatever how

136that rolls through the formula. So that 250,000ish adjusted ADM times $850 per would be about $215 million for the state. >> Okay. Um I would argue that that's a $215 million investment that not only um is necessary, I think it's constitutionally mandated upon the legislature and and it clearly would make a world of difference for Anchorage of students, families, and educators. So, um I'm in favor of the resolution. I'm also in favor. Um, I hope our board continues to to turn to Juno very quickly and using this um document to um engage in meaningful advocacy with the limited time that they have left to impress upon um 61 individuals in Juno that this is work they shouldn't um put aside without this is work they need to complete before gavling out. And with that said,

137we'll go to member Wilson who's online. >> Apologies, I couldn't unmute. So, I also wanted to share my appreciation um and the to the commitment of the board members that created this resolution and the work that was done to create it. And it sounds like it was a tremendous amount of work and it looks like it was a tremendous amount of work. So, very thoughtful. Um, I just wanted to uh reiterate that this resolution will be relevant if and and when. So, I'm going to be positive forward thinking. The legislature passes an $850 increase in the base student allocation. And um I appreciate that you stated the student allocation increase in the student allocation prior to June 30th, 2026. And I just wanted to reiterate that because uh without the BSA increase, we as a

138school board cannot reinstate any of these changes without um without that base student allocation. Um unless the only thing we can do is our if we chose any additional trade-offs. I mean, if we reinstate something, we're taking something away from a different classroom or a different anyway. So, so we don't have any extra funds to allocate is is what I'm stating. Um because I I continue to hear that it's the school board that's choosing to cut things and we're really not wanting to cut things. We're really wanting to give more to our kids, but it is the funding that that we have to work with. I also wanted to share that I was recently in Southeast Alaska and learned that Ketchacan closed two out of their three elementary um neighborhood schools. I was also in

139uh the Prince of Wales area and talking to a principal in Craig who has four teachers in his high school when he said they they used to have 10 and it's just been a cons consistent cutting back. So, for the legislature to pass a a BSA increase would obviously um I'm focused on the Anchorage School District, but I'm hearing from so many of our other school board members from other other areas in Alaska that and school districts that are struggling. Um, so it would it's not just Anchorage that would benefit from that. It is many so many of our other school districts and and many of our kids around the state. I just wanted to state that as well. Again, thank you for your work and um absolutely support reinstating um any of these opportunities

140for our kids um should we get that increase in the BSA. >> Thank you, Member Wilson. We'll go back to Member Mcdana. >> Mr. President, I would invite um Mi uh Member Bellamy was in the queue before me. >> She's not on my queue. She's so far down. Member Bellamy, you are welcome to have the floor. >> Thank you. Thank you, uh, Mr. President, and thank you, uh, member, uh, McDonald. >> Anyway, uh, I do I have to add thanks. I mean, everything that you guys included, um, while I do have reservations about that 850 number, I appreciate that this tells, um, the legislature what we need and we're not just stopping at what we think we can get. So, and I think it's really it's it's important that we do that. Um, sometimes we

141hold ourselves back because we don't think they're going to go for that or they're not going to do that. But I think this this puts it right out there. I only have just a couple of clarifying questions and I think I've answered them between the boards uh the the administration's presentation and uh the attachment to uh S2. Uh but the gifted uh the talented and gifted transportation is included in this. Correct. uh the Bowman the uh Bowman uh 20 extra 25 seats or >> in indirectly >> indirectly >> right they would receive additional FTE which the principal >> through the local control model could allocate >> got it that works um I didn't see anything about the uh Russian immersion transportation did we not um or is that >> I guess I don't know that

142Russian immersion transportation was a cut but my understanding as articulated in the slide side is that uh FTE for Russian immersion was reduced and the additional >> I actually don't know what um >> what FTE they would receive a minus4 would be but there would be ample FTE to restore >> at a minus three they would restore it. >> Okay, thank you. And then um I saw the uh uh Betty Davis East Anchorage High School band program and um the band teacher social studies and credit recovery would return. Uh let's see. Oh, and the task force that was actually magical uh t creating the task force for the to look at the arts. So I really um I I really appreciate the work. Uh it's not easy but uh welcome aboard you guys. Thank you.

143I do support S2. >> Thank you member Belling. Um now we'll go back to member McDonald and lessons. I was also after member lessons just but I go ahead. >> This will be very brief. I did want to direct everyone's attention to an additional task this resolution creates for Mr. which is to make a final revision of attachment B which is the FTE allocations by school. The entire presentation and the attachment is currently modeled on a PTR minus3. So what we would be tasking you is showing us how the additional PTR reduction would result in additional FTE being available for schools. So, uh, really we're talking about a yes and model as opposed to, um, anything other than that. >> ML speaking. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. With um all the discussion,

144I want to boldly move to amend the S2 version to state um at amend the resolution by adding language restoring the operation of the Lake Otis Fire Lake and Campbell Steam Elementary Schools for the school year FY27 stating on page four the cost estimated at 4.4 4 million and reduction to the final tally of obligated funds by a corresponding amount. Uh member McDonald, do you have that written or typed out? I have it written. I can if you would get a paper or electronic copy to um our secretary. Okay. Take a twominut recess while we get that done. We're going to call ourselves back to order 12:15. Um, so a motion was made by member Mcdana and that is now up. Okay, we need a second before I can read it. essentially um is to

145reverse the allow the applicable funding required to reverse the closures of um Fire Lake, Lake Otis and Campbell Elementary. Is that correct, Member McNichol? >> Yes, that is the intent of the motion. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> A second. >> Seconded by member Blley. So now we can bring it up for members to review. Um and then member McDonald, you have the floor as the maker of the motion. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I can make this one quick. Um, the board did consider under so S2 would roll back the PTR increase that that's the first bit of logic here. Um, to the level that we currently have and under this level of the pupil teacher ratio, the board considered in November both Fire Lake and Lake Otis and said that they are

146unjustifiable to close. Um, and then the board committed ASD resolution after the PTR adjustment and specifically noted during discussion that the reason to reconsider those schools was because the PTR changed those class sizes so much that it seemed like it was essential to reconsider them. So for those two schools, I think the justification to reconsider is very important because the hypothetical PTR in this S2 version is identical to what the board has already said was an unjustifiable closure. Um secondly, for the Campbell STEM, I would say there there's so much clouds and smoke still settling about this discussion. ASD. It is clear to me that ASD needs to rebuild from the ground up how we engage with the community around the purpose of our school buildings. And the Campbell STEM was too fast, too soon,

147and without any metric. And if we have this basically dream of getting money from the state and if it comes in time to be able to reverse the closure, I believe that we should and then begin building that framework, that metric system very carefully to include a lot of parent engagement. >> Thank you. Um, I'm going to put myself in the queue um to ask just a couple data and procedural questions I think would be helpful for others um who intend to speak on the amendment um uh to administration. I think if I'm aligning everything correctly that this um this resolution indicates that um in in in a non-binding way uh but with clear intent indicates to that the board would allocate new dollars um if they were um appropriated prior to June 30th. So

148on on June 30th, if the legislature um passed and appropriated funding equivalent to an $850 um increase to the base student allocation and then amended statute to make that increase permanent. Um what would the logistics look like of reversing the decision made by the board in February? >> Um if I >> That's a great question. um by 30 June probably 50 plus 60% of all the moves from schools to the other gaining schools will have been completed. Um there's probably nothing that's completely not reversible but it certainly would impact when school could open. we will have already packed, paladized, moved um programs across 22 schools um well not quite 22 I think it's probably in the 18 and to reverse that in the month of July um and be ready for school start would be

149uh very difficult. Nothing's impossible. It would be incredibly difficult. >> Okay. Um Dr. Brandt, you have other comments on that question? Mr. Lang, do you have any thoughts on the implications of staffing? >> I think similar to the operational challenges um of undoing what is is work that will already have been engaged in is we will have already have at this point assigned close to the 140 staff members who currently work at those three schools. So, you know, a lot of them now have assignments at other schools, potentially other grade levels. they'll be investing a lot of their sort of mental time over the summer preparing for that new assignment. Um this would be kind of a mid-stream change. It would be disruptive across a lot of schools potentially. So again um like Mr. Anderson

150said, certainly not undoable, but it isn't without some risk and impact um to the system as a whole. >> Understood. I appreciate the answers to that question. Um I I want to I always I start um my process coming to um the discussion neutrally and then leaning support. Um and so that's where I'm asking these questions just to get some data out there for other board members to consider. um if if the funding was increased and appropriated, you know, at the very end of that window in June, um would it be fair to estimate that there would be an equal amount of of transportation costs to put everything back? >> It would be significant. Um they've already started packing classrooms uh for movement. we would have to bring back a a large amount of staff

151if we could get them to come back. Um the transportation costs would would of course be increased. Um we cut 20% of the the drivers for next year's budget. So we're you know we don't have the resources um to easily do this. Um it would cost significant amounts of money and I honestly couldn't tell you how much on just on a spur. >> Okay. Um I just want to follow up on that particular question. When you say we don't have the resources to do this, you mean we don't have the resources in hand right now or we would have to budget from the new >> We have the resources to be able to pull it off by school start what we've already started doing. Um but reversing it, all of the teachers that packed all

152the boxes, um all of all of the warehouse personnel, the time moved, everything that gets moved in the month of June, those same drivers still have a significant amount of stuff to move in the month of July in order to stand up school. Um again, nothing's impossible. It would be very difficult and I suspect there would be some programs andor some schools that would not be ready for school start. Okay. Um and then I have a question um maybe for the maker um about the fiscal impact of this for FY28. Um could you speak to what your intent is about are we um this money is coming from money that would be set aside if this amendment didn't pass or are we reducing something else in the proposed spending plan to accommodate this ask would

153be first question. Second question is um what does this do to the FY28 deficit? I think uh so Mr. President for the first question the motion is the the second half of the motion for the funding obligation um the corresponding amount of these investments I I suppose the way this resolution reads is the the number on the screen um I said 4.4 4 million. I would after discussion um see if a member would like to correct that to what the CFO has advised is 4.8 million. But um because this is basically staffing numbers, I think it would just change the obligated amount that we're rolling into FY28 by the exact same. However, to the structural deficit, there will be less than that amount because 2 actually to the um no, the obligation amount would only

154be 2.6 million, I believe, because the 2.2 million of that is is essentially going to have to go back into the bond debt reimbursement account for Campbell STEM. And then 2.6 million is the salaries of the associated staff that would have been eliminated by the school closures. Um the second question then about the structural deficit, it would go up but by less than 2.6 million and I think we would have to bring that back to the CFO offline um to do the formula because we do receive revenue for having the buildings open and that revenue is intended to offset the cost of operating. So um the fiscal deficit would only increase by something less than 2.6 6 million. >> Would admin like to weigh in on the second question? >> Yeah, I mean I calculate

155out the deficit up to about 8.7 million and that's really you're resetting that baseline of your expenditures up by the entire 4.8 million because that's what you've restored in your budget at that point. So, just to kind of very simply with without this amendment, there's currently a roughly $4 million deficit for FY28. And with it, >> it was a surplus of a little over a million, I believe. >> So, with without the amendment, we currently have a surplus for FY28. Um, with the amendment, there would be an 8 million deficit >> planned. I mean, that's kind of once there's a lot of things to happen between now and FY28. understanding that those figures change >> but just on this modeling. Yeah. >> Okay. And I think the last question I have, which hopefully will help

156inform the rest of the board and we can discuss um the last two questions I have um are do the maker does does the maker and does anyone else from the board I guess have an idea um for how we can reduce FY28 expenses to ensure we don't have um a deficit? I can't think of anything else that would bring more widespread support from our public um and internal and external stakeholders than having a a budget that's balanced that we wouldn't have to talk about reductions as we've done year after year after year. Um so is there um an idea as to where that deficit um may be reduced from our FY28 budget? Um, and then I think the other question I'm wondering what's I'll just say out loud is is 88 $850 BSA increase

157the right number if our goal is to um if our goal is to restore these programs and make them viable permanently as I know every one of the seven of us would love to see is 850 that number of the things that I'm wondering. Thanks. Um yeah, while the the questions are through me still, um how to reduce the FY28 expenses, the the other five on this board who have been here for so long, have those tools, we've had to use them for so long. I think what we've learned is um it it's not really possible to do something that doesn't cause hurt. and we would have until February to responsibly plan where those that deficit closure of 8 million would come from. Um, and to vet the number 8 million and to make sure

158that it's accurate to all of our expected expenses. Um, I'm not saying that I'm happy with any decision that adds to a future cut, but there is a a timeline disconnect where we have to pass a budget far before the state does. And what we're advocating for is money that we really should have been aware of in February when we raised uh the this year's budget. And just because our budget is due in March, the state's budget is not due till uh July. And that huge disconnect means we're continually having to pontificate and hypotheticalize everything in these budgets. I would ask that we assess the resol or the amendment on its merit. um specifically stated as we said that the PTR as this resolution would have was sufficient to keep these schools open. So if

159we're going to restore the PTR, we need to be able to recommit that decision that we made in November. Um while there's then a slight 8 million is way smaller than it was this year. slight deficit we have until February to engage with the community and find the solution to that. Um and I think the fourth question I would agree um the 850 that the three of us came to is the most conservative number that we know is adequate and that we believe there's political will. Um I would encourage discussion of a number higher. I think this board would love to see everything return back to where it was in about 2016. Um, this 850 doesn't even rewind the clock back to that. It'll probably set us back to about 2020. So, um, 850 is

160modest and I think there's rationale for 850 and I would I would entertain discussion to go higher if that's where the board would like to begin advocating. Uh, member lessons, >> I think I just want to offer a little bit of quick math if I've done it more or less correctly. Um, I think we would need to be advocating for a $920 increase to the base student allocation to generate $65 million of additional revenue, which would allow for um the additional expenditures in both FY27 and FY28 to retain a balanced FY28 budget, if that makes sense. So essentially, we would um we need $70 in additional revenue per pupil beyond what the um S2 version currently purports to be able to sustainably roll back those changes for FY27 and hold them within the budget in

161FY28 because you're not just spending $4.5 million in FY27, you're also spending that same amount in FY28 and that's why the number goes up so much to that eight and a half million dollar deficit more more or less. >> Are you point of information though on the the restoration 2.2 million is a onetime cost because it would just go to the bond debt account. Is that correct M? >> Right. Yeah. And this is kind of why we don't like doing math with fly. Um but yes so 2.6 6 million would go into our operational expenditures under the 60 million recurring which would get you to a deficit of about 4.1. However, you would lose 2.2 in recur recurring money. So 6.3 or 6.4 million because you'd have to backfill your FY27 to >> member 2.2.

162So that's kind of where I think we're kind of in the middle there. >> Sure. Does that satisfy your point of information? >> It does. Thank you. Member lessons, I I heard you talk about a potential amendment. Are you making an amendment? >> I think at this time I think it merits a question of um what we can advocate for may or may not be aligned with what the legislature is willing to invest. And there is a lot of political will to reinstate those school um to reopen those schools, but I'm not sure that the same could be said that the political will extends to um communities outside of Anchorage to increase the BSA by that amount at this moment in time. So, I'm interested in other board members uh feedback. >> We'll go to

163member Wilson. >> This is really confusing. >> Member Higgins, I'm sorry, was going to member Wilson online. Okay. So, >> thank you. Um, and I appreciate the questions that have been asked because it answered some of the questions that I started jotting jotting down as soon as this resolution was u proposed. Um I am I I am concerned um because in in talking to staff members and talking in in hearing from the administration um a lot of the with the school closure specifically there's a lot of moving parts that have already started moving and there's staff that have already at least the ones that I've spoken with the few that I've spoken with have decided where they're going to be moving to how that's going to look. Um really concerned about changing course or stopping

164that course without having um an actual commitment from the legislature and not knowing even how that would move forward or how much money we potentially would have until June 30th. um with a concern that we may not get a BSA increase. So to to stop all of that progress or to continue all of that progress and then try to reverse that progress, it's it's giving me a lot of anxiety. Um I just don't understand how that potentially could work. and the and I'm feeling like there would be more of a negative impact to our staff and our families than a positive impact um particularly if we do not get the increase that we're asking for in addition to um the the 900 plus dollars um that member lessons referred to. Um I'm I'm just I'm

165really struggling with this. So please keep asking the questions. please keep providing the the answers, but um I'm really struggling with trying to support this one based on all of the information I'm receiving. >> Thank you, Member Wilson. We'll go to Member Blakeley and Member Higgins. >> Um yeah, I think just to regground us all when we're talking about what negative or positive impacts are, we have to look beyond just the dollar amounts. Um, and so I think if we start getting into a game of assuming what is a negative impact to staff by returning them to their home school is somehow a greater negative impact than keeping them at their home school is is a really large assumption to make about what is the greater negative impact. So, I I think I would like

166to stray away from that conversation about what is the the biggest harm if we have to move these people back into their home building or if we keep them in their new allocations and we're making the decision about what we think is best based off of what we think that negative impact is to them or positive impact is to them. a lot of inherent assumptions um about the way things actually affect people that um we're not actually privy to right now in this conversation. Um I also just want to clarify for member Wilson's comment. I think she was expressing concern about um the potential of stopping um you know plans set in motion because we don't have a commitment from the legislature but we don't have a commitment from the legislature about any of this.

167This is all a hypothetical exercise. Um, and so I do agree that if we're dreaming big that um, like it is no secret like the elephant in the room is that public trust is at an all-time low. Like that is not a secret, right? And so I think that um if we're talking about ways not just to restore money but to restore public trust that we do owe that conversation um within the context of this resolution um to have significant merit. Um and and also to the point um member Jacobs about ideas of where to cut additional funding from or save funding from in FY28. Um, you know, I've I am new to this board and I have been looking at the budget for FY27 and I have a lot of questions still. Um, and

168I would say that I from what I see so far and I'm not privy to all of the breakouts of every single line item in the budget yet, right? Um, but I don't believe that we've necessarily exhausted all of our opportunities for creative solutions, right? I think that we've had a lot of reactionary types of decisions to make, but um I don't think that all creativity in the future is is um has been fully explored or exhausted. And I I'm like pulling I'm looking right now at page 62 of the proposed budget. And you don't have to answer these questions now, but um there are like big nebulous categories that just me personally, I do not know what they are. like I do not know what code um 490 for other expenses means um in

169in the broader list of the accounts that we have. And when I look at code 490 for other expenses across the district, I see that actual expenses in FY23, FY24, and FY25 were in the range of $500 to $900,000. And then we budgeted in FY26 $ 8.5 million for that same category. And that's a significant jump that is way beyond inflation. And so I very much admit that I probably don't know a lot of those those numbers, right? And I and there could be account codes that were combined, right? There could be a lot of expenses that are like truly or as lean as we possibly can get. Um my I I'm just I think I'm my point is that um there are I'm sure still ways that we can make creative solutions and if

170there aren't then yeah we have future hard decisions to make um and then and and maybe those decisions do have to be made in FY28. But I think that's um I understand the tension I do understand the tension of of reversing a potential change but again this is all a hypothetical um number to begin with. It's a hypothetical dream big scenario of what could be possible if the legislature responded to what's actually needed by kids, right? This is not our current fiscal reality. This is what in this scenario what we could do. And I think in that scenario of a hypothetical world, what could be possible that it we owe it to um the the extraordinary amount of public testimony that we've had about the the impact on these school communities. That's what I would

171say. >> You member Blakesley. Um, Dr. Brian, did you hang on? >> Yes. I just wanted to make sure that the board understands the timelines of events as it could relate to this specific amendment. So, just for context, um, this past summer when the historic BSA was passed, it was subject to an override from the governor, which was overridden, which resulted in additional dollars for the district. In our specific situation, that meant that my team worked around the clock to hire enough teachers two weeks before school to make a difference for students. But I bring that up in this scenario because based off of the structure of the resolution, if the legislature were to approve an $850 increase, this resolution would direct us to turn back the clock and reopen these schools. But my question

172to the board that I'd like for you all to answer amongst yourself is is the expectation that we would unclose the schools prior to any governor vetos or would we need to wait until the governor veto actually happens because I certainly can't I I can't even think through a scenario where we could unopen a school two weeks before the beginning of school. And I just want to be very transparent about the operational reality to this conversation. >> Thank you. We'll go to member Higgins. Thank you. From my standpoint, the answer is yes. Uh because it's it's it's damaged us long-term and and it's there. And is it appropriate? I'm thrown off by the money issue completely. Uh one, it was 2.6 million that we're going to save, but then in discussions at the end of

173last year, we talked about the number of kids last that Eagle Academy might add and it may not be a savings at all. >> Are you talking about the you're talking about the amendment in front of us? I'm trying to talk about the money issue, but I'll I'll yield. >> Okay. If you have any comments on the amendment, that's what we're talking about right now. Um, we'll go to member Mcdana. >> Um, this first thing is more just forgiving my newness to this side of the day. Um, the amendment that we will soon vote on it, the 4.4 4 million number is incorrect. So I would ask another member to I mean or the president can describe to me the way to amend the amendment. >> Member Mcdana if you would like to and the

174secondary agrees to correct that figure as a scrier's error. We can just do that administratively. >> Yeah I would. >> So can you what is the correct figure? >> I'd like to correct the um it is the FY27 cost at 4.4 4 million and that has been corrected by the chief financial officer 4.8 million. >> Okay. And then Miss Member Blakesley, you agree with that change? >> Yeah. Is that the correct number I'm asking? That's the Yeah, sure. I agree. >> Okay. So, yep. We've made that correction. Member McDonald, the floor is yours. >> Yeah. So, uh, thank you again, Mr. President. So I understand from the last 20 minutes of discussion there's only one stated weakness of this amendment which has to do with the reversibility of school closures and thereby reopening them and

175a very truncated timeline in the summer and it's been stated by many that there are many logistical hurdles that would have to go through. Um what I heard from this weakness is that it's difficult to reopen schools. But difficult is not a rationale I use to make governing decisions. Uh I bring to the board in only one week tenure a value from my Dennina cousins I spoke to earlier. Um Yagalich is it right? And to this question I did not hear from the administration that this amendment would not be right. For that reason, I al also not heard any member comments provide a reason to not vote yes on the amendment. Now, a consideration raised, not a weakness, but a consideration is that there is an incurring structural cost of these schools being reopened. As

176for structural uh structural deficits and operational cost, I think this board recognizes that many schools in ASD must close in the midterm future. And this is a reality that we must use the full committee structure of the board and administrative potential to address and to really build bridges into the community as co-designers. So this amendment recognizes that these schools were closed without a process and that we must build a process so that these structural and operational costs of half empty schools is something that we will really have the tools to address in the future. So this amendment recognizes we reound the clock back to where the board has already said it's not justifiable. It's not right. If the amendment fails, I believe it speaks to the weaknesses and shortfalls of using school facilities as a

177budgetary tool. And I would urge the board then to triple its investment into a long range full-scale vision of school facility use that does no longer treat schools like budget items on the spreadsheet. And I also believe this situation shows the weaknesses of how funds are appropriated from Juno to ASD in the staggered timeline. By municipal code, we must pass a budget in March, but by state statute, the legislature must pass its budget 5 months later. So, I hope this amendment continues in public discourse over to Juno and they consider how hard it is for us to make decisions on hypotheticals and for the need for the legislature to get its school funding passed before any municipalities have to. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um I am going to move an amendment. Is that objection

178from the body? Amendment to the amendment. Um, and I'm just going to add an extra line. Um, which would, um, change $850 to $920. Um, and then make necessary conforming changes. So again, the amendment to the amendment would um add language that required any reference to $850 BSA increase be changed to $920. Um I want to I want to I'll if there's a second I can speak to it. I'll second if it hasn't been seconded yet. >> Thank you. >> For the purpose of discussion. >> Perfect. Um Okay. Uh what I what I think I understand and I'm I can check with Mr. for Ratlet first. Is that the figure that gets us um if this amendment's adopted to a balanced budget for FA28 or do we need to change that? >> Sorry, I believe

179that would get us to a balanced budget. Yeah. >> Okay. Excellent. Um so I will be brief and the other note I want to make is just from a parliamentary uh procedure note, we are nearing on our 1:00 uh notice date. um we can extend a bit uh but we do have graduations um today and folks who need to leave the building both members and administration so I want to be um cognizant of time um I broadly agree with um the proposed amendment um in a in a non-resource scarce environment um I don't um I I don't think any board member um runs to serve on a school board um to facilitate school closures and So um I've often said that uh if the the one path to um reverse um the need to reduce

180our footprint is to for the state to develop a sustainable long-term fiscal plan which will in turn reverse net out migration and also increase our funding. So, um, should this resolution come to pass with the 920 figure, which balances our FY28 budget, um, I think I I could, um, wrap my my head around the concept of, um, reversing and then halting any, um, need, um, to immediately close, um, buildings. um in part because this kind of investment would require a sustainable long-term fiscal plan from Juno, which in turn will bring people back to our state. Um I think we, you know, you'd also have to see um a return to a defined benefit retirement plan. And so in this hypothetical world where we are, to member Blakesley's point, dreaming big. I don't want to dream

181big and have a structural deficit in less than 12 months. Um I want to dream big and be fiscally sound. And so I think this would allow me to support the underlying amendment. Um, and so I'll I'll stop talking there. Um, the mo motion's been made by myself to amend the amendment and seconded by member Wilson. I'm assuming people in the queue are speaking to the amendment to the amendment. Then we'll go back to the underlying amendment, then we'll go back to the main motion. Um, so member lessons, >> thank you for keeping us all on track. Uh a question that has not been raised is that real Kashul is currently planning to has been granted the Lake Otis building. So what if a 9 if we were to approve this the amendments, the resolution

182is completed eventually today and the legislature takes action providing a $920 BSA increase allowing us to make these expenditures, what happens to real in relation to both the Abbot loop facility and the Lake Otis facility because we would be retaining the Lake Otis school as a neighborhood school which would mean it was no longer available for the Rilka Shaw community. So that's a complicating factor and I don't believe and the same would hold true for Fire Lake and the Eagle Academy Charter School quite frankly because both of those buildings um have been right obligated uh given granted I'm not sure what the right word is through those charter schools >> through the president um Mr. Anderson will answer. Before he does, I just want to make sure that the public understands that this resolution would

183not be effective unless there were a at this point $920 increase to the base student allocation that will take place um if it were to happen um within x number of days. So to Mr. Anderson, given when that timeline were to occur, where would these schools be in terms of moving into these buildings at that point in time? >> Right. By 30 June, uh, both of those buildings will be cleared out. There won't be anything there for, um, Fire Lake and Lake Otis. We would have already packed up Eagle Academy, uh, Rico will be packed up. Um, more problematic is that um, as Eagle Academy is working to get out of its lease, there is someone who wants part of that school building now, and that might be complete well before this decision or the

184end of the legislative session occurs. There's certainly going to be some uh, pretty big challenges to reversing. I I you know I'm I'm trying to work through like the mechanics of doing this. And I think if the legislature were to pass it by the beginning of June, which kicks off the governor's um timeline to veto or not veto before 30 June, anything that goes into July, we're we're certainly um the plan is not clean at all. It's it's really got to be stopping a lot of things by 15 June. Um so we we have less damage to reverse and and if it gets vetoed on 30 June I it's it's really problematic. We may have Eagle Academy out of half of their building um at that point. >> Thank you. member listen any followup. >>

185I guess the followup would be whether you as the maker of the amendment would consider amending the effective date of the amendment itself. I mean of the resolution itself, right? Whether we would in in order to respond to the concerns raised by Mr. Anderson whether you would need to condition this amendment on a June 1st >> um >> 2026 date. >> Yeah. as a point of information to administration if uh June 30th read June 1st would that resolve some of your concerns >> on my level it would and possibly on Eagles depending on how successful we are in negotiating them getting out of the lease. Um certainly once you're out of it that's that's another problem we'd have to deal with. I think the bigger challenge at that point would be Marty trying to reverse

186and figure out which schools to pull staff from. I agree that that and I'm I'm not aiming for a a consequencefree process. Um but these are all good problems to have um but still problems for you folks to deal with. I don't um disagree with that whatsoever. Um there isn't a clean way because my amendment to the amendment doesn't um impact the uh effective date at all. U member lessons and so my recommendation is if there's support for this amendment the very next amendment to the amendment would be that we um change the um effective date but that's if there's support on the body. So we'll go to member Bellamy and then I see member Mcdana. >> Thank you. Well, first of all, I have a huge problem with hypotheticals. Um, and I know that

187the deci I guess I I have a question. Um, I believe in my position on this board that I have made responsible decisions. I know people have not agreed with them. And I I also believe in continual improvement. um we get better at what we do as we do them. We get better as we communicate. Uh so I'm not disagreeing with that, but I reversing this reversing the work that the board has done as part of a resolution >> does not sit well with me. >> Yeah. Member just hypo we're talking about the amendment amendment right now. So >> and that's the amount, >> right? We're talking about the amount. >> So which brings me to that point. >> Yes, ma'am. Uh I I think 850 is too much. I I mean I'm but again,

188you know, if if it works, it works. But I think the amount I just think we're taking a risk that we really don't need to take. Uh I think our processes can be improved and and they need to be improved, but I I just increasing to the amount to the 920 amount so that we can cover I mean, hypothetically is still putting things in people's mind. They think it's going to happen. I mean, they they they're going to be counting on this. And then if it doesn't happen, then where does that leave us? >> And I don't have the answer to that. >> Thank you, Member Bell. We'll go to member McDonald and member Blakesley. Well, I would just urge the the date concern probably belongs best as a second amendment to the resolution because

189if the amendment fails, we won't have any schools reopening and the date is no longer that much of a concern. >> Member Blissey, >> um I just had a clarifying question about um your amendment, member Jacobs, um President Jacobs, about the 850 to 920. Is that only in the case of is that particular to restoring these school closures or is that for the full resolution? >> No, it it is very much attached to my support for the underlying amendment. So, my the should the board support um this amendment to the amendment? I think I can wrap my head around supporting the underlying amendment, but I intentionally attached um this language to this amendment for because um the underlying amendment um unbalances our budget and um I cannot wait to have um members Mcdana and Blake

190Lee with a fresh set of eyes work to find efficiencies. As someone who's helped engage in that work for year after year, um I can tell you that we will likely find efficiencies as we do every year. Um, I am not confident that we will find um $8 million in efficiencies. And I can't knowingly any longer um choose to increase future deficits for boards to deal with. Um and so that's where the underlying thinking comes from. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. And I I recognize deficits being large, hard to grapple with. Okay. Thank you. >> Of course. Um is there additional discussion on the amendment to the amendment? Okay. Um before we um before we move to vote on this amendment to the amendment, I just want to get consensus from the board that we

191can continue for 15 more minutes past our notice date. >> Okay, but we'll close because we got a graduation. >> Okay, we need to be very firm on the 15 minutes. Um seeing no objection, we're going to continue until 1:15 and that will be our hard stop. Um can we have a voice vote on the amendment to the amendment? Member Blakesley. >> Yes. Member Lessons. >> No. Member Higgins. >> Yes. >> Member Bellamy. >> No. >> Member Mcdana. >> Yes. >> Member Wilson. >> No. >> President Jacobs. >> Yes. That amendment to the amendment is it passes by a vote of 4 to three. Um we're now in the underlying amendment which would if adopted um add intent language to this non-binding resolution to um indicate the board would revisit um the three school closures

192adopted as part of our normal budget process. Uh should um a base student allocation increase of $920 occur on or before June 30th. Is there additional discussion on this amendment as amended? Member Les. >> Mr. President, I move to amend the amendment by amending the effective date from June 30th, 2026 in the resolution to June 1st, 2026. and >> I will email that to this the clerk to the um executive >> Mr. I will second that. >> Well, and in order to be efficient, um, member lessons, I'm going to have you speak to that amendment briefly, then we'll engage in discussion before we voice vote. >> This reflects the conversation we had five minutes ago. >> Understood. Um, I see no other discussion. >> President Jacobs, I just I have a question. >> Member your

193question >> th this resolution. Um, so the last one to increase the uh fund to from 850,000 BSA increase to 920 if that's if I got that correct. Um would that change in this resolution as well since the previous one passed? U so the underlying amendment to restore the three um programs that were um approved for right sizing in February um would be um refer the intent language would be added to this resolution to reverse that change reverse those closures um should a BSA increase of $920 um be effectuated into law and then appropriated by June 30th. this amendment to the amendment changes that effective date to June 1st. So, all we're discussing right now is adding um replacing June 30th with June 1st. >> Got it. Thank >> Seeing no other discussion. Seeing no

194other discussion, can we have a voice vote on the second amendment to the amendment? >> Member Belly. >> Yes. Member Lessons, >> yes. >> Member Wilson, >> yes. >> Member Blakeley, >> yes. >> Member Mcdana, >> yes. >> Member Higgins, >> no. >> President Jacobs, >> yes. That amendment to the amendment is adopted by a vote of six to one. We're at the underlying amendment which um will add intent language to this resolution that with a BSA increase of $920 on or before June 1st, 2026 um will the board will um work with administration to uh restore the three programs uh cut as a part of the original FY uh 27 budget. That's if this amendment is adopted. That is what we're discussing right now. Um, is there discussion on the underlying amendment at this

195point before we vote? >> Just for a plain English clarification, this is now the amendment I raised about 45 minutes ago that would restore the three schools with changes that we've discussed. >> Okay. I'm not seeing any other discussion. Can we have a voice vote on this amendment? >> Member Wilson. Yes. Member Higgins. >> Yes. >> Member Belly. >> No. Member Lessons. >> Come back to me. Remember Mcdana? >> Yes. >> Remember Blakesley? >> Yes. >> Remember Lessons? Yes, President Jacobs. >> Yes, that amendment is adopted by a vote of six to one. Okay, we now have the underlying resolution as amended. Is there additional discussion on the resolution? As amended. Seeing none, member lessons, >> I just summarize what we're talking about at this point in time just to make sure I understand. >>

196Courtesy of our amendments, we're talking about a $920 BSA increase that would be approved prior to June 1st. Um, I mean, currently it says prior, not on or before. So, prior to June 1st, so that's actually the end of May. Um, and contingent on and would it would restore those three schools and everything else laid out in the S2 version. So, we'd be talking about allocating roughly $65 million in new revenue. Um, we spoke earlier about about a $215 million state ask. It would increase that by something, I don't know, another 15, 20, 30 million. But that's what we're talking about is an increase what we would do with an increase to the base student allocation of $920 made effective prior to June 1st. >> Agreed. Um there any other questions or discussion before we

197vote? This would be the time. Seeing none, can we have a voice vote on ASD resolution? >> President President Jacobs. >> Apologies. I had I had my hand up. Um you probably just didn't see it. I I just for clarification, is it possible to because what I'm looking at is um the original resolution on the screen. Can we have those changes updated before we vote? >> Yep. If member Wilson, if you're looking at the um if you're looking at the meeting screen, it's currently up um on board docs on the in the white box. So, you're looking at the white box on your screen from board docs and that that is the update. >> Thank you. I didn't have my glasses on, so I'll couldn't quite see it. Thanks so much. >> Okay. Um, seeing

198no other discussion, we can have a voice vote on resolution as amended. Um, Missella, >> member Mcdana. Yes, >> member Blakesley. >> Yes, >> member Bellamy. >> Yes, member Lessons. >> Yes, >> member Wilson. >> Yes. >> Member Higgins? >> Yes. >> President Jacobs? >> Yes. The resolution is adopted by unanimous vote. That completes our action items for tonight. We did add a feels like tonight. This is after um we did add a member comments. We have eight minutes, so not everyone gets three, but we'll start on my left. Um, member Blakesley. >> Sure. Yeah. Um, what an exercise. Um, thank you all. Thank you to the administration as well. I'm sure you're really frustrated with us, but um I yeah, I appreciate the exercise and I I just want to re-emphasize that um this

199this scenario of hypothetical funding is still a meaningful exercise because it illustrates again cuts that we could restore in FY27 and mitigate significant harm, but it also begins to establish a pathway toward addressing our structural deficit um within a few years and um that to me just reflects an intentional balance between providing immediate re relief and then long-term fiscal responsibility. So I would encourage anyone in the public to communicate that to your representatives when you look at this resolution. You can look and see what the exact impacts are to your schools, to the programs that you love, and you can take that to your representative of your district and say this is your responsibility, right? like this is the community um this this is the impact that it would have in your community in your

200district and you have the ability to change that for the better. Um but it is it is hyperdetailed on purpose. So, um, anyway, for those reasons, I'm obviously really excited that we've at least made this statement, right? Um, to the legislature. Um, and I appreciate all of the members, member Mcdana and member Lessons who who worked with me on this and everyone here the conversation. >> Thank you, member Bellamy, with six minutes left. >> All right. Thank you. Just uh good work today. I like um I'm glad we did come to uh a resolution um on how we would spend the hypothetical funding. Um that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, member McDonald. >> Yeah, I would agree with the comment from member Bellamy earlier. I too hate dealing in hypotheticals. Um, now that this

201resolution is passed, it the hypothetical will be actual when the legislature commits the funding that is here. That's our job and that's the public's job. So, at this point, I'll I'll make my comment fast and say everybody should show your representative what the value of public education spending would be because it's now legal document. Share this with your representative and have them vote yes on the BSA increase. Thank you, Member Mcdana. Member Lens, >> I just shared with uh administration and President Jacobs the live version of that S2 document. So, I think it would behoove all of us to get cleaned up PDF available so everyone is truly talking about the same page. So, um I think that is uh what the public deserves is a little bit of clarity after um today's amendments. So,

202hopefully that's helpful. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you, member lessons. We'll go to member Wilson. >> So, after what feels like a just a constant series of lose-lose decisions, I would love to turn this hypothetical into an actual with um additional funding from the legislators to to put forth some win-win decisions or what feels like win-win decisions. Um I I struggle with hypothetical because it's there's so much hope in involved with hypothetical that um and and I I struggle with with hope conflicting with reality. But again, I'll stay on the side of hope. It would be awesome for um us to be able to actually move forward with this resolution. >> Member Wilson. Member Higgins, we have three and a half minutes. >> I won't even use that. I just want to say I appreciate

203that we've this resolution listened to a lot of issues that the public was saying and that we're trying to listen and to the legislature. This is an election year so please pay attention. Thank you. >> Thank you. Member Higgins. I do not have any additional comments besides to thank all members for their work on this item. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Second. >> Motion made by member Higgins. Second by member Mcdana. Seeing no opposition, we are adjourned at 1:11