001Are we recording? Yes, I'm muted. Okay, good to go. >> All right. Good afternoon, everyone. It is um 12:17 on Thursday, September 25th. This is the meeting of uh the English school board finance committee, Kelly Lessons, board member and chair of the finance committee. And I'll go to my left with others in the room and then online. >> Uh Pat Hagen, school board member, a member board member Jarrett Andy, CFO, executive assistant, >> Katie Par, senior director OM. >> Oh, MJ. Great. >> And do we have any board members online? >> Yes, we have member Wilson. And that's it. >> Okay. Um, great. Thank you everyone for being here today. We have two items on the official agenda and I will hand it over to um our CFO in just a moment, but I did
002want to share for board members uh that to my left is pile of budget books. These are our printed adopted budget books. Um, and my understanding is that this updated adopted budget is now online at our uh budget web page for this year, which is asdk12.orgfy26 and it is the adopted budget versus the preliminary or the proposed. So, we are going to be um anchoring here. So, um all right. So, Mr. Ratliff, if you could take it away and we're going to start with talking about um our current fiscal year FY26. >> Yep. So, just kind of coming to a wrap up for FY26 to go through the changes that we did for the adopted budget. Um, go through some of the challenges that we're having with local contributions, our FDS grant and enrollment, and
003then we'll go into our FY27 outlook. Uh, really kind of rough convection at this point, and some of the challenges that lie ahead with that. Uh so with the budget update that we have the legislature passed HB57 vetoed overridden funding vetoed overridden ended up with a $700 BSA increase for FY26 represents about a.3% increase from our FY25 when factored in the one-time funding which was a $680 increase. So really dealing with flat funding again from FY25 to FY26. uh for people transportation was actually a $2 per student decrease or about point4% of the total uh the point4 or the just total we got um >> thousand it's in the thousands versus probably thousands. >> Okay. >> So I mean I guess it would be $2 times the 40,000 kids or so. >> So eight grand
004maybe. Um then we have the they with also within this bill they had a target average class size of 23 K through6 and 30 at 7 through 12. We'll try to see what that would cost to actually get down to that amount in the FY27 outlook. >> I have a question on that. Does and this is maybe for governance committee for the future. Do we need to create a policy governing that class size goal? >> I believe so. I think we need to set a target for the class sizes. Um, >> and perhaps language explaining why we cannot attain. Yeah, that was kind of the I don't know Kane if you understood that part within the bill um of how you go about saying how why you can't get there uh to those class sizes
005because I think in some of the versions it had a provision for you know if you can't do it here's a letter to say why >> yeah um I what I would suspect is that DED will publish some kind of guidance to kind of direct the districts of how to um I don't know if that would be a form but there will probably some communication for how we provide that information and how they roll up that information, >> but we haven't received any guidance from it or the AASB or any other entity in response to that part of the bill yet. >> Not yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um I don't know if we will. >> But uh it also had like a class size reporting thing. It used to be K through three.
006You'd report the class sizes to the state and it's expanded to K12. So, I think that's probably where they're getting out with that target class size to be able to review that a little more detail. And then they made some adjustments within policy about the charter school application timeline, which I don't believe should um really impact. We do have that set and we take it out. We had it as a date specific. Get your application in by next time during the year to be considered for the following year. So, those are the big pieces of that piece of legislation. Um, how that kind of translated to what we ended up putting in our budget was the additional $700 BSA increase. You know, we had we allocated that to instructional and instructional support needs. Um, there's
007another document we'll go through that just kind of outlines the timeline and what the board approved for that. And then the FY25 or 26 adopted budget also incorporates that $48 per student uh transportation increase. Um, full disclosure, you know, at the time we were going through this really quickly, we didn't actually add that into what you approved at that last on the last budget. We just did the general fund changes uh and changed the upper limits. Um, in the adopted budget book, we did incorporate that into the revenue projection for transportation and then added that line to contracted services. So, when you see that, you know, it's all dedicated for transportation, but it'll be in that contracted services line item if you're to do a comparison from one budget to the next. And then as
008far as the upper limit, we took that from um first that our capital projects line item for the upper limit authority which is just any non-bunded nonbond funded projects uh we include as our upper limit approval from the city. So we just move some of that as we don't expect our expenditures on Ursa major to be uh a size project that pro that rebuild's been delayed. Um, so Joseph just kind of some of the minor changes that we have in there. Here's the the schedule that shows very readable uh the schedule shows the walkthrough from what the board approved and in gray. So the board approved the initial memo in February to say if we get a $1,000 base student allocation increase, it's going to go to these items. And so the board outlined how
009that $71 million would be spent. Of course, that didn't happen. So, that kind of null and void. We did get a $700 increase. Initially, the board uh kind of took the position we're going to get something in May. So we added back aboutund or a $540 equivalent increase 560 sorry 560 increase um in May uh largely to reverse the PTR provide the charter schools their their proportionate share of the funding and then add back nurses counselors librarians uh sports things like that so the things that went directed to schools >> if I could just interject just to be clear and it's in red I appreciate that on the on the page that originally that first line um the you know we there was an attempt in February to say that with $1,000 oh thank you
010we would um nullify that PTR plus4 which is how we balanced the budget by a large part of how we balanced the budget in February we would nullifi we would reverse that but we were only able to reverse three of those four right so we ended up with that plus one so our class sizes in May when we revised in that second column reflect an additional um FTE based on the original budget but not the same aggregate FTE as were lost >> because because we did still approve a PPR plus one across K through 12. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And then the third column is just the things we added back in August on the uh August 5th and August 19th meetings. This is the summary of those. Most of those went back
011to the those holdback positions, the additional charter school funding, and then the high dose uh tutoring as well as some recruit and retention efforts are the the big things there. Then the final column is just everything we added back from what we approved in the February budget versus what we approved in this adopted version. >> Great. Thank you so much. So, this is actually so it's embedded in this slide deck and it's also a standalone item. um linked to this particular agenda item for any community members who are interested. >> So the next couple slides of uh member lessons had asked where the holdback went. So the board did approve a significant amount of additional holdback teachers through this process to be able to address class size bubbles um and just some scheduling conflicts uh
012by and large. So we put this together. We still have some a few holdback positions that are unallocated at this point, which hold back positions for anyone listing are ones we haven't hired yet. They're not feature sitting on the side, but there's just authority to hire. Uh so it's not folks that are just already hired. It's you just gives us that authority. But by and large, you know, almost 39 of those teachers went to elementary classrooms directly into those and either covered by a permanent employee or a long-term sub. And then 15.6 six went to the specialist in elementary schools to get the scheduling as we cut so far down the number of teachers on there. We had really a difficult time fulfilling our contractual application for planning time through health, art, PE, music. Uh
013so we did that total of 55 teachers went to elementary schools and then another I believe 14 or so went to um 13 to 14 went to secondary and alternative programs and that's the second page. >> Yeah, again >> um I know that we have factored in some salary savings because vacancies can't help but do that. How are we doing against what we factored in versus how much we may be really generating? Is there a is there some sort of projection right now that you're keeping track of? >> I don't have that. Um the best I really have is looking at the overall vacancy rates that we have throughout through the district at this time and it's somewhat comparable we had last year which generated you know close to what we budgeted around the 40ish
014million 41 million. If I correct in assuming if we've got more budget savings than that, we'll put it into reserves because we don't have money back there right now like we used to >> is any savings redistribution forward. >> Yeah. Or overage at that I mean to that point would take and so there's >> they could certainly cut either way. Generally we start our projections it's hard to get a a good one because we've only run one payroll at this point. We don't start our our teacher payroll until September. uh just the way they're countered, how we can get all the new hires in. So, we only really have one month of data to be able to project that out. There's a lot of corrections after that one month. Um done a lot better job
015this year, so hopefully there's not as many collection as far as we're viewing them on the front end. We've done a better job with that. So, hopefully we don't have as many corrections, but a lot of times when we have grant issues, we're moving people back and forth and getting those uh employment records changed. It does change the projected amount, too. >> Yeah. I have a question. I guess I don't need to look around to ask somebody to call on me. Um actually I have two questions. One is under the high school um foldbacks and this is on this slide. Um you know it shows 6.1 have been folded back into our schools. Is that separate from the CTE positions which the administration has talked about >> it will cover with holdback positions. >> Right.
016So these are separate from those positions. Those weren't included on this sheet yet. >> Okay. Um, so we can assume that there will be a plus six across. >> I think that's a fair assumption to make that. >> Got it. And then I just and and you may not have this information. Do you have a general sense of whether the high schools um receiving and the middle schools as well receiving additional FTE did they end up hiring new teachers or has that FTE sort of just been dispersed? I mean we've certainly heard reports of teachers carrying now a 1.2 or in at least one case a 1.4 FTE which I didn't even know was possible. Um >> yeah and a lot of those when you see that point for it's to go to pay for
017someone's planning time planning time to teach a class instead of having a planning time >> right but you I mean that would that would in essence decrease class sizes or offer because that teacher is now teaching during their planning time therefore offering additional learning opportunities and diminished class sizes. >> Yeah. And we go and we pay for those by putting like a 0 2 within that holdback. Um but overall, you know, I you know, if you see, we look, we did reduce, you know, 12 teachers out of the high schools for the PTR redu increase. >> Um looks like we added about six teachers back into that pool. >> Okay. >> And I guess my question is, do we actually >> So they're still shorter than they were. >> They're shorter than they were, but
018with the the holdbacks, do they actually add additional human bodies? >> Sometimes. Yeah, sometimes. or do we just have staff members taking on additional >> teaching? >> It's a mix. I mean, sometimes they're hiring whole people to do it if they can find them or if they get that full FTE back. But if they only get the partials and generally this I think the taking that planning time. >> Okay. And then would that be like a principal's discretion essentially if you're principal and you get an NP? >> Um >> what was the question? um you know if if I'm a principal and I get an additional FTE as a result of the holdback allocation um do I get to choose whether I want to hire a whole new you know teacher or distribute that one
019FTE across you know five teachers and each of them teach at 1.2 too. >> I think they have that discretion that they can find a full-time person to do it if they need those. >> But some of it's going to come down to, you know, I need a section of English, section of math, section of science. You're not going to find an FTE, one FTE that's probably certificate in all those areas. Okay. >> So, a lot of times in those instances, they might break it into the points, >> but that would I mean, just as we've seen at the elementary level, FT the additional FTE that we have allocated to diminish sort of classiz bubbles. >> Yeah. has also been diminishing class size bubbles at the high the middle and high school. >> Yeah, that's
020exactly what it does, too. >> Okay, thank you. >> So, those are those reports. So, still kind of want to put a pin in that with the 26 budget, we still cut 136 permanent and contracted positions. um 87 school-based FTEE including the PT due to the PTR increase in enrollment declines and then principles, librarians, nurses, all the staff that were associated with school closures for the most part. uh 18 FT out of special programs and then 31FT out of administration including HR, finance, IT, purchasing, teaching, learning, all those kind of and that also includes the custodians, maintenance, security and meal health positions that were also produced and then cut millions more in funding for our Chromebooks, major maintenance, teacher or uh I guess classroom devices, capital equipment when we reduced the funding to our equipment
021replacement fund, school supplies, curriculums, and then kind of our contingency for unanticipated costs. So we still made even with all those adbacks we did make considerable amount of cuts this year too. >> Were there any displacements of people with the cutting positions? Anybody laid off or anything like that? >> I don't know that we had any layoffs >> ultimately I don't think anyone >> it may have been transfers but there wasn't any reduction. >> Yeah, a lot of displacements I think. >> Okay. And we probably may have left forget what the grant there's some probably some other things with grants where we had some notices go out but retracted them but I don't think we have any layoff status at this point. So those are the cuts. Uh made a new chart for that shows
022kind of where that money has gone after we everything was settled. Um 60% of that's going into instruction, 5% of admin, and then we kind of break down for those of you who haven't seen this before, break it down into about four broad categories of the work that's done. The direct classroom instruction of those uh general ed and special education teachers and assistants that are in front of kids every day. Uh substitutes and all the supplies, materials, and software that goes into that. student supports, counselors, nurses, librarians, security, student activities is lumped into there. Um the curriculum development and then instructional supervision in this building for they're pushed out of schools to be able to supervise principles, um clarital staff, social services, professional development. It's all in that student support uh realm. Then administration is
023mostly folks that are sitting at this table. And then operations and maintenance, keep the lights on, prints, our maintenance and custodians. >> Yeah, I I think I'm jumping the gun a little bit down to the second part of this. Um, which I appreciate when it compares last year's budget with this year's budget. And it it looks like we are spending just, you know, a a slightly greater percent of our budget on direct instruction and on student support than we did in FY25. And quite frankly, a smaller percentage of our budget on operations, maintenance, and district administration. And so I feel like that's an important thing for legislators and the public to know. There have been multiple instances that I'm aware of where legislators have wondered publicly whether um ASD did in fact send dollars to
024classrooms and I I feel like this clarifies that yes the dollars have followed the students. >> Yeah. Yeah. For sure. >> Yeah. Member Jacobs >> along that I was just curious if this the when the last time we hit the 60% direct classroom instruction number. Um Pat have to go back and look. I don't know for sure. >> I'm disappointed you don't have it memorized. >> I think it would be good to know. >> Yeah. >> Um especially if we're talking points of community councils and we're going to with the anchorage delegation at some point. So >> yeah, we could certainly go back and do a history on it. >> Yeah. >> Because this is all just by state. >> Tying a BSA increase to that number going up seems really wise and something we
025want to keep telling them over and over again. >> Yeah. I just mention one thing when when Andy and I were in Juno, one of the big issues was the administration and of course they had help budgeting on that. 6% is what we told them and now it's closer to five. Uh so we see an actual real dollar difference of a couple couple we said we were reducing it and when we added money back in we weren't going to put it back in there. So there's clear evidence here that when you deal with legislators, make sure you realize that we actually administration is down almost half percent of what it was before 5.7 and 5.3 and so we 5.7 plus what we told him six we round it off rounded it up. So it's just
026something that to keep out there that we may want to use. >> Yeah. >> All right. and some so some of our ongoing challenges that we have for 26 still the local contribution changes that I'll we'll go into that in a little more detail. Um the postering diverse schools grant as we know got pulled from by from by the feds. We did appeal that. We did receive notification that that appeal has been denied. Uh we just got that like an hour ago. So uh the the appeal for that has been denied. We'll still need to continue with our plan to address the six FTE that are being moved into classroom or in classrooms. We're going to have to use our whole back to cover and then the eight academy coaches. >> You saw the news
027on the H1 >> Oh, yeah. >> So, the appeals denied, was that in writing? >> Yes. >> Can we get a copy of the letter? >> Sure. >> And then did any information was there any information that was useful about why the appeal was denied? >> Uh, they do have some. not thoroughly read through the letter, but um it kind of speaks to prior administration priorities versus current administrations. >> And there's no other read >> and there isn't any additional remedies for us at this point. This is the end of that process, >> I believe. So, and to be fair, I haven't seen the letter because it happened while we were in the the previous committee meetings. So, there's still some answers that we need to figure out. But I did want to take a
028moment um to share publicly that we had a lot of people that came out to try to help us um win our appeal. Um I know for a fact our entire congressional delegation um wrote a letter in support. I hear Jay Bear was involved. Our chamber of commerce, literally every major stakeholder in the Anchorage Bowl really came out and submitted letters in support for us. So, another piece will be my updating them probably later today to let them know that this is the next part of the process and we need to uh reconvene and figure out what are the steps moving forward. >> Yeah, it's possible they get reappropriated at some point through the congressional process. >> Yeah. >> On last quick follow up on that. I think if if there's a way Dr. Brian
029as you connect with stakeholders you could express appreciation from the board for them stepping up uh that message could have or should both of us. Thank you. Um I would the only other request is uh if if the administration deems it um sharable perhaps anchoring that letter alongside uh in in this um agenda and I'll raise this with America um because we did anchor the original notification letter. It's uh it's attached to this agenda and it just it's useful to have um yeah >> sort of hubs for people to be able to share and return to. All right. Um, next kind of challenge we might have is, and this is kind of really preliminarily, the H-1B visa program. I don't know if you saw the news over the last few days that came out where
030the administr the federal administration has decided to charge $100,000 per H1B visa. Um, >> how many of them do we have? >> We only have a handful, but it's still, you know, if we have seven of them, it's still a lot of money. >> It's uh, but we have many more J1 visas. So that's the that's how we get most of them. Um and we don't know if this is on the renewal or an annual fee. We just don't have any information. There's been kind of missed or communication out from the federal government has not been consistent. So we don't really know what our requirements >> data when that kicks in. >> Again, I mean they just it was just a news conference as far as >> I'm just thinking of we got the language.
031We got some teachers coming in, different government's providing it for us and we're going to be they don't have to pay 100,000 for that or it depends upon whether or not they're already here. We don't have to worry about >> Yeah, we just don't know. >> Are those are immersion teachers? >> Uh I think a lot of them would >> Yeah. >> would be. >> But just to clarify, so let's say that we have 60 teachers in a visa category. About like 10% of them fall into the H-1B category. Most of them are J1 visa category. Um, but I say that because there's an academic implication to this because um, the H1B teacher candidates had a path to citizenship and had a path to being a teacher within ASD in the long term. Our J1
032visa candidates by definition will have to, you know, exit their roles, I think, um, within five years of their initial employment. So, this does make emerging programs more even more vulnerable to teacher retention than they already were. >> The JV program that does require the 100,000, >> right? Okay. >> Okay. >> But those are by definition temporary workers. >> Thank you for come to the next presidential election then apply. >> Yeah. >> Do we need to to spin up some form of education advocacy with our federal delegation about the H1B visas? Because if our language immersion programs are going to be impacted, they have a we have a built-in engaged constituency there that we could >> and we also we have some of the nation's strongest immersion programs. you know, if there's a case for
033an exemption to be made anywhere for those costs. I mean, these positions change lives in our community. So, >> Marty may have a as well. >> Oh, is Marty online? >> Marty's online. >> Yeah, I'm I'm online here. Um, >> uh, Senator Sullivan's office reached out to us last week and so we are engaged with them on this topic. um kind of educating them on how we've used H-1B visas, what function they serve, why they're important uh to our immersion program specifically. And our request um was if they were going to weigh in on this that that specifically our ask is for a carve out for public school districts um on this issue because it seems like most of the hubbhub around the H-1B visas really is targeted practices within the the technology sector and
034you know I I haven't seen in any of the articles that I've read um on this topic anything referencing them being used for teachers but I know that a lot of districts across the nation do. So, um they like that idea. They were going to um forward the information that we provided to their policy folks and so uh we'll stand um you know ready to equip them with any information that might be helpful that they need going forward to advocate for us. >> Thank you very much for um being on top of that so so quickly. Yeah, we just yeah, like I said, we don't know a whole lot of information about it, but we wanted to get that on your radars as you're watching the news to say to understand that will have some
035impact or could have some impact on us. >> Oh, the other thing couple things that are going to affect us going forward or could affect us for 26 is contractual obligations we have are going to unsettled contracts. Um, so could affect the amount of spending that we have planned if that varies from what we've budgeted. And then the enrollment decline. We've had an enrollment decline below what we had projected. Uh we'll go through that is on another slide as well. Um first want to kind of touch back on the local contribution changes. Um and this is the regulation change been uh proposed by deed to the state board of education. Uh they are set to vote on this on October 8th or 9th on their meetings. Um but really just kind of at a high
036level this first section is new which would um really kind of more define the funds or defines the the types of things that go into the local contribution based on uh federal standards. Uh so really what they're getting at with this was to include transportation into that um local contribution appropriation. So before was our limited to our operating fund and now it's going to be expanded to whatever other funds that they may uh be incorporated in there. So that's kind of the intent of that new section is to be able to expand it away from just operating funds into other uh funding sources. Um the second part of it uh when they amend the definition of local contribution to remove uh the language that says money appropriated to a school district's operating fund that also
037means would allow them to use money that's appropriated into other funds such student nutrition, transportation, student activities. And I think those are kind of the big ones that other districts use as well. Um, so that's kind of what would allow them to take money from or include in that local maximum the transportation money for Anchorage anyway and preschool. So just between transportation and preschool about a $15 million line item from the city which would potentially fall under the new definition of local contributions that up to the state maximum. Uh for those that haven't heard me talk about this a dozen times already, really the state sets the local amount for contributions from uh local governments. So, and that's based on here's the basic need, which is our base student allocation times our adjusted enrollment number,
038adjusted average daily membership to get a number and then 23% is that is the amount that we can include in our operating fund from local governments above the required. >> Oh. Lot of questions. Okay, I saw member Jacobs and member Haven. >> So I'm looking tracking that the capitalized language is new. How do we get transportation under the first sentence? >> So the capitalized language is removed. >> Capitals are removing that. Okay. So how do we get where do we get the transportation? Can you add do the math for me? The policy math how this means this affects transportation. >> So before it said appropriation money means appropriated to a district school operating fund. Got it. >> Our transportation is in a separate special revenue fund. This is kind of a technical accounting thing, but
039separated away from operating in terms of definitions. Got it. >> So by removing this definition, they'll expand that to special revenue funds, which would include grants, student nutrition, food service, and student activities are all considered special. So can I can I >> is there anything preventing the um the city from the municipality from paying those costs directly? >> Yes, there is. Now good question. Um and that's where we get into this value of inind services. That's the next section where before they had that narrowly defined as insurance, utility, energy audits and maintenance of facilities, right? So now they're just calling it services in to my knowledge this would be the department of education's discretion to say what those services are. >> So that that means I was trying to find where I was getting to
040is this means our school resource officers are going to have to come out of our budget now are going to be counted against them. There's nothing stopping the department of education from doing it >> potentially. Yeah. I mean you could make the argument that they're doing police work in our schools. So it's a police cost not a school cost. So, that one's maybe a little bit uh iffy, but you know, the administration and the bureaucracy that might have to be stood up to be able to account for this too is also going to be pretty incredible. Like, if I have to track the hourly wage of a public health employee that comes and talks to a health class, then I mean the time and energy put into that would be pretty significant. Yeah. The yeah,
041>> last follow the >> the notion that Anchorage police officers or school resource officers specifically are doing Anchorage police work doesn't pass the the straight face test. Those folks are have a very unique job compared to the average officer walking and patrolling downtown. And so um by the very nature those folks are uh engaged in quasi peer support um security work in addition to their normal role when they get activated as police officers when there's when there's an incident. So it seems pretty clear to me that the department of education intends for us to either to defund the school resource officer program or uh to reduce the number of teachers we have to pay for police officers. So that's it's alarming and I think we need to make it clear that um this regulation is
042poorly written um was poorly thought out and is another example of mismanagement government. If I could just interject really quickly. Yeah. One of the things that struck me as incredibly vague is um there appear to be no guard rails around um what PTAs can provide or or PTFAs can provide to our schools. Um we have a lot of school business partners and I know that there is an FAQ page on on deed's website but and they say oh PTA is sort of will be held harmless but I there's nothing here in the language which which says that a donation a PTA might make to a school uh wouldn't impact the local contribution. And that's something that I think um a lot of parents might care deeply about. >> Right. That kind of gets back to
043that, you know, eliminating the contribution by the city or burough. >> So now local contribution could mean different things, different groups contributing that money. So it's like volunteers of America or something come in and do it and potentially that could count. We just >> mental health support. >> We just don't know at this point. >> And that's the point that I want the public to understand is that this regulation is so vague that any of these things are possibilities. And regardless of what the commissioner has put on her FAQ, the point of the matter is is that if the state board adopts this regulation, they're effectively giving um that discretion to whoever is the commissioner. So that means in a future year a future commissioner could change that and have the authority to withhold contributions
044with even if they're in kind from a PTA, from any of these organizations. And I don't think that it's appropriate to delegate that much authority to a commissioner that that has no idea what the local landscape is in a community like >> Anchorage. You know, the police we've always kind of maintained this is the this is a location for them, but they're serving the community. So, we got to emphasize that. But I remember the apples to oranges issue and when they did a comparison to us against Seattle and San Francisco and talked about how we pay more they pay more for schools than we do or or we pay more for schools than they do when in fact they didn't include transportation that was provided locally and and the constru and schools the constructions and
045all that was local. So I guess that's an important issue I think to raise up there is that they're trying to make comparisons how much was spent and they're comparing apples and oranges still and now they're trying to hold us accountable for something that the lower 48 is provided by local government. Uh and so when we make that comparison that's that's a fair statement to make. Seattle provides, you know, like I said, the transportation, as I recall, they San Francisco, they provided the the construction and maintenance of buildings. We're providing that out of our budget. And and if you want to compare apples to it, it would be just the opposite. We're getting less funding than what it would it would be what I would argue. That's a pretty good document to review. apples to
046one just we went through all >> I wrote it. >> Yes. >> Or did all the work? >> They kept using it. Even if it was disproven, it was still being handed out in the community as factual. >> So that's kind of the that's the struggle we have with the local contribution changes. Um if it is changed, we don't know when it would go into effect, whether it's this year or the following. Um hopefully never our goal. What is what is the the adoption if we mis when is this being reviewed and adopted by the board? >> Uh October 8th and 9th. >> Do we know about opportunities for public comment at that meeting? I'm aware that there was a summer written public comment period >> and I thought that there was going to be
047some sort of like a dialin opportunity. Katie, they should have anytime they take action, they also have public comment that's provided. So they should have opportunity, >> okay, >> during their business meeting, I believe. >> Okay. >> So maybe we can um be appraised of of when that's what that opportunity is and how the community can can reach out to their state board of education. The last uh piece of this for FI26 kind of issues was the enrollment update. um our actual enrollment that we had as of September 22nd is um above again the 41,788 is the sum of the brick and mortar and the correspondent students and then the intensive needs are also included in that number but so but it's not totaled it's just uh since they're their own funding mechanism wanted to
048include it on here um we're about 650 students lower than what we had projected uh we're over a thousand in brick and mortar correspondences increased inreased a little bit and then intensive needs has gone up a little bit as well. In terms of dollars, we don't exactly know what that'll mean. Ballpark in the $46 million range as far as a revenue loss. And that's where, you know, if we have add additional savings for FY25 may our fund balance may be used for that. Hopefully have some savings from well kind of hard to hope for savings from vacancies to cover it because that just means we're not providing the service. But um that's kind of how what hap how it fell out in FI25. So uh nothing to really be alarmed about yet other than kind
049of that continued uh decline, but we'll get once we get the octo once we start getting the October student count, the Oasis count done, then we'll be able to finalize what that means in terms of actual dollars. >> I imagine it's a little early, but are there any particular grade levels where we're seeing a decline? Is it across the board? And then also any student groups I'm thinking immigration policies have shifted at the federal level. You know, are we seeing it manifest in ELLL students? >> I don't know off the top of my head um where it's at on grade level or >> any special. >> Yeah. But we can >> we'll have more information soon. >> Yeah. >> So that's kind of the enrollment challenge we're having. Um, so that kind of sums up
050FY26 and this will be the start of my FY27. >> Okay. So, pivoting to agenda item number two, >> which time we got 20 minutes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so this chart really reuped this where it shows the BSA over time, the state one-time funds, and how we've in or what the inflation approved BSA would be at since FY11 and then the fund balance we put in. The one kind of big takeaway here is the fund balance we put in the $700 was the exact same as the state's BSA increase. So, don't want to get that confused where it looks like we're getting all this new state money. That $700 is in this area. Um, I want to do a new version of it that kind of shows what the new money was. Uh,
051that was brought up to where it's going to be confusing. If the fund balance and the BSA increase are the exact same, people are going to look at the chart and maybe be confused. Great. Thank you. >> Um, but you can see, you know, 680 the onetime funding and the 6660 for the new money is just about equivalent. So that just this area here really represents what our challenge our financial challenge is going to be going into FY27. >> So the gap is is $1,442 between an inflation adjusted >> ESA >> Yeah. for FY27 if we were to have the same purchasing power >> as 2011. >> Yep. >> And that doesn't address the crisis issue about staffing size on school classes. So we ought to have two figures for them. One is the figure
052inflation and the other is adequate funding because there were two different two different issues here. I think it important to keep in mind. >> Yeah, updating for adequate funding would be another >> Yeah, adequate funding is is an issue. This is to maintain inflation, but but the adequate funding which has been lacking would require additional amount of money. >> Yep. And we'll get to that a little bit, not quite to the Pasadena level, but that additional funding, I mean, that's real. >> It's real. So um really wanted to kind of provide the big picture math on why that deficit exists and how we calculate that and the rough estimate know we were given 75 million or so is the projection for FY27 deficit that's what we shared at the legislative lunchon but really the quick
053math on that is for FY26 we're sitting at about 644 million budget which includes about $50 million of reserves once that goes away you know assuming no no other increases about and this doesn't uh address enrollment changes either. So there's there's a lot of fluctuations going to be in here. So take it with this with a grain of salt. But kind of the big picture math is that those reserves go away. We have 594 million in revenue and our spending goes up along with um inflation contractual adjustments. So about a 4% increase is built into this number, the 670. um as we'll have more uh bargaining units come up to negotiate, we still have to settle AA. So, as that's getting a little bit longer where I don't know what this amount's going to be,
054I don't certainly don't know what next year's amount's going to be. So, we got about a 4% overall increase from what we budgeted for this year to what we'll may or potentially uh cost increases for next year, although that could vary. And a couple percent variance on that is a lot of is millions of dollars, too. You shared a figure at our legislative lunchon about roughly the number of FTE the full-time equivalents that $75 million equates to. Can can you share that here again? >> Believe it was in the 580 range. If it's all from uh that was based on like the average teacher cost um depending on how you disperse that out to other employees. If it's more if you get into lower paid ones and um then the average goes down. It might
055be a little more FTE than that in the 600 and some range. >> Yeah, because the first one to go will be lower pay. So, you got to put that is going to be a lot be quite a bit higher than that. I think >> um if we you know we had a PTR plus 4 that we approved in February and that um you know that was just about 200 positions. So the magnitude of this is um it's hard to wrap my mind around. >> Yeah. I mean it's there will be some significant structural changes that have to go through if this is what we ultimately have to approve in the end. >> Okay. >> Member Hag. >> So we're looking essentially at assuming the legislature and the governor doesn't upset the world and actually
056do something quick. uh that in February we're going to look at some a budget that's going to have massive cuts in it that are going to be dramatic. Um and that's going to wake up legislature is watching you. >> Uh but it's going to have to be we don't have the savings reserve to fall back till this time around. Those are all real cuts that we're going to have to make to the budget. That's going to be massive. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's going to be I correct. I don't know what it's going to look like, but it's >> can't imagine it'll be positive for >> Yeah. >> I just want to I mean, I think it's important to highlight that the reason why that Delta exists in part is because we spent so
057much money on reserves. But I also think it's it's important to go back and acknowledge that they the legislature and the governor specifically caused so much confusion regarding school districts and their reserve funds that it became the most prudent thing to avoid um a more complex dialogue in the community to spend funds down both to preserve those important positions as well as take that distraction point off the table so a meaningful conversation could be had on the base student allocation. And so, um, ASD did what the legislature asked, the governor asked for. And so, I think that's part of the conversation that needs to happen this year is, okay, now no one has any savings left statewide. What would you like to do now given your fiscal housing a kind of big picture outlook? Um
058some of the things that are going to be a challenge going into it is we have an additional you unfunded costs that are in addition to that 75 million. These are some of the things that we cut back throughout um through the FY26 process. Capital equipment's our equipment replacement fund. We cut money out of that which you know there's only so long we can go with that just like major maintenance. How long can we defer repairing our buildings? Um contractional obligations again, you know, if we don't don't know what that's going to be, but it could have material effect on that 75 million deficit. Uh Chromebooks is one and a half million. Mike wanted me to change that to 2.2 because we've got a bunch of other classroom devices, too. So, but I didn't have
059time. Um but that's another concern is just having that equipment refresh for uh as we move to a more digital landscape. Curriculum, we've been delaying updating some curriculum, particularly social studies for a couple of years now. So, I think there's probably four or five different packages that they need to actually update, but we don't have the funds for about four or five million. And then I want to include this uh the state standard for class size where we have 23 students at K through 6 and then 30 at 7 through 12. That was written in HP57. If we were to meet that standard based on kind of this year's projections, it would be about 26 million. Um, so a couple hundred more teachers we would need to that to get to that 23 and 30
060level. >> The only other thing that's unfunded here is like I said if you were looking at adequate funding within consumm that cost would be because that's also unfunded >> that then this number it would be kind of enrolled up in this number for most most of those costs but that class size if you get those down to the 15 and 25 levels that sudden says best practiced and it's >> a cost increases >> that goes up a lot. Yeah. But I I just wanted to recognize that because that's something I still think we want to communicate to the legislature. >> Maybe we can ask for an update of the Pasaden, you know, the cost to implement the Pasaden just for a touchstone um for in a future. >> Yeah, certainly. >> You did it
061three or four years ago, right? You did an update. >> We've had a couple of updates. >> Yeah. I forget when the last time we did like a full financial update, but it's been a while. >> Yeah. Right. Well, we >> suggest >> Yeah. >> You know, in the next couple of months, >> um on the revenue side, we still have the the challenge of the local contributions. Um could be 15 million, could be more. We just don't know. That's kind of the uncertainty that we have. The changes in federal title grants, you recall over the summer, they were trying to pull uh migrant, ELLL, professional development. >> It's like 12 or 14 million. I forgot the total on it, but several million dollars on that. So, if they go but I don't know what
062the the financial impact would be pretty we don't know what that would be because I think their plan was to take those grants, consolidate them, and push them out with different type of grants at a lower rate. So, we don't know what our share on that would be. But just know that that as that gets rolled into the next federal cycle um it could become an issue if they go forward with that. Um before you know that they had already approved the the Congress had already approved the money so we able to file a lawsuit and get them to reinstate it. But going forward if Congress doesn't then um we certainly have a problem. our fund balance goes away and then our enrollment um unless it rebounds that'll be a challenge too on the revenue
063side if that continues to decline. So, put up some key meeting dates that we have. The first one coming up is the state board contribution. Uh, that's on 8th or 9th. If you go on to the deed website, there's a link to it. I try to put them in here, but apparently the links don't work very well in PDF. Um, but we can certainly send them out or put them in board connect or something. And then this is the kind of the rest of the budget preparation schedule. We're going to try to get the balancing out act kind of get that uh software out on late October, early November. So give folks a chance to play with this as we're kind of ramping up it into that proforma discussion. With that, um the last thing
064I really want to drive home is put this chart up again, update it for overriding the veto. Um they compare state budgets since FY17. Um really want to just drive home the point as you we've had legislatores legislators talk to say, well where would we get the money from? We don't have money for any of this, but I just want to put this up there to show that they have the appearance they have money for uh a lot of other departments to continue funding them at or above inflation. Um in context, the state has increased their budget by over $3 billion since FY17. About 109 million of that has gone to schools. Um so in the context that it's schools that are causing the state's budget wos, I don't believe that's quite the case. >>
065True. >> Yeah. member Jacobs. >> I I I don't know everyone's personal stance on how to address that question when a legislator asks how um where fun should come from to address a constitutional mandate. Um but I also don't think I guess my my view is that's not my purview and I'm not compensated to do that by the state. I didn't run um in the state election to do that. I don't have the staff to help accomplish that. Um the legislature needs to figure out how to get its fiscal house in order. Um and it has failed to do so year after year after year and its failures do not abdicate its responsibility to fund this constitutional mandate. And so I hope we aren't participating in that thought exercise. Not because we couldn't. Um if
066we could have six months off to focus on the state budget, I'm sure this room could produce some meaningful results. But we have other stuff to do and our students are counting on us. So, um, I would rather us focus our work here and on our students and let them focus on their jobs. And so, I just think there needs to be a really clear demarcation and push back when that's brought up. That isn't our role and it shouldn't be our role and folks shouldn't be asking that of us. It's it's irresponsible. Thank you. >> Just want to this kind of last slide we have. Um, there's some additional resources out there that didn't come up. our adopted budgets now on online. Um we'll be putting out the FI27 budget development page using some of
067this information as we're developing it. And then there was a link to the school board or states board of education website where you can look at the regulation changes. >> Um I deeply appreciate um the substance and thought that went into um this update. I think it's critical you know Dr. rant shared at our legislative lunchon that um now on our legislators, it's up to our legislators to protect the progress that has been made. Um we have seen meaningful progress in our youngest readers. We have seen remarkable progress in our eighth grade math. Um and we need to see more progress. progress requires resources to adequately staff our classrooms and provide opportunities and programs to our students. And so I appreciate the the language protecting the progress that we've made. We are still recovering from
068the effects of the pandemic. We are still recovering. >> Yeah, I appreciate the presentation, but my expectation is you always end with something positive. here. I don't mean to put you under a lot of pressure, but I just think there's going to be something positive in the is done. Is that what you're saying? >> Any other questions? >> You listen to a lot of my presentations. >> You expect this from me, don't you? >> Thank you for the suggestion. >> Um, that was the protecting progress question. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, members. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, with that, we're at time. Um, our next meeting is in October 23rd. >> 23rd. >> On the 23rd. So, a little bit of an adjustment. Not quite the last Thursday of the month. Um, all
069right. October 23rd. Thank you very much. >> Well, there'll be one in November. No, >> November 20th. Um and we we did adjust the timing of the finance committee next uh month in part because it's a half day for students. >> Um that is just >> so we Yeah, exactly. So we'll be a little bit later but on the same Friday >> the week before Thanksgiving I'll be off.