001Good afternoon everyone. Welcome back. We're going to call ourselves to order. This is the Tuesday, August 5th work session of the AST school board. The time is 4:02 p.m. here in the boardroom. I see member Higgins, Donley, myself, member Jacobs, member Hollowman, and member Bellamy. Um, member Wilson may join us online, and member Lessons won't be with us today, but sends her regards. called ourselves to order and conducted a roll call. Our first item of discussion is B1 budget update. Dr. Bryant, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, it has been quite the summer. And of course, we're all aware of the positive news that the veto override was successful this past Saturday. So, we'll talk a bit about that, but I really thought that this would be a great opportunity just
002to catch the public up to speed as to everything that happened um over summer since we uh had a break. Um, so there will be a lot of details and timeline, but above all, um, I also want to make sure that the public was aware of what happened with the federal funding freeze, where we're at on that. Uh, and then I want to continue to remind the public of a huge issue that we have coming up, which is an upcoming potential change of regulation on local contributions for municipalities. Very timely to this topic. And then lastly, um, we have put some thought in light of the veto override as to how to potentially use use these dollars to advance student achievement. We'll preview some of those finer details with the board towards the end of
003the presentation, but I do want us to know that we're very excited by this news and we want to make sure that we're doing whatever we can to invest dollars towards our kiddos as soon as possible. So that said, u, Mr. Ratliff. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so really we're just going to go over kind of where we're at in our budget development calendar because we're really going to have to start looking at FY27 here pretty soon. Uh, like Dr. Bryant said, just kind of the state funding recap, local contributions and federal grant outlook and then move into that discussion for our preliminary budget adjustments based on the increase in the or the restoration of the BSA funds. So where we're at now, we begun the um begun our fiscal year. We're still trying to
004close out last year. that generally takes a few months. Um preliminary outlook is, you know, we're are closing out our funds. We have a little bit more than what we had projected. So, it's going in the right direction. Um so, we don't have anything really worrisome on that end. Uh we'll start developing our budget in earnest here in a couple weeks or, you know, month or so once we start to get enrollment shaken out a little bit further. So, just kind of that recap is HB57 was passed by the legislature. was vetoed and then overridden, but that provided the initial $700 BSA increase, which is a little under $50 million for ASD. Um, and kind of in context, that's about a.3% increase from the BSA, the effective BSA that we got in FY25 with the
005one-time fund. So, that was a $680 equivalent. This is $700. So, a $20 increase on that is, you know,.3%. So, not uh a large amount of money or increase from the prior year. For transportation, we got a $48 uh increase on that per student. That's uh about 10% of what the actual statutory increase or statutory amount for transportation is. Um but it's $2 less per student than what we received in one-time funds in FY25 or about $1.9 million. So after FY uh HB57 was passed and overridden uh the governor vetoed out some operating dollars removed $200 from the BSA that equated to about 4.3 million for ASD between the the new 500 number that he had approved and the 560 that the board had initially adopted that budget back in May on the revision on
006the projection. um removed another 25 million in major maintenance funding which six million would have been directed towards ASD and then removed the teacher incentive payments. At the special session this past Saturday, the BSA veto was overridden and that's going to add about $10 million for ASD and that's the difference between the $700 BSA now and the 560 that we budgeted on. So that's really kind of the money that we have uh in play right now. Um, so that's the landscape that were of the kind of the state changes and we'll get into the $10 million here in a little bit later, but really wanted to go over some of the risks to with the local contribution changes. Um, so what's proposed now in front of the state board to change the regulation? There's a
007few different sections. The first one adds a new section that ties local contribution limits to federal definitions, which would effectively put local contributions for transportation, food service, and student activities within the local cap. Um, so right now we're receiving transportation funds outside of the cap. So that's about $13 million, but um that's just one of the pieces of the language that would change what we're ability or how much we're able to collect uh within the local amount. It also removes the definition of appropriations which before it was dedicated just to an operating fund or just by the city or burough. The current definition ties contributions only to the city of bureau or the operating fund, but eliminating this would include other funds and could expand what is included in the local contribution cap beyond city
008or bureau appropriations. Uh right now, you know, there's just a whole lot of uncertainty about what these changes are going to how they're going to affect us as we don't really have any sort of list of what might be included in here from the from deed or anyone in the state. >> Member Higgins question. >> We'll try member Donley. >> Thank you. Has anybody ask the uh commissioner of education what the intent is of these changes? Because they are subject to seems interpretation and it's kind of vague how expansive the prohibition on local funding will end up being. >> Yeah. Um I believe the question probably has been asked. As far as I can tell, it it appears that the the answer is or kind of twofold. One was so they can meet the federal
009impact a disparity test requirements. Um although I don't know that this completely solves that problem and then two is just to ensure equity among districts. Um unfortunately it's ensuring equity by bringing some districts have with less funding to get into that equality I guess. So I'm not exactly sure their motives behind this um other than you're very correct that this is very vague language. we really don't know the full impact of it until we kind of get that definitive list of what it would cover um or frankly even you know really why. So >> um while we're talking about the proposed regulations is there another method that we could suggest to the department to remedy the perceived non-compliance on the federal side. Uh on the federal side, I think for the impact aid test, you
010know, the the language that was both in the from the federal government that said, "Here's why we're not going to approve the federal test and or the disparity test and then the even the response back from deeds attorneys when they appealed it was based on the transportation fund being trans money going in and out of transportation funds being recorded incorrectly. Um, so really if transportation were to be reimburseable the way it used to be where no one's transferring money in or out, it's just the actual cost of it reimbursed by the state, I don't believe they would have failed the disparity test. >> And quick followup, am I correct in saying that that would require the state to be a bit more um active in updating and increasing the amount of funding given to districts
011for student transportation? >> Yeah, I would likely increase it. I mean, greatly. I mean, we're what $13 million or so or 15 $135 million short in our transportation funding. Um, I don't know what other districts are, but uh, yeah, it would certainly it would cost more, but then it would, you know, provide the access that students need to get to school, too. >> One last question before we move on from the slack because I think it's important. Um, ASD has multiple charter programs that are allotted or earn the district transportation dollars each year. um how many charter programs that we have could sustainably transport all of their students utilizing the funding that's allocated to them in the formula and only that funding. >> Um that's a good question. I mean per per school it really
012doesn't generate that much funding. Like right now it's going to be $530ish dollars per student. So at 200 kids if some of those schools that's trying to do math in my head here $100,000 maybe um >> which is a single bus route approximately. >> Um maybe. >> Okay. So is it fair to say >> I mean I I I feel comfortable but I want to make sure I mean the professionals in the room agree that a single ASD charter program couldn't transport their own students using the current funding formula. Let me do some math real quick. >> Fair enough. >> Jumping right back into things. Thank you, Mr. Rea. >> Um, yeah. So, if it generates a little over $100,000 for a route, uh, you're certainly not going to get kids from across town there
013with one route. Um, just given time constraints. >> Appreciate you noting that the funding formula is holy wholly insufficient for the needs of our charter programs as well. Um, we'll go to member Donley, then member Bellamy. >> Thank you to address your question, Mr. President. Um since the federal issue was the transfer of funds that the state gives to districts for transportation, just a few rural districts apparently transferred those into their general funds. It seems like a very specific fix would be just prohibit the transfer of funds from their transportation funds to their general funds to general funds by school districts. Um, I don't know if there's any statutory prohibition on a that would prevent a regulation that was specifically targeted to that, but it seems like it'd be a pretty simple fix. >> Yeah.
014And I don't know what that would happen have to look like on the state side to get that implemented. Um, kind of one of the downsides to that would be that those districts would continue to accumulate accumulate money in those funds without the ability to spend it. So it just really just kind of tie up resources that would have no other purpose. >> But you you could also argue that they didn't need the money for transportation, which means the formula is broken, too. >> So if they didn't need the money for transportation, why shouldn't they just re refund it to the general fund of the state? >> Yeah, it's certainly a possibility, too. >> Thank you, member Donley. Um before we go to member Bellamy, I want to note that member Wilson joined us at
015408. Welcome member BM your question. >> I'm good. Mr. Chair, my question was answered already. >> Great. Then Mr. Riff, feel free to proceed. >> All right. And so the last thing that this uh regulation change would do would broaden the definition of inind services. Right now it's limited to insurance, utilities, energy, audits, and maintenance of facilities. Um and now it would just be called services. So what we don't know is what would be classified as services under this um under this change. Um it it would be very broad and could go against you know a number of things like meeting with the mayor the assembly's time things like that. Uh we really don't know uh until we would actually get some sort of uh definitive list from deed or some sort of guidance. Um,
016so this could be I mean this piece of it could be a huge amount of money, but we really just don't have any idea of quantifying that at this time. Uh, so the timeline on this and June 2nd, we became aware of the regulation changes that were proposed as an emergency action uh for the meeting on June 3rd and 4th. A lot of people kind of got the word out. The people called into the meeting and then made the decision to go through the normal process in le of an emergency action. uh they posted the 30 30-day comment period that closed on July 25th and then they're supposed to take it up at the October 8th and 9th uh board of education meeting for the for these changes. Um I think at that meeting they
017have a few choices. They can either approve it uh just outright disapprove it or um I believe they can hold another 30-day comment period or maybe propose some different changes to it. >> And then Mr. Just to clarify, so theoretically this could go into effect for this fiscal year is what you've heard. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. They could make the determination on the effective dated on it as well, >> Mr. Chair. Sorry, >> member Bellamy. >> So, uh, Dr. Bryant, what has I I I've kind of tracked some of our responses to this. um and I think so so can you just talk through how we've responded and um what was our response to this recommendation? I know everybody's been writing letters. I mean I've written letters. I know the president's written letters. Um
018what what has been our general stance as a district? >> Yeah, a great question member Bellamies. Um, so we we went on the record pretty hard on June 2nd, I'll put it that way. And we shared that we we felt that um the way that things were uh happening was potentially unlawful. So we got through that hurdle. Um but throughout that process, we made it clear that if the city of Anchorage wants to invest in Anchorage schools, they should be able to do so. And my position has always been that the way that the commissioner is proposing that this happen is not the only way to solve the issue. She's contending that one way to solve the issue is to remove funding from municipal districts, but I would actually argue that you can also solve
019the problem by adding more funding to all districts in addition to municipal districts. So that that's where the disconnect is, but ASD is still firmly um standing behind our stance where there's no reason for this regulation to go through. I think the public also deserves to understand that this isn't directly related to the the um federal disparity test either. like they're interconnected, but it's disingenuous to say that one is the direct cause of the situation that we're in. So, this is one of the most complicated topics that um a community member can understand because we're talking about statutory regulations, we're talking about state board of education regulations, and now we're talking about a federal disparity test. Um that goes back to the fact that Alaska has a lot of land that is not taxed, which
020is why the federal government is technically subsidizing school funding in the state of Alaska by $80 million. And I think that's probably one of the biggest things that the public does not understand about public education funding in Alaska. It's literally being underwritten by the federal government to the magnitude of about $80 million. So that's why there's a lot of urgency for the commissioner to push this through. But again, ASD firmly believes that this is not the only way to solve that federal disparity test issue. We need to invest in our schools and we need to make sure that we're not letting the investments in student transportation fall behind because these transfers between general funds and transportation line items would not be happening if we wouldn't have left our transportation line unfunded with an increase since
0212015. Um and that is why I think it's not surprising that a few years ago ASD Matsu and other districts across the country had transportation crises because um for whatever reason transportation funding goes beyond the radar um unlike school funding in general for students. So this is a highly complicated but very consequential issue that ASD has been speaking out about for many months. And then we're not alone either. Juno School District has been a statewide champion for this topic for years. Um, this is actually a topic that superintendents have been talking about literally since I've been here and now it's it's resulted in what we're seeing today. >> Okay. So, the comment period has ended procedurally though. Will we will will they have any other open before they make their decision on in October? Will
022they have like testimony before do you think? >> I suspect they'll have public testimony at those meetings. We'll still have a chance to call in and >> Okay. advocate >> and I think that's important for the public to understand as well. >> Yeah. And just to put a a pin on that, um, one of the big things that Mr. Ratliff is flagging is that we don't understand the extent to which this can impact services that we receive from the municipality. >> At minimum, we're talking about $15 million that ASD could be on the hook for this fiscal year. So, the reason why we're talking about this topic right now is that if this regulation were to pass as it's being proposed, we'd have to find $15 million and we barely just got $10 million from
023the state on Saturday. So, this really is a consequential and timely topic that's also deeply nuanced. And one of the reasons why there's so much ambiguity is because the regulation by design does not spell out what counts as a service. And I don't think that that information will be provided until after this is passed. So that's why there's more urgency than ever to make our voices heard. And for anybody listening, if this alarms you, the right people to be connecting with is the state board of education and the commissioner. They are the ones responsible for this and it will be on their hands if this were to go through. Um, so given that this negatively impacts all municipal districts around the state, I think that our voices need to be heard and they have been,
024but the the number of opportunities that the public has to speak out on this is rapidly dwindling um if we potentially only have that October period. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> So, moving on to the next thing that was going on this summer had to do with the federal grants funding. And uh so July 1st um we became aware of that some of our title federal grants were being withheld. Those included the title 1C for migrant education, some title 2A money for supporting effective instruction, title 3A which is language instruction for English learners, title 4 A student support and academic enrichment, and title 4B which was the 21st century um learning centers. Then on just a couple weeks later, July 18th, the 21st century, U money was released. So that 4B came back.
025However, that was about 2 million out of the $14 million that we received in all those um funding streams. So on July 21st, we um were part of a lawsuit that was filed to release the rest of the funds. That was a Monday. And then on that Friday um we were we learned that the remaining funds would be released and then that's when we started we hadn't done a lot of work in um moving some of these services out and cutting them but we were able to turn around and rotate those back and have those all all moving forward now. >> Yeah. And I would add these funds were approved in the last federal budget cycle. So really what we have to watch for now is when they're coming up on this coming budget cycle
026for the feds in September. Um what they might do with those grants because that's the the more legal way they have to adjust some of this um federal deed money downward. >> Member Belly, do you have a question? >> No, I'm good. Thanks. >> Perfect. >> All right. to our next steps on this. We're going to receive the additional $10 million through the BSA override. Um that 15 million that we kind of at a minimum through the local contribution changes remains a risk as does the state failing the federal impact aid disparity test. That's currently an appeal. Um one of the things could happen is we would get our impact aid money back that they are deducting from us 6 and a half million or so. But then if they do lose the 81 million
027statewide and their K12 education line is not enough to pay out, then they may short districts uh proportionally because of that, which in that event then we would net about a $15 million loss. Um but that's only if they choose to take that 81 million and then just shortf fund all the districts proportionally. Um we also have needs. So, one of them is uh need to address our class size bubbles that are kind of occurring as we're looking through enrollment this year or kind of the preliminary enrollment. Um and then some other additional resources for schools that will go through. Um and then also charter schools will get their proportionate share of the increase as well per statute. So the increase in the BSA does benefit our charter schools in that regard too. So, just
028to chime in to recap, this is a very important slide because we're very excited that we're about to receive 10 million additional dollars because of the veto override and there's an opportunity that we want to describe to the board for how we can use some of those dollars to tackle classiz bubbles and other pressing issues very soon. But I would be remiss if I didn't make sure the board understood that we have a $15 million liability still hanging over us until this issue with that regulation change is resolved. So any additional spending that we engage in can benefit students, but we do have to proceed cautiously because that risk will not uh we won't understand where we're at in terms of the risk until closer to October that that hearing. So with that said, um
029I I do want to talk about ways that we can tackle some important issues. So, as we kind of wrestled with what would be very uh urgent needs, immediate needs um that we would ask to be able to fund, one would be um having 20 classroom teachers um FTE to be able to utilize for those class high class sizes and as we as the enrollments get finalized. we have uh we've been using our holdbacks um in a very conservative way, but we're finding that there are many bubbles because of the PTR um increase this year. We kind of got to that really amazing time where we're finding where the breaking point is. Um, we also would like to be able to provide some services to students, continued services that were cut in the original cut
030because we originally cut a whole bunch of stuff out of the schools and we never replaced those when you guys when you all came back with the $1,000 amendment or the 560. And those um for elementary schools equate to about $230,000. For middle school, it's about $60,000 and for high school, it's $260,000. Um, so we're asking if and those are all things that that are literally direct services to kids in schools, after school tutoring, um, elementary schools could be, you know, an afterchool music club, curriculum development by teachers, um, uh, robotics, those types of things. middle school, we're looking at most schools have a tutoring option, some afterchool programs and some professional development. And in high schools, um we're really looking the biggest thing there is like extended school years, um curriculum work, professional development
031work, actual um like lunchtime tutoring, after school tutoring. Um sometimes we need to add a some a teacher needs we need to give some teachers thing to develop some curriculum for a specific course or so those things are really literally get affect what's going on in the schools and as we talked with my staff these are the things that came to the very top of the list that every single one of these things would um help right in the classroom and in the schools um if we could get uh these these approved right away. And then the MAR charter schools is about 50 $520,000. >> Member Halman question. >> Um I'm just wondering if you could say where we're at comparing how many teachers we expect to have in classrooms in a week and a
032half. Um compared to the number of budgeted positions or >> as of this morning >> at at the high school level, we have four openings >> total. At the middle school level, we have eight openings and at the elementary level, we have 34 openings as of this morning. Now, those when we're asking for these 20 more FTE, some of those are like partial FTEEs at the secondary level. Some of these were we would be talking to principles and they're looking at the the like retires or long-term subs into the positions. But we have some we have some classes like there's a couple schools we heard about today address verified 46 kids in a class. >> So we need we need some relief there and we'd really like that relief sooner than later >> so that
033we can get moving. You know, school starts next Thursday. >> My my followup is is this overall do we have about the same number of positions budgeted for this fall as we did in the spring? >> Um Mr. Lang, do you have that? >> I don't know in terms of FTE how it compares to last year. Um, Andy may have a better specific answer to that, but in terms of opening up the school year, we're anticipating about the same number of first day vacancies as we opened with last year. So, Sven kind of gave a rundown of the general openings we have. The the one group he didn't um highlight was we have about 48 specialed openings as well. So last year on first day of school we had 148 vacancies. Um we'll be somewhere
034right in that ballpark likely when we open schools a week from now. >> I guess I if I could try to answer it a little differently. A member Hollowman. Um we do have a plus one PTR. So we do have less positions this year than we would have would have had last year. >> And then we lost some more enrollment declines as well. also makes it more challenging to staff those or to get those class sizes more equalized when there's fewer students. >> And and on that note, when I zoom out, I truly believe that one of the biggest impact things that we can do is to get more highquality educators in our classrooms. So, whoever we can find, I'd like to get them into our schools as soon as possible. And this would have
035been much easier had we known this information back when SP140 was being or back when the bill was being considered. because theoretically if a bill is passed in let's say February, March, we can do planning. Unfortunately, we didn't know about this money until Saturday. So even though school starts in a couple of weeks, at least we have a fighting chance to bring more educators into our buildings. So I I will say that you'll notice only 2.6 million of the up to $10 million that we have. But I think the public does understand that given the nature of teacher contracts, we may not be able to find all 20 of these people. But I think we need to at least try. And if there are more than that, maybe we go back to the drawing board
036and try to bring more on that. That's how I feel that we need to tackle this issue or great teachers in our classrooms. >> Member Higgins. >> Yeah, I appreciate this briefing. Let me just see if I understand the process at this point because we never did a budget based upon the 700. So, we've got a gap in here between what we approved and the additional funds, but we have even a bigger gap. what we may lose. So, I I realize it's kind of an interesting scenario, isn't it? Um and and so at to in order to take these additional classroom teachers and do that, do you need board approval through a budget amendment before you can do it or is that something within funding you can go ahead and adjust and we can make
037a budget approval later because your hiring process is critical at this point and a delay of two weeks even is a pretty big impact. So, how do we uh if we want and I do want to support these recommendations the way for the additional teachers, do we need to do something at this point, make it happen, or can you move things around and they'll make it happen and then later come back with a budget revision so we can kind of help clean it up a little bit because I don't want to delay the hiring process. >> But do we need to do an amendment to the budget I mean to the um um to the regular work session in order to approve this? >> Thank you, Member Higgins. Exactly what I wanted to ask the
038board too. Theoretically, we could discuss maybe an informal green light on the general direction that we'd like to head, but as soon as in two weeks, we could have a budget amendment revision for the board to formally approve. But to your point, every day matters when it comes to recruiting teachers. So, if there were any possibility we can get informal board approval to start hiring teachers now, I' I'd like that. If the board is comfortable with >> if we can get a a a budget, I mean an item that we can add to the regular session today, I think, you know, the board would then have an opportunity to give you the green light to hire these people. You can't wait two weeks. It's going to impact your selection and notification. It's difficult hiring process
039anyway. I I would like to recommend or request the administration provide something like that. I would propose adding it to the agenda for this meeting so we can uh address this and be supportive of the administration efforts to because these are directly related to student outcomes. I'm not I don't think there's any questions about this at all. But is that an avenue we should you know can you generate something quickly that could be added to the agenda for today's meeting because I don't want to wait two weeks. >> Um thank you member Higgins. I'll talk with Dr. Brian offline. >> The answer to that is yes. You're supposed to say yes. >> Thanks for the suggestion. Appreciate your feedback, member Higgins. I don't member Bellamy. Then we'll open it up for further questions. >> My
040my question was kind of similar. What does the superintendent need from us tonight or in the very very very very near future? Um and I'll let you guys have your conversation offline and see where we end up tonight. All right. Uh, so the last slide that I have here is just kind of the outlook for FY27. So even with that $700 BSA increase, we'll still say face significant deficits looking forward. Um, I think one of the legislators summed it up when they said it's about 40% of what we need. So really where that puts us is even with the $700 increase, we're looking at about a 65 to 75 million general fund deficit. There's a lot of stuff that can affect this, including our unsettle unsettled labor contracts, enrollment changes, the local contribution changes, and
041then um how the new new state funds are used. So, if it's one-time things versus, you know, ongoing costs, that'll make a difference on the deficit. Um and then we have about a three between three and $16 million uh transportation fund deficit depending on how those local contribution changes go. We know there's going to be about an 8% increase in driver wages based on the minimum wage increasing. Um and then if enrollment continues to decline that'll have less revenue. We still need to run the same routes. Um so really that was the presentation. If we have any questions want to go back to the slides happy to take those now. >> Member Higgins. >> Yeah just one on the charter schools for the immediate steps you got 520,000. Normally they live within the aotment. They
042got additional $700 uh BSA this year on top of that. What's the $520,000 for? Where is that dedicated? >> Right. So that represents the difference between the 560 because we approved their budgets of that 560 also. We made them a revision and so having that go up to 700 would be their statutory obligation for us to pass that money. Listen, it sounds >> it's not an addition to the money is dedicated to them anyway. Right. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. I have >> member Bell. >> Thank you. So, back with the uh federal grants funding, um we have reversed all that we're going to reverse or re-imagined all that we're going to re-imagine regarding those funds. >> I guess I Can you repeat your question? >> Yeah. Just did we bring everything back? >>
043No. Okay. So, what did we reimagine or redesign? We have just brought back some of the stuff. Um there there we kind of were looking at what are immediate needs like right now >> and then we were kind of planning on let's see what happens in October because the other stuff that we're thinking about could come back after October. >> Um these are things like >> we got people coming in the buildings some Monday, right? Those types of things. Okay. >> Um, we have we have many different things that we cut out of the budget. >> So that that October puzzle piece of the puzzle is kind of >> Mr. Gustoson, if I could interject. I think Miss Member Belly, you're referring specifically to the federal pieces. Okay. So that that was restored. Correct. In
044terms of >> federal money was restored. >> So and is there so the federal the federal funds were all restored to their pre uh July 1st level >> we had budgeted at? Yes. >> Okay. And then for everything else though, we're just we just got to wait and see for >> that's pretty much what we're asking. >> Okay. All right. >> Any other follow-ups? Member Bellamy? >> I think I'm good. >> Okay. I I have one follow up on that thread. I guess what I think I understand is that the district was working with staff who may have received um a layoff notice or at least notice that we might have to cut FTE and offer those folks a position that isn't so closely tied to federal funding. Have did that actually come to be
045and has anyone chosen not to return to their position? >> They've all of the ones that were given that notice returned back to their original positions. >> I believe is that true? >> That's correct. We have 14 teachers that were uh placed in school-based positions. They were given the option to remain there or return to their uh previous roles. All 14 opted to return. We had five um ACE positions that were in layoff status and we were able to recall all of those. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, member Wilson checking in online to see if you have any questions. >> Okay. >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. Um, ser seeing nothing else from the board. Um, would entertain a motion to adjourn to executive session at 5:00 p.m. for
046the purpose of legal updates, negotiations, and contracts. Can I just ask one more question? I just found it. I'm sorry. You may >> before we leave. I'm just curious. Hold on one minute. Let me go back to it. Okay. The local contributions look good. Looking at the the items that we brought. Uh where is it? I think it's on page hold on of the things that we brought back uh after the uh state funding where is that not immediate next steps land funding landscape no that's not it oh underneath next steps immediate needs is there for the elementary support for curriculum music and intercolastic activities are we putting any resources in after school tutoring or we don't >> that also includes that what it was is we had cut out of the 10 um agenda
047that elementaryaries had >> when we did the initial cut we had cut three of those. So the principles, many of them, most schools do different things with that extra money depending upon their needs. >> And we're asking to put those three back so that they still have the 10 so they can provide whatever. Some schools will do some tutoring, some schools are doing robotics, some schools are doing a running club or something like that. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to be clear. >> Not a problem. Um, with that said, member Bellamy, do you have a motion to adjourn to the per uh executive session effective at 5:00 pm for the purpose of legal updates, negotiations, and contracts? >> I move. I so move. >> Second. >> Made by member Bellamy, second
048by member Hollowman. Seeing no objection, we will adjourn to executive session at 5 pm. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you, guys.