001Yeah, not many calls that signed me up for this week. We'll call this work session of the Anchorage School District uh board to order at 4:00 on May 6. Uh in the room we have member Bellamy, member Lessons, member Hollowman, the superintendent, Miss Sullivan, member Jacobs, [Music] um member Donley is excused, and we believe member Higgins and member Wilson are on their way. Um, with that we will I will turn it over to the superintendent for a discussion about budget and emergency preparedness. Thanks, Mr. President. So, we'll begin with a budget conversation and if time permits, uh, we do have an update on emergency preparedness, but we're happy to reschedule if we need to. Uh, I I did want to start off with just a couple of remarks. So we did have a major milestone
002last week and that house bill 57 passed and it both passed it also passed with 48 of 60 votes needed and that's a really strong bipartisan support across caucuses and the bill represents a blend of policy and it is a major step forward in rectifying and providing financial relief to to districts that have been desperate for additional recurring funding. Though of course it's still a step in the right direction. uh $700 unfortunately isn't nearly the amount for ASD to to become whole again. But with that said, the bills with the governor, it could be vetoed. Um but we also know that the governor supports the BSA increase as well, um because he did put that in his own bill, though it was uh for an amount of $560 per student. So, all of that to
003say, uh really tonight, uh this positive movement and momentum in the legislature unlocks an opportunity for the board that we'll discuss later, uh tonight. And that would essentially be to take on a calculated level of risk by assuming that the legislature and the governor will ultimately approve a school funding bill this session. That that's a big decision. I will say that the finance committee for ASD met last week and they put a lot of thought and discussion into the idea projecting $560 which is a conservative estimate being that $700 is what's being um considered by the governor. So really today I I wanted to make sure that the board is aware of all the key considerations because that is a big decision. It it does mean taking on a bit of risk um but with
004a lot of important context in mind. Uh so with that said um it does unlock an opportunity. The idea of projecting revenue does mean um that we can start to reverse some of the damage that's been done because of the very very severe nature of our uh financial situation. And I do recognize that employee morale is at an all-time low and we really were looking for a hero and I think tonight we can be at least one of several heroes that we'll need to get through this crisis. So I'll let our chief financial officer take it from here. Thank you. For the record, Andy Ratliff from the chief financial officer. Um, really for the purpose of this, we wanted to go into the assumptions that went into projecting the revenue in board memo 153, the
005finance committee's recommended additions, uh, what reductions are still in place for for the next budget cycle, some of the risks and benefits, and then the outlook for FY27. Um, and as I go through this, you know, you guys, the board is the ones that really kind of made this proposal and come up with this. So, please jump in here as as you feel fit and we can change these slides later on if we need to add some additional context to it. So, really the basis for um that proposed budget revision was HP57 passed the House with overwhelming support. As Dr. Bryant mentioned, 48 out of 60 legislators voted to approve it and it's currently awaiting the bud the governor's signature or alternatively veto. um that included a $700 BSA increase, a 10% increase in transportation
006revenue, and then a CTE multiplier, and a proficiency incentive that would be contingent upon SB13 passing, which would be a digital uh sales tax, I believe. Um so, all that to say, that's just kind of the broad support for quite a bit more money than what is going to be uh proposed in this edition from the school board. Mr. Chair member Jacobs. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, thank you, Mr. Rlet. While we're here on this slide, could you touch on how much of our FY26 operating budget for student transportation is subsidized by the MOA? And then under the proposed forthcoming um regulation from DED that would potentially limit how those transportation dollars could be counted against ASD in the local MAX. How would that impact our FY26 budget if we had to um incorporate
007and fully fund transportation within our own budget without any outside assistance? Sure. So, I think there's about 12 million 12 or 13 million that the city has requested to kick in for our transportation fund. Um, and between our transportation and our general fund, we're at the city cap. So, if we got additional money through the BSA, that would actually raise the state cap. And procedurally, what would likely happen in that instance if we don't get more money for transportation, but we can accept more city dollars into our general fund is you could um just accept that money in the general fund and transfer it out to the transportation fund. So, that's kind of the the accounting concept before, but if you wanted this or if the city had more money to kick in, put into
008the pot uh for operational dollars to accept that too. I mean that's that's one way to do it. But um to the extent that the BSA or other funding does not increase that state cap then yes we are going to have some significant deficiencies in our transportation fund and limit limits on how much we can collect in our general fund that would thereby be transferred over to uh transportation. Right. Uh the rest of kind of the the budget revision estimate would be based on the governor's proposed bill which included a $560 BSA increase uh along with some other policy changings for correspondents and charter schools. Um want to note the FY25 one-time funding for this year was a $680 BSA increase. So this is what you guys are proposing in here is less than what
009we actually received for this year. So they would have to go backwards in funding to be able to uh or to to even get to where you guys are proposing the bill to be. Um and then just taking the calcul acknowledge the calculated risk needed to help retain the staff prior to the layoff notices going out or the displacement process being finalized. Um you know last time we ended up issuing layoff notices I think it was like somewhere around a third of the employees didn't come back. So that's really uh what we trying to avoid in this scenario. Mr. Chair, and let me note that we've been joined by Member Wilson and Member Higgins. Member Jacobs. Yep. Thank you. Um while we're talking about the importance of of not laying off staff we anticipate or
010have the ability to bring back later, um could you refresh our memory as to how much we estimate it costs for ASD to replace an educator or an AA employee if they're the same cost? It's a little over $29,000 we've estimated each time we have to um recruit a new certificated staff member for hire. Thank you. Um was there any questions or revisions to kind of the decision-m process or the the ideal behind making this assumption for revenue? or did that pretty well capture it? Okay. So, with that, there was a little under $40 million that was added back based on a $560 BSA increase. That would amend the PTR proposed increase of a plus4 down to a plus one. So, we're still increasing class sizes, just not quite as much. It would increase our
011holdback pool to um address what's going to be more common class- size bubbles. The fewer teachers we get, the harder it is to kind of have these scheduling things. And this is really going to help with those scheduling conflicts. The reverse cuts to the gifted program, mainly Ignite. Um the charter school funding is just a proportionate share of what that $560 increase would be to them. Uh it adds back immersion teachers uh spe special education elementary school teachers as well as provides for a little bit of an correspondence aotment increase the paraprofessional educators for kindergarten would come back as well as summer school some prek teachers battle the books and um there's a little bit of a discrepancy in the amount for the gifted teachers that we went ahead and plugged into the attrition estimate.
012So that'll bring that 41 million and change down to 41 million and slightly less change. Um but about 31 or $30 million or so going towards just direct instruction right into our in our in our classrooms. Uh we also added some things back into instructional support about 9.7 million to that including reversing the cuts to the librarians, nurses, uh sports, the reading interventionists and or the teaching and learning staff, principles, library assistance, counselors, and uh the deaf and heart of hearing program. And then invest in some new counselors to uh be in alignment with board guard rails around having a at least halfime within the elementary schools. So, as we get to the reductions that are still in place, about 70 teachers were reduced based on enrollment. The PTR adjustment of plus one is going
013to be 57 teachers or about $7 million. Uh this does show like when we change these charts for the like the holdback teachers, you'll see those added back. The program based teachers gets added back because that's where the immersion teachers were at. Uh we'll still be reducing some principles based on school closures. Um adding the counselors, librarians, nurses, and clerical are all based on school closures. And then the elementary noon duty is kind of based on both the the overall population of schools and they're tied to the number of teachers or kindergarten teachers especially at school. So and as we close schools, those new duty resources go away as well. Um the charter school funding you'll see on there. And then some of the other things were left over from the previous cuts. Uh the
014biggest one being family partnership as that program has the number of students has gone down. So we don't need as much money to pay for the apartments. So we're still reducing a little over $14 million in uh school-based services, about $1.2 $2 million in special services which includes uh reductions to the biggest ones into special ed elementary school and why as a majority of that adding some things into other special education areas. Um then lastly, still about $7.5 million in um administr administrative reductions. That was about $ 8.9 million if I recall correctly, but what changed on here was the teaching and learning staff was the those ones that were based out of teaching and learning were actually included on this slide. So as you see that on the teaching and learning SL line, that's
015where that went down. So it wasn't as necessarily a schoolbased, but it was in this uh admin line. uh still reducing 31 FTE out of the administrative pool about again 7 and a half million um and we'll get to some of the things that when we start talking about the FY27 deficit what's not going to be added back or that is may need to be added back member Wessons thanks um I really appreciate understanding what the budget truly cut right I know that two and a half months ago when there was an amendment package that was approved by the board. There were a couple of uh items that were not part of the uh FY25 budget, but that were presented in the amendment, which maybe we're not seeing here, which included reducing pupil teacher ratios
016to a level last seen in FY16, and that was like a $4 million investment we would have needed to not just prevent the PTR plus for, but to to go back down in time. Um, and we had also talked at that point and approved an idea, a plan to invest in highdose tutoring, and that was another $4 million item. So those I just wanted to throw out really what's not on the table here at this point in time um for for additional context especially knowing how important class size reduction was to legislators in both houses and I think on on both sides of the aisle um does not appear to be that uh we have the capacity to reduce class sizes uh as much as we would like. Yeah. Certainly not in this proposal and
017certainly not even whatever the best practices and when when you look at adequ adequacy studies are where it's 15 in elementary and 25 at secondary. Um nowhere near close to that but uh definitely a project we want to work on is trying to develop those list of the things that we've both what we've cut over the years kind of what our staffing levels are at and really what they should be is talking about what's going to be best for our students. So, um, developing those lists and then putting the cost to them to show the legislators and anyone who's interested, uh, what it would look like to provide that adequate education. Member Jacobs. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, if if the board assumed um and and assumed a $700 BSA increase were to um
018be allocated and not vetoed either through the policy or operating budget um opportunity, would we have sufficient dollars if every single penny of those of that funding was directed to reducing class sizes and hiring teacher? Would we be able to meet the class size goals in HB57 as adopted of 23 at uh elementary and believe was um not with 700 BSA I don't believe so we'll do that have to do the math but uh right now we're at between I think it'll be 22 or 23 and 27 in uh elementary schools So getting that all down to 23 is going to be fairly expensive and I suspect it's going to be more than the 10 million or so it would generate above what you provided here. Could I follow up, Mr. Sure? Yeah, I just
019want to highlight that that I think it's a very relevant fact that the legislature included some really great um goals for class size but not the funding to effectuate them. And that I think is okay provided that we all enter the conversation. And I say we, um, local and state lawmakers together enter the conversation understanding that this really is just a solid first step in terms of legislation. And we're going to have to be right back at the conversation um, starting in January as to how we continue to narrow that gap to effectuate the the class size goals and other academic um, goals that the legislature wants to see. Um because even if we are to even if we even we provide every single dollar to classroom instruction, we can't meet those goals. And that
020would of course entail cutting really valued programs that that we are proposing to um fund for at least the next fiscal year at this point. And um that needs to be highlighted and well understood here locally as well as in Juno. Um, the other question I had is while we're looking at administrative costs, do you know with this proposed spending plan if we're still roughly in the the 5% and and maybe just a tiny bit higher district administration cost and 95% to direct instruction and related supports. Have we calculated that yet? Yeah, we did a look at that and it didn't really change significantly from the that kind of circle chart that we provided before admin maintenance and operations goes down a little bit and the other ones go up a little bit but you
021know you're looking like you know fractions of a half a percent maybe 4%. So not in a mean like I guess a static stat statistically meaningful amount there. Thank you. But I would say we can do, you know, we need to do a better job. Let's administration um coming up as you mentioned the class sizes articulating what that means financially. So if they say 23 is the target, okay, what's that going to cost? Um and still allow us to operate and do business the way we need to do business. All right. So, uh, some of the risks and benefits the the risk if it's some amount less than 560 BSA is allocated. Um, this could result in hiring freezes, funding reductions for all the discretionary funds and then liquidating assigned fund balance reserves to be
022able to uh not spend into a deficit or have negative fund balance essentially. Uh, so that's just kind of the, you know, if we were to get in the very unlikely event we were to get a zero BSA increase and have to make up $40 million and all our certificated staff, those are contractually guaranteed for the rest of the year once we kind of enter into that, then there are things we can do to help build that fund balance back up or not go negative. And one of them, the biggest one lever you have to pull is actually liquidating those assigned fund balances which are incumbrances, reserves for self- insurance, um things like that that we have set aside for other purposes. But there's a hierarchy in which you have to liquidate these fund balances
023that's dictated by CASBY. So we'd have to look at that and see which ones are in these different categories and which ones are the most acceptable to liquidate in that in that unfortunate instance. But the benefit again it does allow for placement of our staff prior to the end of school and to help retain our educators. Mr. Chair, member Jenkins. Yep. Thank you. Um for context, does administration have any sense as to how many school districts either from the big five or broadly speaking from the state are anticipating a figure greater than 560? I I know Fairbanks right now was looking at 680 and they also anticipated one-time funds, which was interesting because they were going to use the one-time funds and take that charter money, which we typically don't do, but they they have
024in practice taken that money and applied it to non-charter expenses. And so, they're actually having to dial back potentially some of the um investments they might need to might need to make. I know Matsu at some point was in u planning and budgeting on a $1,000 BSA increase. Juno was a few hundred dollars. And so I for perspective, it might be helpful to know how many other districts are um having the same conversations that we know we're not alone in this um having to make a a calculated risk. Yeah, I believe all the big five are making and I haven't really talked to many of the smaller districts, but Right. I I could uh chime in here. So my recollection is that Juno projected $400 in additional revenue. Um this would put ASD at 560
025and then um Fairbanks would be 680. Um Matsu I believe projected higher than 680. Isn't that may have been a thousand. They may have projected a thousand. Um so this is important to spell out because again we wouldn't be alone but we are being very intentional about projecting a conservative amount because right now the dollars in play is about $700 per student. We're intentionally projecting less than that. We're assuming 560 because we understand that in the final hours of negotiations that figure could go down. Uh we do also recognize that the governor could line item veto or reduce funding towards education. Um and I think that this recognizes it but also puts in perspective the fact that the governor has put his own bill in play that does advocate for a 560 permanent increase and
026that hasn't always been the case. So this is something that recognizes that in a calculated strategic way. My followup, Mr. Sure. Member Jacobs. Yep. Thank you. Um I think the other thing it highlights is and is that our our system right now is is fundamentally broken. The fact that we have districts estimating and and taking calculated risks with their budget that impacts students um months before the budget takes effect. Um I hope this exercise is a wakeup call to Juno. Um, and I'm grateful that administration are supporting the board in making this calculated risk. Thank you. And to add to that, I'll I'll say that the idea for the interim adjustment when it first came up, um, I think it's important for everyone to understand that that we are taking a risk. Um, a lot
027of people have written to the board about wanting us to reinstate certain specific uh positions or take some action and we've had to explain that given the budget numbers, the administration really can't do anything because we spent our fund balance down to the minimum. Um, I hope people don't think that suddenly we've got the money and everything's good. Uh, there still is uncertainty in this, but it does allow the administration to take steps to relieve some of the anguish of people in the district that are caught not knowing where they're going to be. Um, this lets them know where the district wants them to be, but we're still very contingent on those funds coming through. Obviously, the people we promise jobs to will have jobs. Uh, but but if things fall apart in the legislature,
028uh, it will be worse than if we did not do this. Uh but if they do come together and they they do hit the 700 number, uh having done this makes it better than it would have been. So it it's a gamble, but we're we're assuming resources that we don't actually have. In fact, and that goes back to member Jacob's comment. The system's kind of broken for us. I I would love for it to be a wakeup call, but I don't think it's wild enough to do that. But but it's important that we keep relating that to them. Thank you. Please go on. Member Wessons. Um, thank you. I think one of the I'm echoing now. Um, I appreciate that. Uh, all of the work that has gone into uh where we are this evening.
029I mean, this is this is the culmination of months and months of work and adaptation and prediction and um trying to put our hearts and souls into serving our students. I would be interested in understanding what effectively a PTR plus one is going to mean for for different schools. And I I realize that maybe I'm asking that and that could be difficult to exactly pin down, but perhaps it's it's doable. Um because this doesn't propose reversing the entire PTR plus4. It says we're not going to go up 1 2 3 4. we're just going to go up one. And so this is an increase of class sizes. It is a reduction of staff in in really every building. And so I I would appreciate at at some point understanding what that impact would be to
030our different schools. And I think the related question is and maybe this is more of an HR question. Assuming, you know, if Memo 153 passes later this evening, does that mean that tomorrow the administration begins walking movement backwards? And could you just sort of give a bit of an overview at this point to that process? I can start um addressing that question. Member lessons. So, I think uh assuming the memo passes tonight as written, I think there are three things that it will allow us to do. One, it will allow us to avoid layoff of any certificated staff. Um, right now we still have displacement obligations to about 84 individuals that otherwise we would have to lay off without projecting additional funding. Um, second, it allows us to reverse those the remainder of folks who
031were displaced and were given positions. It would allow principles to reabsorb the majority of those folks back into their building. And tomorrow, we have general leadership with our principles. We'll begin walking them through the plan for how to do that. And then those notifications would begin on Thursday with staff. And anybody who was displaced through this process would be notified on Thursday whether or not they're reabsorbed into their current position or whether or not um they would remain displaced because we with the PTR increase of one and with the enrollment decline, we still have some folks who may not be able to remain in their positions that they're currently in this year. But then we would run an accelerated staffing process that would allow us to place them in in openings in other buildings that
032we know we have. And so by the end of the year, we would be able to find a placement for um everybody who was affected by that displacement process. Um that way they know whether or not they need to pack up their room, whether or not they don't need to pack up their room, or whether or not they need to unpack the boxes that they had started packing thinking they might need to leave. And so we want before people head into the summer, we really want to be able to confirm um what the status is for them. And then the third thing it would allow us to do is move to external hires because in some job areas we will definitely have openings beyond um restoring those folks back to their their positions who are
033displaced. And um we need principles to start acting quickly to hire folks externally to fill those vacancies because we know as we head into summer that those pools really disappear and by the time we come back in July and August there are no candidates to hire for those vacancies. So um passage of the memo tonight would really allow us to do all three of those things. Member Bellamy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I'm I'm I keep thinking about the May 15th. Uh is that contract date? What has to happen on May 15th? And does 53 help you with that? It does this memo? So, May 15th is the statutory deadline to notify any tenure teachers um if they're uh laid off. And so, again, uh memo 153 would allow us to avoid laying off any
034certificated staff. And so that deadline essentially would become uh you know meaningless for this year. All right, that's what I thought. Thanks, Member Jacobs. Yep. Um could you walk through I mean when we when we displace a teacher that isn't even if it's related to a loss of enrollment um but especially if it's related to a PTR increase that work in that job doesn't necessarily go away. um the the impact to the teacher is significant and measurable. Can someone speak to what that process looks like and how we support our educators through the displacement process and what are the impacts like at the building where the educator is displaced from. So I'll take that one. Um, member Jacobs, so when a when a teacher is displaced, the principal is telling the teacher, you know, at
035this point, you don't have a position here at this school, but you're being displaced and you'll have the opportunity to be looking at positions at other at other schools. And at that point, the member is allowed to fill out a preference sheet, actually, like what positions would this teacher want to go into? And then when you go into the staffing uh meeting, we're looking to try to get that teacher into position that they want to be at. Hopefully, it's a match match with a school that has a need with a with a teacher who's displaced. Um what happens at the school that where that teacher leaves? Class sizes go up, programs go away. Um it depends upon the exact situation. Sections get reduced at secondary. Um there's a whole gambit of different things that happen
036at the actual school where that person is uh being displaced from. Um at the end of the day, if this memo was to happen and be passed, we'll have some teachers that will still be displaced because of the enrollment in the plus one PTR and we'll be looking for homes for them. However, every member has one transfer, right, per year, one voluntary transfer. We're going to be allowing any teachers that have done that because of displacements earlier this time, they're going to still get their one even though they've done it already once before. Um there's a whole bunch of different little teeny things that we've been having to work through and and it's very complex. This is the first time we've ever had this level of uh re re what would you call it going
037back and so there's a lot of pieces to it. But I hope that does that answer your question. If I might follow, Mr. Chair. Yeah, it it does answer I think the broad question. It brings up another one which I guess is I know the board prioritized the creation of a recruitment and retention working group. Um specifically built around trying to remedy internally our challenge of retaining educators that we have and then recruiting new ones. Um work that specifically can't be taken up um at the legislative level. Of course, we need our legislature to to fix the fact that we don't have a pension unlike any other state in the nation. We ask our educa educators to navigate the worst retirement system of any group of educators um in our nation which is really um
038it we know it's a a recruitment and retention challenge and the deed survey um conducted in 2021 2022 bears that out. Um but my suspicion is that among the cohort of displaced teachers that we see a higher level of resignations. Um is that true? Um do we know how many folks who have been displaced have resigned in lie of accepting um a displacement or because the process is still in the early stages do we not have a handle on that yet? Like Mr. Ratliff um referred to earlier when we last went through a round of layoffs, we tracked pretty closely how many folks didn't return when that recall was issued. It's a little bit more difficult with displacements to to measure that impact um because if they do choose to resign the district um their
039reason that they stayed on their notice of resignation, they self- select. And so um you know there are a number of categories there um and and you know they may choose just personal and not share with us that that the displacement specifically was the reason for that. Um I mean anecdotally I can say having been a principal in a building that when you sit down with someone you displace them and they have you know invested in that school and in that community and in um you know being an excellent educator for the students that they serve that that displacement always feels like a gut punch. it always um I think erodess their confidence in us as an employer and I wish there had been some way that we could have avoided you know displacing as
040many folks as we did this year because we know that that's impactful we know that that has a lasting um impact for our employees too and we'll have to work hard to to build back the you know that trust with them I will say that the passage of this memo tonight does allow us to start down that path I think many will be feel much better on Thursday when they hear that they're reabsorbed into their school that they're have the opportunity to return and continue to invest in that school community that they're a part of. Um just to give you a sense of the scale, we did notify a little over 200 people at some point through this staffing season, unfortunately, that they were displaced. um as we're looking forward and and kind of projecting
041the the impact with this new variable of um this projected revenue um we think that's going to scale back to about 25 or 30 individuals. So a much smaller footprint of folks who will be displaced and have to be placed somewhere else. And we'll work like um Mr. Gustoson said to solicit their preferences and do everything we can to try to find them a placement for next year that they are excited about in the hopes that they will choose to stay and continue to invest and work in ASD for our students. Uh member Wessons, thanks. I appreciate this open forum uh to ask questions. Do we have any sense of what um and maybe this is more at the secondary level than elementary. Um what are the opportunities for students that we think will be
042brought back with this action? Um I mean my my my general understanding is that when the PTR goes up, electives go down and core classes get bigger. So what I'm hoping is that classes will get smaller and elective offer off offerings and AP offerings, etc. will will sort of expand again that that will be on a school by school basis and that work starts tomorrow with the principles because we can't determine what they're going to project and what those decisions will be. You know, these decisions are going to be very quick and they probably have a a list of what they would bring back due to how many kids are requesting certain classes and so on and so forth. Um but again, with the reduction of the the enrollment and the plus one ptr, it
043is a cut still. So they they won't get back to the regular. Um I would certainly defer to the administration and superintendent's discretion, but it does strike me that um understanding what those opportunities are could be helpful in advocacy moving forward. you know, if I am a parent and I my student goes to XYZ school and I understand that this is on the table of being there next year or or not, knowing that information could empower me to write to my um legislators, for example, and say this matters to my family because this impacts my child's life. Or a student could could take that information as well. So, I guess more information um would would be appreciated, although I don't know if that's a manageable ask. Um I I would love to say, you know,
044member lessons, we could we could definitely get that for you, but I'll tell you the amount of work that it's just getting to actually get people back off a displace list has been extensive already just since Thursday. And um we we might have an idea on that, but we we wouldn't even know like for sure what what would come back if more money came back up above the 560, right? I mean, what I I I don't know if we'd be able to get that to you very quickly. Member Belling. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we I like uh member lessons um uh analogy that this is a triage that we're trying to just do the best we can for you know to save ourselves and our kids really. So it's not a cure all. I'm
045glad that we have a plan in place for staff so that we can give them some not certainty but some peace of mind maybe for for at least for having a job and going to where they want to go. Well, at least most of them. But I guess I if I'm a parent, I got a kid coming in kindergarten. I've got a sixth grader and I've got a ninth grader. What what do I what am I what do you want me to know about this about what what do parents need to know? Anybody I mean I know they can we they can look and see that we're going to bring back the sports. That's going to be an easy one. We're going to bring back the sports. We're going to bring back the librarian and
046the nurse and and that that stuff. There's probably still going to be some combo classes at elementary schools for sure. There will be some combo class in the elementary maybe. Yeah, there will be. I guess I should I say um there I think that what this is going to do is allow us to actually create a schedule for elementary schools. We were having a difficult time with our specials. Yeah. Um actually creating a schedule so that we could actually have specials in our elementary schools with the level of cut that we had right there. And so, um, we've had fi people since every day, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and today working specifically on specials all day, every day trying to figure that out. And we think we have that figured out. However, it's just
047to be able to do that in our schools that that we're at the bare minimum even with what we're putting back in. And and so there's, you know, the the teachers that are want still here and haven't resigned are going to be here. I think that's the big thing is those teachers are going to be here and we're able to have some resemblance of, you know, the full staffing with this with the in the libraries and in the nurses and um there's still a lot there that we're missing. But like educators do, they come to school, they teach our kids, they work hard, they want to do what's best for our kids. Um, but to tell them what they're going to have right now, I I don't know if I could promise any anything right
048now until we get everything mapped out. Okay. And I guess I just I just want to make sure that parents understand that it's not going to be like it was last year. Not in every single case. It's just not. and that not not that we're not not that we've cut it all like we've gotten rid of it but it's just not possible. So I just don't want parents thinking that everything's coming back and it's going to be hunky dory and you know it's because it's not and I don't know if that requires some kind of um messaging that with our principles when they talk to our our our parents. Um, but I just don't want them to I just want I want to be as crystal clear to parents as possible that while we are
049pulling bringing back some things, memo 153 is not going to cure all of our ALS. And I and I and I think uh I think our staff probably get that a lot better than our parents. So, and I don't have the answer. I'm just posing the question. Thank you. And I would add into that um partly as points to the public, but also for board members to remember in talking to the public, a lot of people don't fully realize how much planning goes on for the fall as of now. It it normally has started before now. Um, and it's all it's all a little bit hypothetical until we really know a budget or or have some certainty on it, but it's for people trying to make the schedules that put teachers in rooms with kids
050in front of them uh and have the right offerings at all the right buildings and all that stuff. That that usually is all going on now and staffing has happened. Um there's a tremendous cost every year in the uncertainty that we go through and as board members we primarily focus on our issue of the budget that we have to pass something without really knowing what revenue is. Uh but for people that are in in the situation of being shifted around there is a a tremendous amount of uncertainty and Mr. Wang used the term unreliable employer. That is how people begin to see it. And even hopefully they see through the part that ASD is not really trying to be an unreliable employer, but that teaching has gotten more politicized than it used to be, which
051is not something I really expected to see happen. It felt politicized enough 15 years ago, but much more so now. and people realize that that their jobs and whatnot are affected by it, including teachers. You normally when you come into a district, there is a period of uncertainty for a number of years, but it used to be that as a few people at the top moved out and you went up on the seniority scale, um, a certain amount of certainty came to that. I know in in this round of involuntary transfers, it affected people with eight, nine, 10 years in the district. They normally don't expect things like that to happen. And if they look at it and realize they may have another seven, eight or nine years of uncertainty that really then you really
052begin to look at whether or not you're in the right place or working for the right people. Um, I do think it's important that we keep in mind what we're losing, what we're not bringing back with this. And I do want to emphasize this. This is not truly bringing those things back. This is allowing the administration to act as if we're going to have those funds. But there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty still riding out there that that will remain until the legislature does what it does. And and again, the this memo that we're going to vote on tonight in no way was meant to suggest that it's adequate. It it was meant to take care of the worst situations to prevent further damage to the district from the uncertainty that is out there. and
053it's hopefully a significant underestimation of what will finally wind up coming to us when uh when everything in the legislature is said and done. So just kind of some key points on that. You'd like to continue. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Um yeah, so while we did add about $40 million back with that 560, we still cut $23 million. That's that's real things that are lost. Um, you know, as we talk about the good news of being able to add stuff back, we can get rid of that pesky stuff and focus on the bad now. So, here's where the general fund outlook is for FY27. So, like I said, we've cut 23 million already, even with that ongoing revenue. So, I want to kind of calculate out what FY27 is going to look like without
054any additional action. Um, so that first line is our ongoing revenue. That includes the increase of 560 to the BSA for a total of about 585 million. Um, and our expenses are about 634 million and that's because of the nearly $50 million in fund balance that we put in there. That fund balance is going to draw us down to where we have nothing to put towards FY27. Um, estimated 3% or so costs on increase for labor, utilities, insurance, every other thing that we have to buy. Uh 3% is probably pretty conservative at this point. It's about $19 million. So to get your ongoing costs based on what we've added back tonight or potentially add back tonight about 653 million. Um and then you add that back to that the delayed purchases from FY26 that we
055took out of the budget for major maintenance, IT devices, equipment replacement, curriculum updates, about 6 million. That's just kind of the bare minimum things. So, that gets you to about a $75 million deficit with a lot of things that are unknown, including unsettled labor contracts, enrollment variances, tariffs, uh increases in medical costs, utility rate changes, an equipment failure, and emergent facility maintenance that we've seen this year. So, there's a lot of needs out there. Um just kind of the rough projection, that's another 75 million on top of the 23 million or so that we've cut out for this year. So over a two-year span would be about hund00 million in cuts, give or take um you know several million dollars on either side depending on how some of those uh contractual agreements shake out. But
056again just want to emphasize that this is really really really early on projections and you know we'll refine these as they go on but this is really just kind of a rough ballpark. So 70 to $80 million deficit for 27. Uh member lessons. No. Yeah. If if you're able. So we uh are talking about a $560 figure. House Bill 57 incorporates a $700 figure plus additional possibilities. But if we were to just focus on the 700, what would House Bill 57, as that BSA figure stands due to the deficit estimate? So that would depend on what we did with the extra money. So, if we get an extra $140 in the BSA increase, another 10 million or so, if the board chose to add that all back into the budget and try to spend it
057in this year, that really puts us at about the same deficit, a little bit higher because your inflationary number on that, a little bit higher expenditures is going to go up. But really the simple math on it is the amount we're not going to have in fund balance, the 50 million plus whatever inflationary costs we have uh on our expenditures. Member Higgins. Oh, thank you. Um yeah, I guess I going to play this out a little bit because um right now we've got a legislature that has not shown an increased interest in generating new revenues. We've got the constitutional budget reserve being drained and that's an issue of what they're going to get. We don't know what the oil price is going to be, but we know that that's a variable that hasn't been that
058perfect for us in the near future and oil tax is addressing that is like a third rail. Uh so that's not going to happen or foreseeable future with the current governor and this legislature. Um and so we're going to have less money for the legislature to look at adding to this. Maybe that's a possibility. They don't want to use any other revenues. They've already gone down to a quarter for the PFD. So they've reduced that using that money and that that's what you know ongoing. So, we're going to be in February looking like we were this year potentially because we're not going to necessarily get the legislature and the governor to agree to a BSA. And that puts us back sending notices to everybody with this projection or not everybody but to a lot of
059of valued staff without any sort of security. So what we really and I want to lay this out because the governor and legislature is putting us in a position without assurances of going forward giving us less than the thousand would have given us some variables would be more manageable but they're going to put us in the position so that next year we're going to be doing this staff are going to have to look at that early and we're going to be right back where we were and it doesn't send the most positive message for recruitment retention for ASD as well with all the funding that we've we've got as we try to finalize union contracts and do everything else. So, I'm just the projection for now is that February of next year can be like
060February of this year. Is that is that am I off somewhere? I think like that has you're fairly optimistic about that, Mr. Higgins. I I I feel like that's optimistic because it could be much worse next year. Well, right. I mean, we cut out about 65 million out of the trimmed out that much out of this year's budget just to get to the to balance. you're looking at an extra 10 million or so for next year. Plus, we've already trimmed out 23 million of stuff. So, that's stuff we just can't take this year. So, all the stuff that we put on the list, even the stuff we're adding back, those are going to have to be in the conversations again next year. And it's going to be even probably worse than it is now. Yeah.
061We don't have the reserves. We We've already taken the cuts that we find manageable, more manageable, but we we're cutting those still. We're not putting that back. And then we're going to have the same cliff, the fiscal cliff that we're going to be coming off of without anything to grab hold of. So that's that. You're right. It is worse next year than it is this year with the governor and legislature not willing to commit. They seem to agree we need the money. They just don't want to be responsible for generating where that money is going to come from. Member Jacobs. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um and I I agree with member Higgins. Um I was at a community council this past week and um heard a legislator, you know, and understandably so. Um proud
062and optimistic related to HP57 and you know on paper a historic without any context a historic increase to the base student allocation and kind of remarking offhand that we can't wait 10 years to um look at increasing the foundation formula again. and I you happened to give my report next but politely pointed out we can't really wait 10 months to have an additional conversation of this kind um in part because the thousand figure and I was part of those conversations wasn't representative of what ASD needed now and for the next 5 years. It was what the legislature really should have been able to do this year had it had the courage to pass legislation to effectuate that kind of increase. Um there were legislators who who maintained to this day that $1,000 should have been
063possible. There was bills that could have affectuated that. Um and so the legislature effectively at this point has completed part of that work. Um but we really need to dive right back into the conversation that we need to continue to fund education adequately. But now we're going to have to have a longer and broader conversation about a sustainable long-term fiscal plan because the um there will be challenges associated with finances at the state level next year. But that doesn't uh remove the obligation the legislature has to maintain a system of public education. So um appreciate the the context and that's all I have. Any further questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation. Depressing as always. We don't hope we don't blame you. Yeah. Um, without objection, we
064will uh do the emergency planning uh briefing next work session since we're down to about six minutes and would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn to executive session for the purpose of uncontested student hearings, legal updates, negotiations, and contracts. With moved and seconded, without objection, we are in recess to executive session.