001All right. Good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for this special meeting of the finance committee. Um it is just after 5 o'clock on Wednesday, April 30th and um Kelly Lessons, chair of the finance committee. And let's just go around the room. Um, starting in the back, Pat Higgins, a member of the finance committee member Parrot, senior director, Marco Bellamy, board member, superintendent, Marvin, executive assistant, Carl Jacob, board member, Andy, CFO, Ben Gaston, chief academic officer, party line, chief of HR, Jim Anderson, chief operating officer. Great. Um, well, thank you all for being here. Again, this is a special finance committee meeting. Do we have any board members online? President. Okay, President Hullman is online. Terrific. Um, so just to be clear, uh, the members of the finance committee are myself, members Higgins, and
002member Bellamy. And the intention of today's meeting is to align with uh in deference to board bylaw 9130 which specifies that the finance committee makes recommendations to the board on audit budget and financial proposals. So, the goal is to walk out of here with a recommendation from the finance committee uh regarding um revising the proposed FY26 budget. And uh the hope or the intent is that a recommendation can be made that the board can consider uh at Tuesday at the Tuesday meeting next week um to help with our staffing challenges. uh that balancing the FY26 budget has presented. So to initiate what I hope will be a robust conversation that can lead to a recommendation, I'd like to ask um Miss Sullivan to put a document up on the screen. there are paper copies um
003in front of board members and um want to maybe uh while she's putting that certainly acknowledge the hard work of uh a lot of folks down in Juno who have really enabled us to be able to have this conversation um this evening. So, we have just seen a pretty historic passage of House Bill 57 by both bodies. And um this is a first uh iteration of what we might be able to do uh with certainly a portion of those funds again to really target immediate staffing needs. um knowing that there would likely need to be a second round, second look uh once the operating budget has passed, once we've seen there are additional bills that remain to be uh passed um sort of at the end of the session 57 supposed to be 700 million
004is $700. Yes. So let's just Yes. So let's let me we'll get to that. So yes, so House Bill 57 has a number of elements. It has a $700 uh per people increase to the base student allocation. There is a 10% increase to people transportation. There are sort of conditional prospects for reading grants uh sort of reading grant incentives as well as perhaps a an increase in the CTE multiplier in the foundation formula. So there is actually quite a bit in the bill. Um this does not deal with the full extent or capability of the bill. This is simply looking at truly stopping some of the bleeding. This is a first a first look at what we might do uh an initial allocation of some of what might pass in the state operating budget through
005the very strong message that I think our legislators have sent today. So this is an initial attempt at outlining allocation intentions for FY26 to restore some of the things that were cut from the budget. Um, so, um, yes, Madam Chair, can I Yes. Yes. I'm just trying to get my Barrett. So, based on today and us thinking that we have enough votes to override a veto, if there is a veto, we are trying to be proactive in trying to decide, beginning to decide what to bring back. Is that what we're doing? This is certainly a proactive approach to uh dealing with the staffing challenges and shortfalls that we're seeing. I mean, I guess I can serve it up to the administration to sort of outline where we are in the staffing process, but I mean,
006I think we're all aware that that educators have been displaced um that there may be some that still have yet to find placements uh because we did implement the PTR plus 4 and that has really reverberated across the K12 system. There are class size limitations in 57 though, right? Um there are targets. That's a great question. My my understanding is there are targets in in House Bill 57, although they're not a firm classiz. So, um I think that and that's fine. Just seems to me we're a little bit too quick to start pulling stuff back in when we don't know what what it is. I mean, what we're got what we're actually dealing with. But I mean cuz I don't want to people are already in enough of a turmoil right now the and to
007try if we offering something and then have to take it back again that's not going to be good. So I don't know. I mean I I don't mind the discussion of what you know looking at kind of what we might do like you know what our priorities are. Mhm. Uh but it it really does uh I just think we're too I it feels quick to me, but that's just me. Okay. You member Higgins. I think the 560 is a safe figure because the governor supports that and legislators higher in and being able to go out there and tell them, look, we're not going to cut your ele your measurement program. We want this mount. We're looking at this point. we think this is safe because we need some stability out there with some of our
008teachers and and the and the community as a whole to say look we we're focused on the kids and with this limited we can do some things. We can't do everything but we can maybe calm things down a little bit so we don't have people walking out the door trying to find jobs when we're trying to recruit, which is what we're kind of doing right now. It seems like I'm I I'm not denying that. I'm just saying it you're basing it on 560. Is that what you're doing currently? This to initiate our discussion today because because there is nothing nothing has crossed the finish line finishing line of state operating budget. This is an attempt to uh consider allocating a substantial portion of what might cross the finish line to immediately begin to target our
009students staffing needs in our schools to uh diminish um detrimental effects on student learning and student outcomes. I think that there was a question on or a comment or a hand from member. Yes. Um, yes. I just wanted to say that that we discussed a meeting like this or uh doing something at the next board meeting a little over a week ago. It just became apparent that there's going to be some kind of an increase and we have some we have some really unfortunate situations. um nursing um librarians, our um immersion teachers, things that need to be taken care of sooner rather than later. And and my initial thought was that we might assume a very small increase uh with a high level of confidence it would at least be that. And of course, things
010have changed a little bit watching the legislature. Um I I don't know how how comfortable I am assuming 700. It could happen. It might not happen. Um, a little difficulty with 560 and that I don't want anyone in Juno or the governor to think that's an okay number. uh 700 is still possible. But the original idea was just to try to do something quickly to try to provide some relief from some of our um staff that are they're just really in an unfortunate situation. I I do think it's a key question to ask the administration when the chair is done. uh if we assume something bigger than what actually happens, how difficult will it be to refit into a budget um that winds up being smaller than what we might might uh deal with today
011and Tuesday. I think that's a great question to hold on to. I mean, you'll just one more. Actually, we probably should get with the me because we I know you're going to give us more information. Yeah. And because I didn't realize you were using the 560 number. Okay. Yes, that is using the 560 number. Um, so I want to begin by saying this is a product of a lot of collaboration. Uh, President Holland, Vice President Jacobs and I put our heads together and had a pretty in-depth conversation conversations about what we might do. Um, the administration has been very helpful in um, providing support and guidance uh, some push back and corrections. Um, so I really appreciate that. And, uh, the beginning place really was the amendment that the board passed back in February, which
012was predicated on a $1,000 figure. So, this is 56% of that, right? So, this is a 50, you know, at 560 uh per pupil, we can expect with our current enrollment projections that we would be we're talking about allocating 39.8 8 million um in new revenue at this point. There may be additional revenue that is not yet not being allocated through this action, but we don't know what that is. And so this is potentially a safe figure to begin to triage what our students need. Um, so I just wanted to say that this is really a product of a lot of uh different thinking coming together um before before tonight's meeting. Yeah, member Hold this and I'm thinking ahead. We got we had 39 million and that's figure next year that's even stretched harder than
013this year. we will have spent every penny of those reserves that we can throw in kind of reduce the the speed at which we're going to be following our club. So, um even with 700, we're going to have a bigger cliff next year than we had this year because we have to plan our budget no increase and 560. So, I just I don't want to separate out the fact we got this money from saying we're taking it away from next year as well. If we don't put anything in reserves and we don't have anything to count on for the following year, we're going to be so vulnerable uh as to what we're going to be cutting next year. It's going to make this year look good. And that's what my concern is. So, we're spending
014every penny. This is what proposal is. I understand correctly. We will not have put any money back into the savings. The savings will still be totally depleted. We cut all the other areas that we cut and we will uh next year not have not have anything additional to fall back on. We know we got push out cost increase and other So that would be true if if all that passed was a $560 BSA. Yeah. without transportation, without um a reading grant incentive, without the full scale of House Bill 57. So, that is potentially true. There's just a lot of unknowns. Let's wait talk about next year until just we'll finish walking through this. So, briefly, this began with the $1,000 amendment that the board had passed back in February, and different items were removed or
015reduced from that thousand package, but it's still grouped according to instruction and according to instructional support. So, these are not administrative and these are not operations and maintenance. And I don't have the figure, but I can assume that it would change the 6% of the overall budget going to administration and push that downward to 5 something. I can assume that it would take the percent currently going to instruction and instructional support and increase the proportion of the budget going to those areas. Um, so I this is in line with the spirit of the amendment that the board passed two months ago. Um I would say the what it does we can walk through the things the different items. It um changes the PTR plus4 which we uh adopted in the proposed budget and changes that
016to a PTR plus one. It reverses the cuts of 16 holdback teachers and increases the holdback teachers by 10 um to account for the need for hold back teachers in a PTR plus1 scenario. Um it restores the Ignite program. Um and because you restore the Ignite program, apparently we do need an assistant director which had been cut. So it does bring that one. There's one administrative type position. That one was one that was actually added to the budget. So that was when we talked about the other one. If you flip that, it would be actually reducing the the director and then adding the teachers back. So that's why we changed this number to include just the teachers that were produced. Okay. So the 24.9 FTE, it's only teachers. It's only teachers and the assistant director
017would stay in there. The assistant director was already was already okay. So this so this figure has nothing to do with the assistant director. That is simply the teachers. Great. It's just the FDA. This is a working document. We will post just for clarification. 4.9 all instruction. It's all instruction. Um one of the things that was I think a key component of well a key component of any increase in the base student allocation is that charter schools get their share. Uh, so at a seven, excuse me, at a um the two the 2.2 million is essentially as if charter schools got $560 BSA. If there was a $700 BSA, the charter school proportion would go up to that $700 figure. So that is certainly something that would be changed in in a future budget. And
018and can I just say one thing lessons is that's probably going to also include FTE because they would probably use some of that budgeting on FTE itself. So that line we just have a line through it. I'm guessing charter school is that you're talking about the Okay. So we but we don't necessarily know what that is. They would have as long as the dollars are there. That's the big Okay. So the do the charter school share will be proportional through whatever they would receive whatever they receive through the foundation at a $560 level right now. That's what they guess 700 it would be it would be higher. So so that really should be a question mark there for FTP. Yes, it should be a question mark for FTD ord. Um the next item is reversing
019cuts to elementary immersion teachers. Again, there are 12 immersion teachers that were cut from our FY26 budget. This restores those 12 positions. Um there are this would restore reverse and restore cuts to special education elementary teachers. Um the next item is a correspondent student aotment increase. And originally in the $1,000 amendment, we had proposed a $650,000 item uh for this. So this is essentially 56% of that $650,000. So again, it's a proportional trimming down um so that we can um support our correspondent students uh through through these dollars. Um there's a reversal of cuts to elementary paraprofessionals. Uh this would reverse cuts to elementary summer school. Um this would reverse cuts to preschool teachers. And I want to make sure we got this right. It it's Yeah, these are this is a new position. Okay.
020Um that's needed for special ed preschool. For special education preschool. Yeah. So we can make sure we get the um the details right in the final draft. That's for preschool, right? Yes. But for preschool, special preschool, uh, this reverses cuts to elementary battle of the books. So, that's supported with agenda rather than personnel. Uh, but it's something that a lot of our students get really excited about and are deeply involved with, and it's a really special thing here in the school district and across the state. Um, it also reverses cuts to secondary summer school. Um so all told that is $3.2 million that would be directed towards instruction. Um the next item is reversing cuts to librarians. Uh reversing cuts to elementary nurses, reversing the cuts to middle school sports. So this would reinstate the
021middle school sports, reversing cuts to high school hockey, gymnastics, swimming and diving, and reinstating our access to the dome for the next school year. Um this would restore nine reading interventionists, not the full 10 because that is how we made it work. Uh so it's very close. Um would reverse cuts to principles, library assistants, counselors, uh special education, deaf pair professionals, and interpreters. and would make a small investment in elementary counselors so as to align with um our adopted board guard rails unless anybody sees an error. The WH behavior position was that was the one we discussed where that was already in the budget. The way um it was similar to the gifted where we had like an add of one behavior and a minus of other. Oh, the the behav the way behavior. Yeah.
022Oh, you know, we did talk about that actually earlier. Um maybe I didn't mention it. I had line item that went out. So, under instruction, the special ed way school that $130,000 doesn't need to be there. So, we will redact that from Oh, it doesn't need to be there. That's That's what our CF It's already It's already in the budget. It's already in the budget. So, that was that was cuts and stuff. We've added it in. Well, if you reverse that whole thing, then you're taking it out. So, uh, that's a starting point for the discussion. Member Jacobs, member, one question. What's not being reversed in the in schools? I mean, we got, you know, that's going to be the issue. I think what's being put in, I don't have a problem with that. I
023like, but what are we excluding from that? We're reversing when we have this lower amount. What should we You made reference to the uh reading instructor. That's one. That's fine. But I'm sure there's got to be other things that you know I assume more than $8 million in administrative cuts. There were more than $8 million get outside of the school. Well, what's in the school that we did not remove and remember it's a plus three not plus four plus that's quite a bit of money. Yeah. So, so one of the biggest diff so we did so the budget as we have approved the proposed budget uh involved a ptr plus4 right this this pivots from the plus4 to a plus one so we are not restoring the plus4 all the way down but with the
024additional $7 million or so we are supporting more of the wraparound services programs and supports that students receive. That's a trade-off, right, to consider. So, but it's a starting point for discussion. Member Jacobs, did you want to chime in in any way? Sure. Um, I I think that this this amendment and the spending plan does a scaled I guess effectuates a scaled version of what this board passed when we amended our operating budget. It reduces class sizes uh with a minus three PTR compared to what was adopted. It restores supports the teachers depend on. Um it keeps positions and avoids layoffs and it makes clear to the legislature that we made good on our promise to direct funding to the classroom. It also tells them that the job isn't finished. Right? If I could borrow
025from Kobe Bryant for just a minute. um and that they need to go back to work next session and that they failed to be frank and I realize we just had a historic moment today but they failed to get the job done and get us the $1,000 we asked for and that we articulated we needed not just us other districts as well. Um so they got part of the job done which means we can we can allocate part of that money into classroom instruction. The other thing I'd say just briefly is the 560 for me and I hope for our board isn't representative of any anything tied to fund balance. For me, this this amount is purely what we can count on and it's a representation of how much we can trust the combined legislative
026and executive branch efficacy. Um when we passed SP 41 SP 140 last year, it was overwhelming and it was clear that there were more than enough votes to override the bill and the operating line item budget. Um, and that support dropped significantly within a matter of weeks. I'm not comfortable with given the lack of fund balance that we have depending on the legislature to come through with exactly what they promised today and I don't think anyone should be. Um, there may be other school districts that balance a budget close to on a $700 figure. I think Fairbanks was 680. Massie chose a,000. Uh but those districts by and large have other ways to fill those gaps whether it be additional local contributions or fund balance that we no longer have. Um so we need to
027tread very carefully here. So I think the 560 uh to agree with member Higgins is a reasonable figure that also represents what the legislature realistically can be dependent on to provide. Um and that's not directly their fault. A bunch of that goes to uncertainty from the governor's office and said in his commissioner of education who just urge superintendent to um adopt policies that didn't make the cut in HB57 or else face another veto. And so we're doing our best to re tea leaves and I think this represents a a cautious bet um with what we can invest in that classroom. I would urge support might with some additional tinkering maybe for accuracy, but this is a plan that makes the best of a really challenging situation. Super superintendent Bryant. Yeah, I just wanted to add
028to member Jacob's comment. I agree with the direction that we're going, but for me, my focus is on the misinformation and misconceptions that happen in the community. So, I just want to make sure the community understands what's going on here because with the Jacob's lessons amendment, that was a spending plan that was essentially saying if the governor signs $1,000, this is how we'll spend it. I want the public to be very clear that this is different than that. This is a revenue projection. So, that means that right now the board and I are supporting a calculated and managed risk because of what happened in Juno earlier today. It seems like there's very strong support for a bill. I want to give the governor credit that um he's also put himself on the record saying that
029he supports a BSA which was not the case last year. So I think that the the tea leaves have aligned to where this is a a responsible way to manage our risk. But I want to be very clear to all the people out there that said that we had secret money that we were using. There is no secret money. What we're talking about is not secret money. What we're talking about is assuming that we're going to have more money in our budget than is signed into law. So, as long as everybody listening to me right now, whether you're a part of ASC or not, understands this is happening. That's happening. So, if I misunderstood, this is the time to clarify. You said it a whole lot better than I did because that that was my
030initial kind of moment there. It's kind of like, okay, so here we are, don't know what we have, and we're coming up with a spending plan. But if if we are clear that it's a calculated managed risk, I like those words. I can that makes me feel a little bit better. Carl, you said um not tied to the fund balance. Can you You're saying this is we this is just a 560 that we might get. None of this is tied to the fund balance. Is that Yeah. I don't think we I mean realistically we don't have fund balance to spend right and so right this is purely projecting on additional revenue um that'll occur once the operating budget passes and another reason I think to be conservative with the 560 is if the there's a
031line item veto whether or not that line item veto is overridden and when it's overridden is something we have no idea it could be January when the legislature gles in again as to when that line item veto will be overridden if it happens and So spending the full 700 without any sort of backs stop to fill those additional dollars to me is unwise. Um I think this represents a compromise and this represents caution uh while also not letting um the future of our district be really impaired by letting our current adopted budget stay up. So can I have member member finish up? Yes. So when with with this calculated managed risk we will bring back we will notify people that we have been who have been displaced that how does that work question we started
032working and not being confusing. We've spent a lot of time puzzling over that because frankly we've never done staffing in this unique way sort of in phases and then with you know things coming back in the way that they may come back. Um we still have 84ish displacement obligations folks that we have not yet been able to give a placement to. So in the if we don't have any additional revenue projected or otherwise in the coming weeks, then we will have to begin notifying those groups potentially of layoff before the end of the school year. So about a $250 BSA increase, I think, gets us what? 95 FTEish, which would allow us to at least communicate to that group of individuals that you have a job next year. We're not yet able to tell you
033where exactly, but we're not moving in the direction of layoffs. Um, and our pool can cover all the all the not not the displaced people, but if we're like this 138 at the top, that's an additional 138. That would be an additional 138. So you can do that that would open that would open up just open up hiring that would allow us to I think very comfortably unravel the displacements and placements that have occurred. So people will go back to their original school in in almost all cases. Okay. I can't promise that 100% across the board. people have already quit, but we we've we've lost some folks, but we also had 65 FTE that were cut because of enrollment requirements. And so some of the positions that people would want to go back to may
034not exist for that reason, but this would give us the maximum, I think, ability to reset that board and get most people back to their original placement for this year. Uh but this is also still a cut. So we're going to have still displaced and I mean we This isn't so it's not it's not 100% right. And and in some areas we would then be able to once we reset that board we would be able to open up to external hiring and the clock is definitely ticking on that right pool is getting smaller every week and so there is some sense of urgency around that because if we don't get to external hiring until July or August we know that pool is is really non-existent at that point. I do want to share one other
035detail if I can. Um, and that is last Tuesday we talked about the general staffing event that we usually host where we facilitate voluntary transfers and and new hires in some areas. We postponed that so that we haven't layered on another level of complexity on all this to give us the most flexibility to be able to get people back to their original position. So, um, I just wanted to give that update as well because I think it's subject to this conversation. If you guys were to pass this on Tuesday, on Wednesday, we will start our diligent work to try to get stuff back. Have there been any involuntary transfers made? So it when someone is displaced, okay, that is that and when they receive a placement, that is considered an involuntary transfer. Even if they
036were able to tell us what their preferences were and we place them in their preferred location, that's still an involuntary transfer. And and is that what can then be walked backwards? That is what we would we would begin to unwind and try to get people back to their original. there's some balancing that has to happen because again some FTE was cut because of enrollment declines or in other areas. So everybody may not fit back but to the greatest extent possible that would be what we would try to facilitate. There was a finger question. Okay. Was there any two questions here when you talk about calculated we've got deadlines or we have to do notifications with it. What is the deadline notification as far as uh the fact that your position is going away and you're
037being laid off? Is that saying May sometime, right? For a true layoff, it's May 15th for 10ear employees and the last day of school's May 22nd for uh or May 20 whatever the last student day is. Yeah. So, we're getting ahead of that, but the assumption is that we get we'll get something from the state hopefully before then. So, it's not a a calculated risk. is more or less a preemptive type of communications and and that makes sense. The other one is and I look at these things and I think of I hate to use that right size but when you cutting back on one area and we know we're cutting back on elementary teachers because they got vacancies and we just won't fill we got this we avoiding reductions but then we're restoring some
038positions and not restoring some positions that may be out there. I'm just trying to figure out what positions are we not restoring in here that or do we have any? No admin positions are being restored. I'm taking in school. You mean instruction? In the school, special education positions and elementary. Yes. Oh, it would be on the other it would be on our other sheet, right? there some pros and a tech or a and how many how many are tied to that plus one increase um between teachers on if we the plus one yeah the plus4 was like 195 so whatever the I just want to separate out worry about employment worry about pay because there there's an issue here when you start talking about we're going to reduce what we've got in one area for
039the kids to maintain employment. I don't want the perception there even from my perspective that you know we're not taking into account the academic impact of saving one area versus another. I don't know. But I will say if if I might that when you did the original $1,000 Yeah. it brought back most of the in the school teaching positions, right? There's still stuff that's not even on that thousand thing that makes a district run. And what we're doing is that's going to be postponed for a while because there's going to be some things in there that we're going to have to bring back over the years that curriculum, technology, we cut it all, right? Oh, yeah. you know, so none of that is in here because, you know, we technology, you can teach without the
040technology. At some point, we're going to have to work on some curriculum stuff and that costs money, right? But as far as the overall positions, the biggest thing is those PTRs, the holdbacks, the immersion, the Ignite, the librarians, the nurses, the counselors, the five principal. I mean, those things that are in the school. um you know and they're at a different level here now but I mean any more that we could put into that PTR at some point as far as the chief academic officers um that's why we asked for to put asked you to put that stuff back in the holdback is because even at a plus one PTR we're going to have some we're gonna have some bumps we're going to have some combo classes like we don't like to have no matter
041what we're not gonna it's not going to be hunky dory at all we're still going to have sometime. And I think that has to be part of our message, right? That has to be part of the disclosure because I think during the year we're going to end up with some salary savings we can put back into curriculum or something else that's still in the school. If we run that if we have extra or doing something else on there that that's still within the class as far as I'm concerned that's dedicated to each school. I don't do that as an administrative cost. So we're going to have changes and challenges ministering this and I hope that we're focusing. Yeah, Dr. Br and I do want to flag just a question that I don't think we necessarily
042have to answer today, but member Higgins brought it up earlier. At some point, we'll need to to come to the decision as to how much do we want to spend versus how much do we want to save knowing that we have that $70 million structural deficit for FY27. So, if we do 560, we're leaving some wiggle room for the balance of a 700 potentially to be used towards either or either spending on more student services or putting towards the fund balance. So, that's an imperative question for the board to answer for themselves. Or is 560 the right number? Does it need to be lower or higher? that that's for the board to decide but it is something we need to decide very soon right I mean and again to circle back to sort of the
043intention of uh today's meeting the hope is that we can get a recommendation to bring to the board knowing that final passage of the state's operating budget is going to then open the door to talk about whatever House Bill 57 looks like in its entirety with the full BSA increase the transportation boost um we'll see how the reading grant situation evolves, how additional funding for CTE may evolve. So there's actually a lot more to discuss uh I hope in you know not too distant future but that we cannot talk about today. But is it imperative that we have um a sustainable um you know fund balance to to deal with emergencies? Um, it seems like a good proposition, but this does not do that. Right now, we are stopping, we will be stopping the bleeding
044right now. This is triage as far as I'm concerned to support our students to the best we can because the job isn't done. Just to to remind everyone, back in October is when this finance committee first reviewed um the legislative finance division's analysis of what a BSA should have been adjusted by to account for inflation since FY11. And this the finance committee and the board supported advocating for an $1,800, you know, $1,88 BSA increase. We then took that to the Alaska Association of School Boards. We introduced that. We familiarized that with the rest of that body and the AASB also agreed to support advocating for an inflationadjusted BSA of $1,8. That's what um Representative Himshue, you know, initiated conversations in Juno with a bill that would adjust for inflation over a multi-year period um and
045get us back to where we need to be. House Bill 57 is historic, but it doesn't do uh what what truly our students need and deserve. Um so we're going to have to um do what we can and wish our legislators Godspeed uh in the next goound. I think um I I agree with with Dr. Brian's fundamental thought that at some point we're going to need to take stock of what happened with the legislative session and figure out what uh what happens next. Um for me this is an exercise in pivoting the thousand spending plan down to 560 and assuming that this is it. Um because that's how much trust I think we can put in the combined efficacy of the legislative and executive branches based off of reason performance. Um, anyone who disagrees with
046me, I would love to hear the rationale. I don't have rale. I know you I respect that and I I think it's because it's not there, which is okay. Um, I'm welcome to be pro to be proven wrong, but they need to prove that. And so, for now, I think we would be wise to allocate the spending plan and take stock later. I'm not worried about fund balance. I agree it's important. I'm worried about um saving jobs, providing critical services and supports to our students and teachers. I'm worried about making sure our buildings are able to function. Um that and I I think I agree with the triage concept. So that's what this is. We don't have the bandwidth and I don't think it's the time to take stock of what might happen in the
047next couple months. I think we should be focusing on getting this job done and then taking stock later once the legislative process is complete which again may not be until January. So worrying about hypotheticals is not something I'm interested in right now. I would prefer action and there's action we can take, there's action Juno can take and that's where the energy should be focused. Um, I'll defer to Dr. Brian, but I agree with everything that member Jacob said, but I just want to make sure that the public understands that this is a risk. There is a chance that we could be wrong. There's nobody that said 560 is the right number. In fact, amongst the big five, some have chosen 680 as their number. Juno chose 400 as their number. It seems like we're talking
048about 560 as a number. So it is getting very confusing and I want to be very clear that there is a universe where it could be zero dollars, right? I mean it's unlikely. Um but we it's really important that as fiduciaries that we talk about it. If it were zero, would we have the dollars to to make that mistake? And the answer is probably not. So that's why this is a very calculated and managerous based off of the art of understanding what's happening in Juno. But this isn't something that Andy learned in accounting school. So I just want to make sure that we're all where the 560 came from. It's very important and I only say this because I've been in battle mode against the misinformation for many many weeks and I'm not going to
049go through that round again if I don't have to. Member Oh, hold on. Member tickets. Yeah, I I appreciate all that. I just want to if we did get the 700, we already talked about what we do with the thousand. So, if we get hit up, what did you get the extra $140? We should have a pretty clear answer to that that we will have shown how we would put it all back in admin. We're committed to that. So if we get additional money, we're still committed to what's going on in the classroom. There are things we need to address. Curriculum is a good example, but there's a lot of things out there that we need to do that we're not totally addressing in here and we need to to prove out from. So I'm
050not too worried about that, but I'm just saying I'm I'm sure there's going to be a push back here. Well, you don't need the 700. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. I think that if I were to ask everyone in this room, um, you know, is this a statement that you don't need 700? I think we would see a lot of heads shaking. Uh, no, this that is not a statement that we don't need 700. Um, if I got that right. Um, member Jacobs. Yeah. Um I I I I think if if we were to to answer member Higgins hypothetical question, if someone were to ask me what we would do with additional money, the answer is we've already given them that answer. Um it's public, we've adopted
051it um unanimously. Asked and answered. Next question. Pivoting to Dr. Bryant's point, which is this is a calculated risk 100%. And every uh large school district is taking a different um calculated risk. I I like and I trust our team And I think that this is a reasonable path forward. The fact that we trusted Ire I think that the fact that we we have to take these calculated risks and the fact that we're coming up with different answers is um catalyst for concern and justification for an overhaul in our process as a state for how we allocate education dollars. So there should be troubling and justification for another BSA bill next year along with maybe overhauling um the whole entire foundation formula at some point if the task force that was established today um deems
052it appropriate. That probably is a potential outcome. And so I agree it's a calculated risk. I just don't think that uh we should spend time delving into hypotheticals beyond should we choose to adopt this plan here uh what we're comfortable assuming and I'm reacting to Juno beyond the level of we're comfortable right now and I know that there is a hand from uh President Hollerman and I was just going to say that I hope everybody that hears somebody use the phrase extra money stops them and says no We are still just trying to get back to what we're funded that this year. No one's talking about extra money despite how they may phrase that. So, this is just about trying to get us back to this year's budget again for the coming year. [Music] Um,
053member Higgins, just one thing assuming let's hypothetically because I know I'm saying I'm going to have to approve because they don't veto it before next Tuesday meeting. Are we approving this with the understanding we're going to go forward with this with the other we'll revise it again? So, so what I would like to see in the memo that comes forward out of as a recommendation is that we allocate um that we approve um revising the proposed FY26 budget as correctly detailed uh you know with this with this plan as sort of recommendation number one and recommendation number two is that we come back once we understand the lay of the land once we know what has passed what has maybe been vetoed. What the reading grants might be, this e situation might be. We need
054your vote, member. I think um um I'll go. Okay. Um so, so what I'm hoping is that we have a memo that clarifies that this is an immediate action and that the intention would be to revisit for whatever that remainder is, what we'll have that discussion and allocate the remainder at the right time. We simply cannot do that right now, right? That'll likely come back as an administrative proposal for our adopted budget. So here's once we know the full picture, we'll come back. Here's some other things we could do that have the board the board group that but the the recommendation that would come out of this committee to the board is to revise the proposed budget. Pat, you and me and then President Holland as an ad hoc member. So would I love it
055to be unanimous consent after reading the room? Um, that would be that would be great. So, I don't have any other comments or questions and then you might need to just wait until member Higgins is back. What you're approving isn't that particular. It's it's with the adjustments you made on there. Uh yes, we will we will need to uh what I would like is the general um consent of the finance committee and board members who are present to move forward of preparing a recommendation to bring to the board on Tuesday. uh that looks very similar to this with conforming technical changes and and an appropriate comm's plan to do it to explain this calculated what what did he say and manage risk based on what we know well based on whatever I don't know whatever
056however we just need to have the right language so I guess I I'll just begin um online member Hollowman are you supportive of of that plan. I am okay. Thank you. Member Jacobs. Yes. Member Bellamy. Yes. Yes. Cautiously. So cautious. We got to do something. I just want to as long as we can let people know. I mean, we just got to be as we we always try to be transparent, but we need to I don't want to cause confusion. Yes. uh or or cause employees co stress staff. I mean, I know we're all confused in this room, but I don't know. So, the the right comm's plan, uh whatever the words are, we just got to make sure we uh we capture that that and because we we really are between a rock and
057a heart. Um I I did have a question though on the PTR plus one. So, so the basically for that one, I thought the recommendation was to take it back to the levels it was in 2017. Oh, so that's a great question. Yes. So, you can take it back. One thing you cannot do with $560 is reduce class sizes, right? You simply cannot. That was a part of the amendment that was passed in the $1,000 plan. We needed $24.7 million to prevent the PTR plus4 and then we needed another $18 million to revert to FY16 levels. All right. Okay. We also in $1,000 per student had enough to invest in highdose tutoring and do all of the other things that were laid out. We cannot afford the class size reduction and the um supports in
058preschool and special education and nurses and librarians and sports and all of the other things that are detailed in this. Um there there's just there isn't enough. The pie is not big enough to um go around. You need a bigger pie to make that happen. So the bill that passed today Yes. What what what was the piece in there? I didn't really I meant to call Carl before before but because I know he would be watching the CL the the what about the what is in there about class size? Yeah, there's class size targets. Oh, just targets. No, no policy. No. Okay. All right. But um which I think is appropriate because um Alaska is a very uh diverse state, right? Sometimes in in some districts class sizes are just not a thing. Um and
059quite frankly um well the budget that we passed two months ago those the targets were not um not attainable with the funds that were available. Vote now before he Yes. So so member Higgins we were just going around the room and seeing if members were supportive of moving forward with this plan with the appropriate uh technical edits to bring forward to the board at Tuesday's meeting. And I am supportive. I think that we have to send a statement here. What we said we've committed. I think the issue of the classroom sizes was the some legislator's view of saying let's make sure it doesn't go into something other than the classroom. Uh and you know that type of goal and that's fine. We we ahead of that game anyway. So I support this. Um well that
060is five that's five of seven board members expressing support. That's unanimous support on the finance committee. So um I will we look at this again during the work session? No yet. Will we look at it again during work session or I think I mean during the meeting or work session it will certainly come up. There'll be plenty of time for questions. Yeah. and we'll make sure that the correct uh a correct version is what's uh posted um to the agenda uh for for this special meeting and that the correct version is then also brought forward into a memo for Tuesday's meeting. Um and that would be posted no later than than Saturday time. So we'll work on that in the next day and a half or so um day day and a half. Um with
061that I thank everyone for their um support and guidance and thoughtfulness and um tenacity. Uh there is a lot of tenacity and and I thank our educators and our families uh for their advocacy as well. Um and our legislators for the hard work that they uh engaged in to come to collaborative solutions. So really my my hat is off to them. Um, and I commend what they were able to do today. So, thank you with that. Um, I think we can close out. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Thank you guys.