001June of 235,192 which brings us down to 9.6% of the adopted budget which is within the 7 to 10%. Target um and then questions about that. Okay. And then I will add that it is a Hollis matter but I think it everyone should hear it. So since Hollis school district owns the building, they own the trust that holds the rental um fees and every year Hollis holds a public hearing to determine how to spend that money. That money is in order to maintain the facility at Forland Lane. So, um the porch outside the superintendent's office has been really non um functioning for years and so this fall that will be replaced to make it um a usable egress for the building to improve safety. We're also um replacing the broken spindles on the main entrance
002so that looks a little bit nicer. Future planned projects include uh redoing the roof which needs to be done. It is leaking. Um, and then doing exterior paint because it's well a lot of it's vinyl siding, but the non um vinyl areas we're looking to repaint it. So, I just thought you might like an update because I feel like when you're not in the Hall district, you don't know all the amazing things going on in that building. All right, >> we bump into 27 now. >> Drum roll for 27. Um I did update some information on what was sent out uh because some new information came out that was pertinent particularly insurance uh rate increases. So can I pass out some updated documents? So unfortunately our insurance rate so we typically budget at 8% increase
003year-over-year and so we have um for our most commonly subscribed plan because it's um cheaper that went up 15.1% for next year and then our other plan went up 10.4% and dental went up 4.4%. Dental has historically been either flat or you know less than 1%. So that was news we didn't want to get but here it is. considered the GMR. >> So there's no more GMR. It's now the rate. So that is our actual rate moving forward. Um >> No more guessing. So that's the rate we will most likely >> they guess and then they stick it to us. >> Um but given the volatility in the the market, we will likely look to go out to bid for other options. But because that would involve going something completely different than health trust, the
004plans would all be very different and that would have to, you know, really involve all of our unions to agree to any new plan if we were to go that route. >> So this number is for all all of this is not just for the sou. It's 15 and a half%. >> 15.1. Sorry, I was making it worse. So, uh, I think everybody has that in front of them. Now, you know, in terms of line items, there wasn't a whole lot of change, but in terms of impact, um, that one did change. So, the the two things that were adjusted since this had been sent out, um, one line 123 in the fiscal year 27 adjusted budget. Uh, that's an admin vacation. Uh last page, leave pay benefit for unused vacation time. Um we asked
005for some clarification from our auditor on what could be included in there. Uh because it's historically been used for four positions, but it's contractually obligated in two. Um and he said because it's historically happened um over the past handful of years that it should be included in the adjusted budget. Um the adjusted budget is essentially um similar to a default budget. It's it's increases based on contractual obligations, debt service, um other legal obligations that we would be required to pay. Um so that was an adjustment in the adjusted column um which doesn't have much impact on the summary sheet which I'll jump to now because um the other adjustment on line 125 is what uh Gina was just mentioning. the health insurance rates came out. We had used 8% as an estimate, but uh unfortunately
006that was a little bit low. Um so there's two plans that are utilized at the SAU. Uh one has an increase of 151% uh as Gina mentioned and the other is a little bit better 10.4%. Um, so I was able to go back in before this and make the adjustments to line 125, which includes the um, insurance rates. So that was an increase from what we had anticipated and hoped. Um, and uh, I also adjusted dental. It's a pretty pretty small change, although it was lower than what we were estimated. So that that moved in the direction we'd wanted to. Health insurance rates, not quite so much. The other do either of the plans align with for instance the the co-op driver plan or anything like that? Are they all? >> Yeah, the 15.1% is
007the driver plan. >> What's the other plan? Is it a HSA plan? >> No, AB10. It's um a little bit more of a robust plan. The deductible is lower. >> So, it's a more expensive plan, but the increase was less. >> Correct. And um who's entitled to is that available to everyone? >> No, it's available to SAU employees. It is um no longer available in Hollis. It is currently available in Brooklyn. >> It's not in the co-op. Okay. >> So, but um is it is the differential cost of it paid by the employee? depends on which contract you're talking about. It's all different >> in in the SAU office. >> It's a straight percentage regardless of the plan. >> So the increase is shared between the employer and the employee. >> Can anyone at the
008SAU you select either plan? >> Um I believe so. I'm not sure about uh hourly. >> Um I believe they can. I don't know if anybody currently does elect that option. >> Um >> uh I will say that it's the second year in the row where the driver plan has increased at a much higher percentage. So the question is for how much longer will it actually be more expensive? >> Well, I think we we have to potentially across all districts. we're overdue for a a real deep dive into into the costs, but >> right, especially with the volatility of what's going on. Um, that was I already met with some people last spring, but I said, "Well, we're not doing anything for July one." >> Um, but >> and we didn't we didn't offer school
009care. >> We That's one benefit. But anyway, so it's definitely something we're going to look into. >> Thank you. >> Do you know, can I just ask? So, you said the 15.1% that's the plan that most people are on. Is that okay? So that's less expensive plan. >> Correct. And the rates are directly um due to our usage fees. So we have ex like across the state I think the average was 10.2%. And so we're higher than the average and that's um we have high claims. >> Okay. >> Can I ask just because I don't understand how Sure. Who provides the health insurance? Like is it like Anthem or Anthem? >> It is Anthem. And then is that something is that mandated or can we shop it around? >> Well, that's what we're going to
010do. We're going to Okay. I mean, we we've had health trust for quite some time. We've shopped around a couple times. Um and um looks like it's time to do that again. Up until up until fairly recently, >> there really wasn't uh much municipal options. >> Sure. Okay. >> Um so we we had been I guess Primex was was a big one as an alternative and they completely pulled out of the >> the uh health insurance business for for us. Um then there I forget is was uh school care partnering with um the Matthew Thorn. Did they pick up the Matthew Thornton or did somebody else pick that up? >> I thought they picked up Matthew Thornton. >> Yeah. So, they came onto the picture and then I don't know what's going to happen with
011them with this blow up that's happened this year, but it's it it's been a really tough opportunity. We've had more options looking at plans within the provider of choice with health trust than finding alternatives to health trust >> as a as an overall insurance portal for us. >> Interesting. >> I'm going to interrupt um this conversation because you mentioned Primax. I also wanted you to know that I've been named to the board of directors for Primax. So I can share any of your thoughts, opinions, but I will have a voice at the table with our liability insurance. >> So J, can you just tell me a little bit more about like what it would if we do shop this around like when would that take effect because I would that July one? So next July,
012>> correct? >> Okay. >> And then you said something about like having to like kind of get the unions on board. Can you just talk a little bit more about that process? >> So I'm confident they're not going to be pleased with these numbers and um so they'll have a level of interest in shopping around. But what I had to do is have HR submit um basically all of our enrolly information and then have them price out various options with different alternate plans. And what we would want to do is look for plans that are similar to what we currently offer comparable plans and then um they likely come back and present likely to the union presidents and then that would be a conversation um a larger conversation. So would that have to then like
013renegotiate or is that like something that just gets like how does that happen? Like if they're in the middle of a contract, how does that um so we'd have to have sidebar agreements but so that everyone would have to vote on it and it would be all or nothing. We can't have part of our um SAU going in one direction and part in another direction. >> I know from the co-op standpoint we can unilaterally add plans. We cannot take anything away without agreement. So if we came upon something that was clearly viewed as advantageous, a board can add it to their offerings without having to get union agreement. But if you're trying to substitute, that requires some level of of negotiation. But it doesn't require necessarily opening up the entire contract. It can be done
014through a sidebar. Um, another question that comes up frequently is, uh, are we pooling ourselves with the right group? Um, and in the past we've looked at whether it is beneficial to try and get pulled with the towns. And what we have found is because the towns include fire and police, >> it it actually hurts our rates. um the the teaching staff or the school environment gets better overall rates because of their usage than if we have tried to pull. So the offset of getting into a bigger group has not been an advantage. >> Do you know if that's the same? So the co-op can add. Do you know if that's the same across the other districts? >> We can add anywhere but we cannot. >> Okay. So everyone can add but no one can.
015>> Yeah. And then sometimes a plan just goes away >> and so the language will determine whether or not we are required to replace it with something comparable or not. >> Okay. >> Um but >> with a with a sidebar does that have to go back to a like a deliberative or a town meeting? >> No. Okay. So like that if like the numbers change we wouldn't have to go vote on that again? >> No. So it depends on the indiv you know um the vast majority are percentages. So just like you don't have to vote on a 15.1% increase. is just is what it is. You know, it's folded into the budget. >> It just becomes part of >> the cost of doing business. >> Okay. Do you want to talk about the different
016drafts? >> I think I'll talk about um the drafts and a little bit of the process with the um budget subcommittee. Um and rather than go by go through this whole budget line by line, uh then I can kind of take questions as as people have them. Um and and what has changed from what was posted earlier which is an important change is um that second line percent change that's from the fiscal year 26 adopted budget and and what we're proposing. So that's the the increase. So that top line number uh is an important one to look at. Draft one uh was what we created and brought to the budget subcommittee. Um, and at the bottom of that column, you'll see salary increases of 4% and a merit pool of 35 uh,33. Um, so those
017are the big changes from column to column in that in that green box. Um, 4% had been used historically for planning. Um, the question was brought up, is that really in line with CPI? And if we look back, um 12-month rolling average is closer to 3 1.5%. So that's one adjustment we made throughout the drafts. The other with merit pool, um that's a chunk of money that's available um for the superintendent and governing board's discretion to give out to SAU staff at the end of the year. Um that number, a question was brought up in the budget committee meeting. Where did that $35,33 come from? it was based on percentages of salaries from fiscal year 25 um adopted in 26 and we kept it flat in our proposal. So that's where that came from. Uh
018so those were the two items that really came up for discussion in the budget committee's meeting. So draft two incorporates a change in salaries from rather than a 4% increase going down to 3 and a half% to be in line with CPI keeping merit pool the same. Draft three kept the 4% dropped the merit pool down to $27,60 which is what was actually distributed in fiscal year 25 and draft 4 combines both of those. So draft four is the one I shared with everybody. Um the SAU budget is really salary driven. Um and that's why the change from the um adjusted budget to proposed budget is not large. Um but this is based on 26 to 27 those changes. Um so that's the that's what each of those drafts mean. Draft four is what is
019in front of you. Uh but that summary has you know the percent increase which is probably of interest as well as the totals. >> Do we know what the default would be? Um the so that would be the adjusted budget number and that is on the last page. Second to the right column >> $16,000. >> Yeah. So it's a $16,000 change from you know what we proposed is $16,145 higher than the adjusted budget. >> So if the budget doesn't pass [Music] >> Oh. Yeah. Uh, so the only differences between the budget and the adjusted budget includes $200 in technology supplies on line 48. It includes $300 in office hospitality in line 110 and then $14,545 of support staff increases. So, this is um our hourly folks are always just lumped in as one um increase
020for support staff and uh so none of that because it's not part of the contract. It's not part of the adjusted budget. So, there's there's rules about how to make an adjusted budget. Anything that's been contracted, we have to follow. So, this is just this is these are the only like I'm sure this isn't the right word, but discretionary or like non-contracted items that would So, if the budget if we were to decide to present this budget to the voters and the SAU budget doesn't pass, the voters save $16,000. >> Correct. >> Over two districts. Three districts. >> Three districts. Yeah. >> Just a summary, just not really a question, just a statement. That's helpful. >> It's uh 6:49 and I'm going to close public input at this time. >> Can I just ask a
021quick question? Um just so uh for the summary document in looking at like uh the differences between like draft one and draft two and draft three and draft four for example. >> Um >> the salary increases. Um so obviously like for draft one is four and for two draft two is three and a half. Aren't those stipulated by contracts or or no? >> There is a range in the contract two two to 4%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh is it is the work ongoing or is draft for where you where the committee has arrived? The two pieces that the committee asked us to look at specifically were the salary increases and that percentage um and merit pool adjustments. Um there was no other driving items that they asked us to look into, but we
022certainly could. >> And we wanted to provide a little mix so you could see the differences between just a an adjustment on the salaries and no adjustment on merit and vice versa. So, we wanted to bring a couple of different views so you could see it because >> if we didn't, we'd be asking for it tonight. So, we figured let's give it to them. >> Is there interest? Does the committee want feedback from this board so that you >> the committee the overall take was the committee wanted to bring a good solid base budget. We found ourselves getting into debate on well 4% three and a half CPI but 4% might be where we want to go or merit should be left alone or less and we finally said look just bring forward a good
023solid budget these type of discussions and debates should be left for the SAU board to talk about. So I my guidance was let's bring draft three and draft four so you could see the differences but um my take and correct me if I'm wrong draft four is what the committee is bringing forward to you >> not draft three >> no >> okay >> but if we had comments or feedback we have all this information in front of us so we can >> and it's up to you guys to decide Yeah, we like it, but you want to make changes. >> So, my question is to the superintendent um and and this administrator like so at 3 and a half% increases based on CPI and that merit pool in draft 4, if you have um people
024who leave and you have to hire, do you feel like you'll be in the right place for hiring? Do you think you do you feel like you'll have the the funds that you need to get to where you need to go in terms of salary? >> I just have a >> is that an okay function? >> Yeah. A fundamental question. >> Is this an appropriate conversation for public versus non-public? >> Um I hear where you're going. Um >> what I was going to comment is in the meeting I I felt comfortable that the salaries are CPI based. So 3.5% is is very reasonable and it's historically what we've done. CPI has just been higher in the past few years, >> right? >> Um and then we were at the time of the meeting we were
025unclear as to where that $35,33 came from. So in doing some digging, we that's where we um understood it was a very um clear calculation. Um and then we had proposed it level funded from from FY26 to 27. But if we're looking at FY25 actuals, I felt comfortable utilizing that dollar amount. So, um, we always run the risk of losing somebody. I think we've adjusted our salaries over time. So, I feel better if we had to replace somebody that we would have the ability to. We always have the fund balance that we can utilize that still we're using it a lot this year. Proposed to. We propose to, but um, but I still feel like we have some uh room in there. Um, and at this point I'm not going to allow anyone to leave
026anymore, so it's fine. Stay. >> You got the You got the shackles in. >> Absolutely. No, but I I I feel comfortable with draft four. >> So, great. If you're comfortable, I'm comfortable. >> So, can I can I just ask a question about draft? Was there anybody that really felt strongly about that 4%? I guess I'm just curious like where like about that half percent. >> Yeah. So, I I I stood behind draft four for these following reasons. Um the 3.5 is more aligned to CPI and that's in my view very defendable. Um when we start straying off CPI it becomes those increases especially at the SAU level becomes a lightning rod in March. So I I felt that we could do a three P three and a half defend as CPI. I was less
027supportive of the merit pool change because I feel that merit gives us ourselves and the superintendent latitude to adjust at the end of the year regardless of what the rates of the of the salaries are. um and plus we have the unassigned fund balance to that we could draw from to address that. So from me I felt that we have far more latitude with the merit and adjusting the merit at the end of the year than maybe going a little too high on the salary adjustments and then having to deal with you know all kinds of input at the March meetings. So, >> okay, >> that's the rationale. >> Yeah. No, that thank you for that. That makes sense. Would So, would you rather keep the 35,000 for the merit pool? Is that what you're
028saying? Or would you rather just adjust that at the end of the year? I >> I would, but I I don't see it as a big deal now because we can always adjust it at the end of the year. >> Thank you. >> Um, when we say CPI, are we talking federal or the northeast region? >> Northeast region. December. >> December when they pull the number. Um if if you made the determination that a particular position needed to have a salary adjustment going forward >> and needed to do it mid midyear. How would you fund that? >> So we we do that more often than you might realize. Oh, no. I realize, but I'm just in the budget that because the merit pool is great for a one-time one hit thing >> as is the
029uh unassigned fund balance, but we don't want to use those for things that are going to be recurring. Is there comfort that the budget has enough elasticity in it to allow for the unplanned need to uh change compensation for the odd position here or there? >> Sure. So, and let me clarify. I I do think the budget can manage that. When I say that we do that all the time or more often that you would think, it's with the hourly positions that if someone leaves and we're looking to hire in, if we have to contract that positions because we're going to have to pay more or um the hourly rates have just kind of skyrocketed over the past few years. And so the only way we can bring in an individual is by offering a
030higher, you know, hourly wage. And so we've we've had to do that. it often balances out because maybe we don't have someone for a month. So then we don't have a month of salary or or hourly wage and so it kind of balances out. Um and then you see those in May when we look to make you know recommendations for the following year. Um but I do feel like it typically balances out. This year is just a little bit stranger with all of the transitions and the use of the fund balance. Um, but you know that's out in the open and and you know I'm sharing the reasons why but between now and when we have our regular conversations in May about those I feel very comfortable that we can live within. >> Thank you.
031>> Yeah. So that to me raises a qu because I thought I understood what the salary increases were and I want to clarify it because the line item may or not contain um so you know we have this the step chart we're not talking about that because we're talking about SAU right >> correct >> okay so these are all individual salaried people we're talking about actual raises effectively and it's not that someone could get a credential and automatically get an increase right this is just normal career individuals. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> And I can identify if you want to look at page one, if you just look at like line two, my salary uh FY27 proposed, what we're saying is draft 4 puts a 3.5% increase on the salary over the um FY26 approved
032budget. Um if you go down to line 11, the assistant superintendent of curriculum, we've budgeted for a 3.5% increase. And so that's what draft 4 is saying. All of those salaried employees are are at 3.5%. What becomes less direct, if you will, is and it's not included in the adjusted budget is line 119 support staff. So that would include all of our hourly employees. And so our hourly employees just have a dollar per hour rate. And then if we took all of their um wages and added three and a half% and this is a little bit skewed and I can explain why um then that's what where you get that 14,545. The reason why that's showing um 5.72% from the FY26 adopted is because we had to hire a new individual and we could only
033bring that individual at a higher rate than what was budgeted with the prior individual. So, um, but that 14,545 does include, uh, the 3 and a half% increase for hourly >> folks. And I do appreciate that because this is this is my first budget on the governing board. And it is, I will admit for me, very easy to get confused between the okay, no, we're talking about teachers versus we're talking about the SAU staff versus. So, that was very helpful to try and get it straight in my mind. >> Sure. Are there any other questions for uh for either Gina or Lance regarding the budget discussions? >> So, we're going to vote on this in December or we're I mean, are you bringing this back to us after comments or or is this it? >>
034That That's a good question. I don't know if our if there's plans for the committee to meet again at this point. I guess >> we'll take any feedback tonight on what you what's before you. Um there may or may not be additional changes, but I'll let the superintendent Lance speak to that. >> Yeah. Well, I think to Tom's point earlier, I don't have the historical perspective on what the past process was on that. So, I'll I'll defer to Gina. I'm happy to do another meeting. I think if this would be an an opportune time if there is any um desire for the committee to do further work now is the time to say it. uh if there isn't what will happen is we will have the the hearing in December >> and after that we
035will take a vote and have the opportunity to uh make a decision based on what the committee has presented to us and what we have heard during the hearing >> but without further comments I think we're we're at draft four um if someone felt strongly about one two or three then now would be a really good time to share that because at this point if I hear nothing then Lance would go back to the committee to say um the board felt comfortable with draft 4 and you know we don't need to meet again as a subcommittee. Thank you for your time. So, I guess my my only question is, and I I'm not like probably sold one way or the other, but just like if if we were to go say to like draft two
036and have the higher merit pool numbers now, would that be like more clear than us like maybe raising it at the end of the year and then people feeling like, oh, they kind of did like a bait and switch? That's I mean, I don't know if that's a concern at all. Um because if we're hoping or planning to raise it anyway, I might just say just raise it now. >> It's a really good question and for historical context, years ago there there was no line item and um every year the governing board would award merit and it would come really from no line. And so the the various members but certainly the budget subcommittee wanted it there so that it was more transparent about this chunk of money whatever it is is for this purpose.
037>> Right. Uh, and so like I said, the 27,000 is based on FY25 actuals. So I I really don't have a huge concern 27 versus 35. I feel comfortable with the 27. Um, but if you want more flexibility, I mean, obviously I'm happy to support draft 2 as well. I mean, I just I personally think it might be easier for us because that way we can like we're kind of presenting that full transparency when we present the budget versus like someone feeling like, oh, they said 27 and now they're trying to raise it and they're just trying to do that without our opinion. I that's kind of what I'm thinking, but I don't >> anyone else. >> I don't remember if we used last last when we were awarding merit. Did we use the entirety
038of the merit budget or was there a remainder? >> This is the first year we have the budget, right? No, this will this will be the second year we budgeted last year. >> So the so in May you awarded $27,60 >> but we had 35 or we didn't we used all of it. >> The question I have is does that number that was used does that include um in the past I don't think it included the budgeting for the superintendent merit increase. So if you It's kind of funky >> if lines 120 through 122 have a little bit of a breakdown of that. >> Uh so you have the FY24 actual FY25 actual and that's based on where it was actually awarded. FY26, it was just sort of distributed um percentage based across, but at
039the end of the day, the sum total in this draft 4 is $27,60. >> So, you have you have included the an anticipated um superintendent number in that 27 of actual. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. >> Wait, hold No, this this >> Oh, I thought there was a I know >> I was looking to have a comment. >> I agree with Johanna. I like draft 2. I don't know. I mean, we just got the 35 in the budget. I don't know why we want to cut it until we see where we go with it and what a little bit of history is with it. I think, you know, maybe we didn't use it last year because it wasn't recommended. We may have different recommendations. We have a
040new superintendent. I don't really see reason to cut it. There is um we look a little closer I and without the actual spreadsheet open in front of me uh if we look at the FY26 adopted budget for the merit pool piece there's an error in there because that is not >> or is that the actual what was adopted for 26 sorry I I said I said something for because I didn't understand so FY so FY25 actual is what you guys awarded in May FY26 adopted um is what you adopted in this current year. So yeah, we're talking about this is for this is current year. This won't be for this May. This will be for next May. >> Yeah. So there is >> we adopted it in 26 but it was for performance in 25.
041Correct. >> Right. >> Because we have to do the kind of backslide with >> 35 this year. We won't we won't have we'll have no for the second time because we had 35 last year. We'll have 35 in May of this year to award that. And this number that we're talking about is for our conversation two years from now in May of 2027. >> So the question then becomes if we get comfortable with this number the 35 for two years three years two or three years in is it is this will be our second or third year with it. >> It's been budgeted >> I think it's our third >> two years. So, this will be our third year with 35 and then we'll be cutting it after. So, I'm starting to lean towards draft
042two as well, keeping that number for full transparency. There's no reason to to cut it. And um >> except that it's easier, you know, it's reason to cut. >> We don't have to use it, right? I mean, we have if we have the 35 in there and we budget for it and we don't use it, that's fine. But like Joanna said, to adjust it after the fact is where we always get in trouble with the public. That's where people don't like it. >> Rob, is this an based on the discussion, is this an appropriate time for your motion and then have discussion on the motion or is the motion >> I'm trying to provoke discussion? >> I'm assuming the way I want to >> I don't think we need a motion, right? We just need
043to give you >> the what I was going to propose >> is that we split the difference between the 3533 and the 2760 and just find the midpoint by by 99,85 >> 39 3985. >> So you just add like >> you mean 29? >> No no the difference is >> $3,98650. So you mean add that add that or subtract? >> So around 30k >> that's half of the difference, >> right? >> Yeah. >> 30,000. >> So I was actually thinking the same thing mostly because I do think cuz I hear it every year and I I understand to some extent but like I do think coming in at a lesser percentage change >> is something that our constituents do want. I think across the board >> and I think using the variance between what was
044actually paid out, what we've projected to pay out over the last two. >> Yeah, I think that's a good point. >> You know, it gets us in that spot and if we find that, you know, let's say we do use all of the merit, we can all re we can always readjust in the following year. >> Um, we still have to remember that this is going to change in Yeah. Yeah. But I think it shows some good good faith on our part of the like we're trying to rein it in a little bit. >> That's exactly my motivation. It's it's more of what people will stick on and they're going to stick the community or some in the community may stick on the overall percent change and certainly the 4% increase on salaries. Those are
045tend to be very sensitive sticking points and I'm trying to uh find a way to >> Yeah. If you make the number 30,000 the highest round number. >> Yeah. I think I think I would just like my my thought process is just let's pass what we want to pass so that like or present what we want to pass so that they can't come back later and say like >> oh my gosh like you guys lied like that's but that's all I'm saying. But I think you're right. >> I totally totally get it. I don't like the end of year big adjustments either. Yeah, >> if I hear the the general sentiment, people are comfortable with the three and a half% as the CPI uh anticipated number for budgeting, but are also interested in a reduced
046but not as drastically reduced merit pool, perhaps a number of 30,000. >> Sounds good to me. Uh I do have one other question for the CPI because thinking about what you said about this is two years out. >> So trending wise for CPI, how has it because I haven't been watching it. How has it been trending? Because you're basically at even though the 3.5 is the current CPI, right? You're basically throwing the hook out and saying, "Well, in two years it'll only be 3.5 days with the budget. It's very difficult." >> Let me let me just clarify one thing. the the salaries we're really talking about July 1. >> Yep. >> Not two years out. It's the merit that is May of 27. >> Right. >> So we are after the work is done. >>
047So it's even more confusing. I understand. >> You like to confuse. >> All right. And that and that does help because you're not throwing so far out. I just think >> you want to go forward with the motion as you had. >> Yes. So, I'd like to make a motion um uh that basically extends off draft 4 is to increase the um merit pool to 30,000 uh from the 2760. >> I'll second that. >> Okay, we have a motion by Rob, second by Holly. Is there further discussion on the motion? Does everyone understand where those numbers came from and where they're headed? >> Just one comment. You're just voting on this motion which is advising the committee. You get to vote on the budget again in December. So, and that's the vote that's really going
048to make a difference. >> This is basically what we put forth to the public for comment. >> Yeah. >> And and the committee will take this as a directive. It it's not we won't debate it. You changed it. We'll take it and we'll bring back another draft by for December. So, I mean, Lance and Jane, are you guys comfortable with that? Like, that's not going to Okay. Because I know I know we're all try trying to kind of keep budgets as, you know, because we've got a lot happening. So, as long as you guys are comfortable with that, then absolutely. >> If there's no further discussion, we'll bring it to a vote and going to hope for the best. >> All those in favor? >> It is unanimous. >> Goodness. Don't want to have to
049pull up that calculator since not here. No, I'm here now. >> I only did it because you wouldn't have to pull out this. >> I'm not pulling out. >> I mean, I'm here. >> Oh, you are here now. I'm sorry. >> Maybe could we both >> just for fun. >> I've never used it before. So, >> well, great. Um, there is nothing else directly on the uh on the >> agenda. Uh, is there >> There's no need for a non-public. I I understand that. I was just looking to see did the agenda say anything about other business. I'm just wondering if there's any other business that has cropped up as a result of this discussion that anyone want to bring forth. >> No, but I will just clarify that I did double check the minutes
050from May and um it was determined that the long form of the superintendent evaluation will be used this year. Um, so I'm giving you proper warning that um that process will have to begin in the individual boards >> and that's a but that's a a revised long form. Correct. >> Correct. >> It's a much more streamlined long form. >> Yay. >> It's a short long form. >> It's a kind of long form. >> Um, >> it was not a unanimous vote. >> I have a a question. Where are we in the context of our uh busing contract, transportation contract? >> I think we have this year and next year, >> but I'll have to double check. >> Yeah, I I think that's something it's been a while since we've looked at it and >> and
051that is an SAU function for those of you. I think it would be good to start looking at it early to get people familiar with it and um not get hit when it's time that we have to really look at it. >> Um I will share with you that um in June, maybe May, I did reach out to them um to request updated information on our buses that no longer met the requirements of the contract. And so they were able to acquire brand new a couple of brand new buses and there have some on order. So um wanted to make sure our clunkers were still traveling. >> I'd also be interested in hearing how we've been doing as far as um keeping the roots populated properly. So >> that's always a good topic. >> Yep.
052>> Okay. Uh I assume we do have a non-public session. We do not. >> We do not. >> No. >> Unless you know >> what's wrong. >> I know. Let's overpay that. We don't. >> What's right? >> Okay. We have do not have need for a non-public session. >> Report out. >> We have need for a report out by the process observer. >> So, this is amazing. Um, we've managed to get through some important information. Um, I thought the health insurance conversation was quite um enlightening and educational for me even. Um, and the budget conversation was great. So, we are done at 7:14. Significantly less time than we expect 7:15. So, great job, chair. >> Thank you. Thank you for getting it kicked off without me. >> Uh, with that, we have room for one
053more motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> We are adjourned at 7:16. Thank you everyone. I want to stay longer.