001When does that when does that decision have to be made? And and you're saying before the end of the fiscal year, correct? Um and so is it would it be a recommendation of the committee then to um ha ask the services committee to kind of determine what they would like to move forward with. Can I can I put one more caveat on it which is it would be nice if we wrapped it all up in this one year. Um you can at any time as a board assign any amount of fund balance to any project you want, right? Uh and so if you don't do it this year, it doesn't mean you can't do it in the future. um it's just easier to uh recall and remember the discussion points the sooner we do it
002than the later we do it. Well, you know, and then that also becomes a situation where if we're in such a desperate need for um fund balance in the near future is it how much of a priority is it? Because that's where the question is that that was my question. Hear back more of our staff. It just gets into a discussion of do you know are we still on a pathway to defer curriculum, defer maintenance, defer staffing, you know, other things, professional development. And the um the thing that Sarah and I would absolutely say is yes, we absolutely are. we are, you know, well past our ability to maintain an operating budget, you know, and so we could set it aside for curriculum, but really what could does it do to set it aside for
003curriculum if it can't operate. So when you know what it sounds like in a vacuum either because it's curriculum training. Yes. I mean all of that all of that together there's a lot more than just the curriculum there, right? What what I'm hearing is that really we shouldn't commit to anything right now when we when we have a lot of unanswered questions. Correct. That's why I said tonight's really premature to have that discussion. Okay. Yeah. There's not like a deadline on it. Right. No. Yeah. No. No. My my opinion. And again, even if we went past this year, we can still have the discussion at any point in time if you want. Yeah. But it just gets harder to um explain why would we be talking about science and social studies curriculum and you're marking
004it. It's easy to do the link now to here's what here's what we were going to do with the money. We ended up doing this instead because we didn't do option A, right? Um and we still wanted option A, right? And so we had that money sitting here because we didn't do we we we didn't do the uh Chromebook purchases, right? But but the real reality that Sarah and I are saying is it just takes our our deficit our planned deficit down by the number of Chromebook purchases that we were going to do anyway because we put it into here. So and I I'm sorry. No, no, go ahead. I was just going to say I think the celebration here though is that the district was able to use all of the money which is
005great and the vast majority of it was on new things which if you look at other districts it's not the way that a lot of districts spent it. they were filling deficits for the last two or three years. So I think that we were in a really nice position to be able to get new things, get that new curriculum, get the HVAC, all of those things done and maybe we can set that discussion off till after April on what we want to do with that money. Uh April is going to be kind of a a hinge point, right? So and uh just took me a bit to find it. It was the August at services. The the curriculum review was at services from that test. it laid out as to what Jenny's current plan is
006for curriculum review and when that expenditures might start hitting the budget. Thank you. So, go ahead. I think it also bears to say like um this amount of work did not get done in a vacuum and Sarah as well as Stacy um and especially Stacy put a lot of work, time, effort and energy in this and I always want to can't honor people for that work. Um because this isn't that's not easy work on top of everything else they have to do in a day. And so I want to say some appreciation to um the business office and their team for getting that done because it is a lot of work. Thank you. So congratulations to you and Stacy. Yeah, it was Stacy. See I mean every single one of those moves had to be
007done through multiple layers and she did that so many times. So she did good work. Thank you Stacy. Yes. Thank you, Sarah. So, speaking of April, uh why we move forward to referendum planning discussion? Yes, I have three different documents loaded. Two of them were in the administrative content. But the first one, I just wanted to share this one-page flyer that Bear put out that gave a a breakdown of the last elections referendum results. Um, I thought it was just interesting to see the different the breakouts and what passed and what failed. Um, 78% of the questions overall passed, which that's really good. I thought that that was um, positive. And I also thought it was interesting to see that the recurring referendums passed um, at a pretty good rate as well, a little bit
008higher than non-recurring, but there was a lower number of them. And then you can see down here just the history from 2019 until now, how many referendums there have been. And it's certainly growing. I remember when in 2022 we were all shocked at how many there were. And then you look in 2024, there were so many more. Again, it's just something that's growing and growing. The other don't Oh, yes. you I mean it's maybe a technical question when when a district issues debt that's also a referendum question is it not yeah so that would be like a facilities question update and then I put just put together like a what why and how for the rationale for this recurring $7 million um sorry budget Um follow up to Craig's on the other the the non-recurring
009is that always the same length of time on a non-recurring you can you can vary that it could be for one year or five years six years eight years two years okay that's not blocked that five years if you want to you can step it down if you want to um I I I even saw a question that was I don't know why they did it but they said this much in this year this much in this year which was two years down the road and this much in this year, which was three years down the road past that one. I was like, how are you going to explain that to people? Yeah. But they just took their debt structure and what was falling off and tried to fill in the gaps, right? Uh and
010it made it for a a very confusing boat for people, you know, um to try to explain. Um but I've seen some very weird things. Yeah. And it's always to try and level out the mill right so that full tax impact isn't upfront. And that's why they did it though. That's why they picked those years. So, so the other document, the main thing I just wanted to point out is there's a graph at the bottom of that document, again provided by Bay, and this kind of explains how we get to the 70 cent impact instead of a bigger impact. So, the gray is what we're currently paying for debt service. And then you can see that that just it's increasing slightly, but it's so much lower in the upcoming years. and then it disappears entirely
011by 2032 I think that is and so that's how we have the extra space there so that impact is so much lower operational administrative guidelines administ thank you So, if we're going to if we're going to add 70.7 70 cents to the mill, right? Right. That's what this does. Do we we don't ask that in the question, right? It doesn't say that part in the question. It doesn't give the answer. That's an educational piece that we have to continue to put out to people. We can't put that in the question. No, it changes. No, because again the mill rate is only the mill rate as far out as you can project the mill rate and um saying that we don't know uh property values and what's going to go into property values and whether they're
012going to rise, whether they're going to fall, all these other things that help set the mill rate that would be inconsistent for people. They would be like I mean even educating people on it's going to be approximately 70 cents. I want to say approximately.7 cents because for uh some township it may be more than the city, right? And so for me, I'm in Exonia Township, it may be a little bit more or a little bit less depending on how that portion of the school tax mees with that portion of the township tax, right? And all the other things that figures my mill rate out. Yeah, that's my only concern and maybe jumping ahead. the concern the way the question is structured is because um it does not provide an idea of the impact to me
013within that question. So, if I don't if I don't go to this the sessions and I don't get the paper, you know, and I go to vote and go, well, do I get the district 77 $7 million or no, what does that mean to me? I don't know. And that's why we're sharing um the best we can the approximate impact to you based on a you know and I don't know exactly what we're going to use average home price or you know $300,000 home $400,000 home whatever it is we're going to use right to say you know approximately this much or this much per 100,000 you know the other thing that's important in communicating and I've learned this in other is that it is based on the fair market value and people will get really
014confused by that because their assessed value might be a lot lower than that. I most everyone in this district has been reassessed as far as I know. So it should be pretty close but still so it's my understanding if we move forward to the the draft of the question. This is just a a draft. This isn't uh what we're moving forward with or or anything like that. Just a a sample draft question. Yes. And it has really generic wording for the reason why. So it says for recurring purposes consisting of operational and maintenance expenses. That's really where the district has some leeway to change what you wanted to say. Yeah. And I would say one of the things I think we should continue to add is to say something along the lines for reoccurring purposes,
015right? Consisting of uh operational and maintenance program um to maintain current program levels or something like that. so that people understand, you know, we're doing it to maintain what we have, right? Not to do more. You know, I don't want people to think that, oh, we're doing an operational reform now. You can give everybody a raise. You're right. That's not why we're doing it. We're doing it to maintain crowding, right? Yeah. I mean, however you guys want to um you know, talk about that, that that's part of what we're we're here to discuss tonight because on Monday, uh you will have a resolution with your intent to go to reference. In your intent, you have to say that what your intent is to go out for, which is $7 million on a recurring basis, right?
016And we'll have a simple language like that. Then in December, you'll get a finalized ballot from Corals and Brady and Sarah's work to then finalize. You have to actually finalize that ballot language 70 days prior, at least 70 days prior. Now, December will be way more than 70 days prior to the April election, but you have to uh finalize that. So, it's a two-step process. First, you have to share your intent throughout uh and then you have to share your final ballot language. So, we want to be pretty clear with the rest of the board on what our intent is come Monday. Greg, did you have a question? Um, it was really and I just wanted to try to unpack Sarah's comment about paramount value versus if I could, but good luck. So, and and
017how that really relates and I just wanted to make sure I understood what she was saying. So you were saying that the mill rate it's based on the bare market value not the assessed value. The tax rate is right. So when you get your tax bill people will get confused when I I guess the last time I worked on a referendum it's been several years ago and that district had not been reassessed recently and so some of those gaps were really big. Like they would say I'm assessed at 170 but their fair market value was 280. And so their tax rate was much higher than what their mental math was telling them it should be, right? But then okay, most been reassessed last few years. So there's not yet two questions related to the language.
018um if to exceed the revenue limit specified in 1291 121 Wisconsin statutes. Um exceed the revenue limit as specified. If that revenue limit changes, it doesn't contemplate that we would I recognize that that's backstory. It's confusion. It's more words. So we recognize that if the revenue limit changes, well then we don't have to exceed it by $7 million. we only receive exceeded by five because they gave us an extra 400 bucks per pupil or what whatever that comes out. So that's baked in here and not said, but something that we're aware of or that's a question mark that that that is the way to read that. If that if the if the state changes that statute and allows us to now raise 11,000 per student, but 115 well the year that that happens, we won't
019be getting 7 million. We'll only be getting whatever 52 or 5.2. Is that correct? That's correct. You can under levy. The only thing is if you underlevy in one year, you can't go back up to 7 million in the following year. Okay. So they fair enough. I just So So most school districts won't choose to underlev. Okay. Now, um we we did underlevy our last year. Yes. It was also the last year of that referendum and we undervied it. Okay. Um but we did that because the assessments went up and the city was going to take the max of that assessment. We try to do what we could to keep taxes down in the city. My my part two is the same question or this part two. It says exceed the revenue limit by 7
020million. We didn't say up to 7 million because we're going to hit the 7 million because if you say up to 7 million, we're not going to go in it at 6.2 because then we're locked in at 6.2 from that point forward. And you can't do an up to and you can't do an up to. Thank you. But you have to be very straight with the public as to what the ask is. Okay, that's that. Yeah, I don't I I see the simplicity of the statement, but I see questions that aren't answered in that statement. So, I just bring them up here so that we're aware of it. Yeah. And and we share with people that um should that happen, you know, should should the the state come in with more money, we could always
021choose to underlev. And I think you heard me say that. Somebody asked this question actually at one of my briefings and said we can do that. The only issue with that would be that then we are stuck at that level limit you know we can't go back. So and and reassessments and things rolling on and off TIDS doesn't change anything. It changes how much the mill rate changes but it doesn't change the $7 million. Yes. Right. Which is why you lock in on the seven because a lot of other factors are going to move around that we don't control. Yeah. Matter of fact, when when we say 70 cents, we haven't we haven't baked in the tip that's coming off the books. Yeah. Because we can't unless we have it, right? We know it is.
022We don't know the final amount. We don't know what that's going to transition into. So, we can't say that, but we we know it's probably going to actually have lesser impact than the 70 um cents on the mill rate. But we can't we can't bake that into the question. Yeah. And if you read the tiny tiny print, which I'm struggling to do right now, Bear baked in a 1% growth in property values going forward. And we haven't seen that low in a long time. Like even this year, we were like, "Oh, it's going to be way lower." And it came in at 6%. So, yeah, I I don't know. I mean it could it can go negative but it's likely to be higher than one statement to maintain current program. Yeah because I don't want
023people to just think that we're just going out because and that's not in there right now right? It's not in there right now and I would say you could just tack it on again purposes consisting of operational and maintenance expenses to maintain current programming levels. So, if that's the way it's phrased, does that mean that if you are getting that recurring referendum money and you start opening up additional programs and you're utilizing that referendum money, then you're outside of the bounds of what you're communicating to people who are voting. So, then we would have an obligation to not open up additional programs. That's not how true. Um, we uh we would probably be under the gun a little bit to explain why we're cutting programs if we all of a sudden started cutting. Sure. Sam's
024question's valid that if if you're going to say it's disingenuous if we say maintain level and then we had a program and then people are like, "Okay, so you're taking extra money out of my property taxes. I'm giving you extra money." And it I thought it was because I wanted to make sure that my kid could still take the art classes they currently take, still take band classes. Now you're offering basket weave. I don't know. something else. And I don't I understand. Yeah. But yeah, so I mean like how where we're where how does that play into that language? How does that play into the what did you subtract to get the ad? Well, discussion. I'm I'm saying that I mean I understand that if we're three years down the line, things are going a
025lot better just like economically across the board, we can always reduce the amount that we're actually taking. We can we can do that. Um, I guess I'm just I'm just wondering about the way that that's being communicated to the people in the community and whether or not the people in the community are how do I say it? I want to make sure I don't say it using the wrong words. Um, I want to make sure that the people in the community aren't entering into an agreement that they will later feel like is not being honored appropriately. If that makes sense. I want to say I agree with Sam on this one in the sense that I don't think adding current services or whatever the word was adds much to the document and it could paint
026you into a box should we want to switch something but I I think you I read this as being consistent with operational maintenance costs not expected or or quotequote current. we leave out expected and current out of the document, but adding additional language to the end of this may not gain us anything and only limits us to having to explain ourselves in the future. Okay. Um, so I we can throw those three. Yeah, we can throw those three words in and see how it plays. But I I I guess I understand Sam's logic on this one and I tend to agree. I'd rather we fight that on a regular basis anyway. I'm wondering if you know why did you open this up? Well, we got a grant for that and that's where this money is
027to pay for it. We do this all the time. You know why? You know, you guys got a deficit. You got no money. How did you add this program? Well, this money from over here over here for this and we do that. Um I understand where you're going with that. I'm I am my concern is is that as written it is not that it's bland but we and again it's the educational piece and we don't need that in the question but we don't have the if this doesn't pass you know as part of the question maybe we don't need that maybe that's not the qu that's not how you write a question we do that I think theformational sessions that are going to go along with this would answer Okay. So what if we said
028this uh if we said for recurring purposes consisting of operational instructional and maintenance expenses but yeah I don't mind instructional should people shouldn't read that as operational but I understand some people won't some people think operational is just nuts and bolts and you know you know that they they don't necessarily know that that's yeah those adjectives doesn't bother me. It's it's just the the tense of the are those the current expenses, expected expenses, prior expanded expenses. Yeah, I I I just wouldn't want to dip my toe in there if we didn't have to. Yeah, Greg. Yeah, I think I see your wheel spinning. Yeah, I I I agree with David. I I'm I'm indifferent on having that extra word or anything like that. And we I don't know does bear ever run these past focus
029groups or they just have one lawyer sitting in a room or an accountant excuse me putting this together and saying yeah I agree with this or they run it by a focus group that says would you be more likely to vote for this one or to vote for this one? How about I mean they're experts but how do they how do they check these questions? They don't they simply say what are your needs because the the legal point is we have to tell people what your needs are what the money's going through. That's all they care about. Barrett says call quarrel. Barrett says call quarrel. Okay, sorry. Quals wrote this. I did say I did say attorneys. I was right the first time. But what quarrel will say to us like your legal obligation is
030to tell people what it's for. So tell us what it's for. But we will write a question. I would go back to Sarah's first slide and ask Baron, okay, of these questions, was it just the sentiment of the communities that got them passed or was it the way they were worded that got them passed? And I'm not trying to be devious. I'm just trying not to be confusing and raise them this way. You get, you know, this percentage more, right? You know, approval rate. Somebody's got to have done that. We can ask Corals that Corals writes, I think, just about every ballot question out there, right? Me, too. Um, and and I think what they would say is the easier it is for you to explain, the easier it is for people to understand. the
031um higher percentage of passing rate you'll have. It's when people don't understand a what's it for or b how you're getting to that. Which is why you saw again recurring referendums tend to pass at a higher rate than non-recurring because non-recurring you have to explain to them how many years and blah blah blah you know and and if it's accelerating at this amount of rate why you know um whereas if you just say listen expenses have gotten more the kiss principle this this work for me this is the simplest one that I've ever seen and I look I do this and I I feel sometimes like I have to read them 10 times to try and make any sense of them. And I don't know if that's deliberate, but it's frustrating as a voter. I
032really find that frustrating. And then I have done the step up ones. And the question that you get all the time is people add them together. So it's like we're starting at seven, 7.5, eight, and people are like, "You want $40 million?" No, no, no, no, no. It's very hard to communicate those. I think the question is written in a pretty easily understandable way. Um, you know, I I think I think that makes sense the way that I'm reading it at least. Um, I think again the only the only question that I have and that goes more to communication is the responsibility to the taxpayers and to just gener in general the people in the district like the understanding we're not asking for this so that we can go wild and keep on building stuff.
033We're not just asking you guys to give us uh to to give us money to pour in to give us an investment. We're asking you guys to help us because we're dealing with we're dealing with economic circumstances which are much larger than just the district. If we don't give this we're going to have to cut programming and staff or go bankrupt. And the state says we can't go bankrupt. And that's why I think you know I think the question will eventually come up like okay so what if in three years you don't need $7 million to maintain the programming that you have. I'm not saying that that will be the case, but I think that that question will come up and I think that we need to have an answer and a good answer for
034people when they ask that question. The answer is the school board can choose to underlev at any time. But those are that's an easy answer. We if we don't need it, we won't levy for it. I don't know if the FAQs that go along with this, but that's what Melissa and potentially the Donovan group will all be able to weigh in on are the the the information the community information sessions, the mailers and the FAQs are all going to be key to that. My only other edit is can we pre-check the yes box? I like that. 100% of the community said I mean I can I can double check that I think we're not going to be able to double double check I wouldn't want to assume any answer that the attorney might give us
035but okay I'm thinking they're probably going to be no I would I would love for you to ask the attorney just to see the look on that day the attorney just to see the look on base. Uh any further discussion that you guys want to have on this tonight? I mean, do we add instructional in? Do we keep it the way it is? Do we want to just wait till December? Talk about it again. Still on it for a minute. Talk about it in December. Maybe why don't we add this to December's when the board have to ratify this? Uh at the December board meeting, uh they would have to have final language. Um and so the sooner like if you guys don't see a problem with this um and at Monday's board meeting you
036guys uh give the direction for the intent then we will work towards um finalizing the ballot language that will go to you as a final draft copy not a sample copy but a final draft copy. Um and then um if you say yes to that, right, it will come to the board. If you say um we still have uh some small whatever, then Sarah will work with corals to do the small whatever and hopefully get it to the board at the December meeting. If you're still having consternation, we're going to have to have a special board meeting in the beginning of January um to finalize language before uh the uh 70-day window comes up. And the 70-day window comes up before our schedule regularly scheduled board meeting in January. Just want you guys to be
037aware of that. So, um, really we're hoping that we get this ballot language finalized by December's board meeting because that will make it easier and no more meetings that we have to try to squeeze in. Correct. Mr. Chair, I I think that um I think that this committee can make a recommendation to have this Monday's agenda. Um, I think we should commit to the language as a recommendation now and then if if at Monday's meeting they somebody decides that it needs to be changed for whatever reason than than they can. It just makes more sense that we we whether we kick it down the road or not we're really we're talking over one word. Yeah. No, I saw your hand kind of go with everything that's being discussed on Monday. I don't want to give
038the perception that we're slipping this in because everybody's paying attention over here with the other discussions that are going on. And by the way, we're going to slide in here this referendum question knowing that we can have that discussion in December. I don't I and I know that's not our intent but I don't want to have that perception. No, for timeline uh we've already tenatively move the state report card from November to December because there's no time critical aspect of it. Sure. It's something that we've traditionally seen in the month of November because that's when the state allows you guys to tell us about it or you guys to tell us about it because the board doesn't get to see it before then although you guys get to look behind the curtain in October I
039think. Um, so I I've already agreed to move that one just from a full agenda. Due to the timing on this one, I thought it best to leave it on there. Um, it's it's after any other major discussion, but I think due to timing, it has to stay. Yeah, I'm planning on keeping it or not. I just don't want us to, you know, hear, well, you had this referendum question, you slipped in because everybody wants to be intentional. Well, right now, yeah, right now it's just the intent, not the language of December. Yeah, that's what I mean. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so I guess what I'm trying to hear you say is you're not necessarily talking about making a final decision on the intent to go. You're just saying I don't think we should finalize
040any ballot language. Correct. And I think what I'm hearing Craig say is in order for us to um really coales around the intent having the sample language that is from the committee forward um will help that discussion on what is our intent to go for a referendum and are we all on the same page that we have this intent and we are asking uh not only are we notifying our community of the intent but we're also asking Sarah to codify this by drafting final ballot language that would be reviewed at fiscal and then come to us in December. And that's why I heard Craig say like we should have this come forward. Good enough to have it as an example of the language and then we will do we'll finalize the language in December. That's
041fine. I just I just at this point in time I'm I'm looking at it like why is we don't really need to have another discussion over one word. No, I don't disagree. You know, it's just Yeah. Do we So I mean I guess the question still stands then. Do we want to bring final language to Monday's meeting or or do we want to notice to December intent on Monday's meeting intent on Monday? Intent is on Monday. But but I still think we should attach the SAP language to that discussion. Right. And that's and again that's for strategic discussion not for resolution. Uh there there will be a separate resolution on the intent. Okay. But not the language. Not the language. Got it. No, it'll it'll say, you know, the W USD intends to go to
042referendum in April for, you know, and and then um you know, I'm in December, you'll have ballot language that has to pass. Is everybody understanding and in agreeance? Yeah, I don't want to muddy the waters, but I did pull a few of the the ballot language um questions from other districts that just went to referendum. I could bring those in December. like that. Yeah. Okay. All right. Moving to the rawers report. It's a long report and we kind of put it in here as a preview because rawers will attend the meeting on Monday and they're going to give a presentation on the whole um report. But I thought I would just hit a couple of highlights or things that I sort of thought were highlights out of this report. Um, one thing is I think
043we we already know this, but housing growth has been pretty stagnant for the last decade in the district for various reasons, but now, um, Rafers is saying, you know, they we've got these developments that are in the works, and so there's some new housing that's being developed here. Um, the other interesting thing that I thought was that the only population growth that the district's seen in like the last decade has been in the age group of 65 and plus. Um, so obviously that doesn't come with many new kids and that there are currently as many residents in the district that are over age 65 as there are K to 12 age students. I thought that was a pretty interesting um statistic as well. So enrollment overall is projected to continue declining in the upcoming years
044with the potential around 2035 and going into the 2040s of leveling off and then eventually even growing a little bit is at the elementary level. So, as these new houses become available, as the older residents would they say move on in this report, um more students may be moving into the district. And so, maybe by 2040, enrollment should be leveled off and maybe starting to grow again at the elementary level. Just a reminder, I won't be here in 2040. Say that now. Before that, we definitely got 16 more years. I don't think I want to be here 16 more years. College is expensive. Yeah, not that expensive. Any other highlights? Because this is reallyformational only right now. Correct. That and I think that was the only thing I was really just going to say for
045tonight. I think that that kind of informs us in our facilities planning of we're probably on the right track overall and what we're seeing is not it's not um unexpected and it's not uncommon for Wisconsin in general and raers on Monday will go into a lot more detail um you know about how they did their study and you know the things that they are highlighting from that study but can can I as I guess the guy who has to set the agenda for Monday and I'd like to take it from this team right here. I love Sarah's update. I don't want it to be a P update. Okay. We are not going to spend 30 minutes on this document. No, so I I I mean Jared or Sarah, can you direct them to 10 minutes
046or less? Yeah. Because they're going to want to talk. They're going to want to talk every single page in a 65page document. Unless somebody in this room thinks that we need to hear more as a full board Monday night and we know now, but I want them to they can't be long-winded at the podium on this topic. There's just too much data in here that comes to the same conclusion. We're not growing and this is what we predict. Okay. Yeah, I know they can because they did what about an eight minute overview for us as an admin team. It was fast. It was pretty fast. I don't know what they're planning for the board meeting unless Mike or anybody else on the fiscal committee who wants to hear more meat in this or thinks the
047other board members who aren't in attendance need to hear things out of their mouths that aren't in this report. I'd like to keep that to you know I'll say 10 minutes but you know that just means 15 to 20. So I just be be with Roberts as long as we go in great detail on page 46 I'm not page 46. I'm not even positive. I just read that. Yeah. There's a lot of fine print. So So go to page 26 just to see. Yeah. Know I'm curious. Uh in the same way that we uh we had the referendum planning facilities update at the last board meeting. Uh I I obviously I haven't seen the agenda for next week yet. It's just a map. Yeah, I just um would it be possible if these guys I
048don't know if these guys are the only people who are going to be giving us an update or they're going to be giving us a presentation. Would it be possible for us to put this at the beginning of the meeting so that there's less pressure on people who might attend and might want to talk so that that doesn't get kind of impacted. So if we do that you lose the ability to have discussion about it. Sure. Sure. That makes sense. Because it will it will be anformational update. It'll be informational presentation. We've done that where uh the health foundation has come in. I just want to give you anformational update. Thank you. Have a nice day. Sure. Right. Um and we can do that. Um but if you want discussion, it should be in our
049strategic discussion. What do you want to discuss on this by the way or what do you think we might discuss? I I like same suggestion. I'm just asking. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I I actually made the same uh discussion point um with with reference to the agenda, but the question is is are people going to want to talk about it? Well, if we put in the strategic discussion section, but we can put it first in the strategic discussion section. There's two things there. Well, right now in the draft it is there's there is we have the point we have the ability to have discussion on it and it allows the the rawers people to leave after you know they're done. They don't have to I don't I just don't want it to it's
050not to say there's not good information here but there's not to my knowledge actionable information. Exactly. In which case it it's a nice presentation grade but we all know you're not supposed to give out a 65page presentation. You're supposed to give out a four-page presentation with supporting documents. So I this is certainly part of the content in the board docs, but that's not the presentation that will go up on the board. It should be conclusions and read to your heart's content. I don't need to know how they went through the process or what their credentials are. Um and that's Yeah. So just be cautious on that one. Yes. Okay. Um, do they ever come out and say like where potentially these are parting area to it's not necessarily departing. It's not there's not growth. So
051people aren't moving in and then the age demographics have just shifted and birth rates have fallen and so eventually you're going to have open houses. Ba basically we don't have enough housing for younger people to move into who are child birth you know child age um birth age and so as people age in place if there's no place for them to move they move to surrounding areas they don't move here is basically what they're good um and there there does look to be some growth uh over the next 5 to 10 years in the southwest west quadrant of our school district proposed growth. Um but again they don't see an impact of that growth until 2040ish. Any further questions on on this document? Seeing none, we're going to move to monthly reports. I didn't see
052any questions come in on anything this month, but uh did anybody have questions or Sarah, did you want to highlight anything? And um I don't think I had anything to highlight. Um we did provide the variance report by building and that's really the only new thing. I we might need to just sit down then figure that out because we're not we're not getting any I'm interested in that discussion as well. Okay. So there's a time where the three of us I mean so say you've been doing it twice but I it's not because I doubt Craig's ability to ask the question. I'm interested in the answer as well. I can just send out an email that has a couple proposed dates and times that work. That's good. That'd be great. Yeah. I just I'm interested
053in the process. We'll keep going until we can meet you guys' needs. I mean that's Yes. In April we know it's in cure. I just I just need a spot to be directed to it. So I just to be fluent in these documents. I'm I'm not fluent in these documents and and we we know that your half million dollar reduction in next year's budget is baked in here somewhere. That that's it will be. That's my point for next year's will be. and and knowing how when you say $500,000 I want to see how that you know rolls into these documents and I might be what Craig's asking might be a different question but that's kind of what I was interested in is is how that manifests itself in in the budgeting right okay yeah that's
054that's I I also want to I remind you guys that when I say a $500,000 reduction. We truly are going to reduce what the end budget would have been by 500,000. But you can't look at this year's number and say I'm going 500,000 less because remember there's a lot of expenses that are going to go up. It's not like so so but but I I I caution that because some people think that that means a half a million dollars less than this year's budget was. That's not what I'm saying. Well, I we'll learn that too. But what I won't ask Sarah is why do you spend this much on fuel? Okay, I'm not going to do that. That's not my question. My my question is is what what's in here? How do we control that?
055If we wanted to reduce it, how would we go about doing it in understanding the the the process to see what levers are in here and which ones aren't, you know, because salaries were already agreed to, right? So that that's that's a leverage you can't pull. Sounds good. Any further questions? Any further questions or you told me the fuel was for I had something I forgot. So that's okay. Hey, I saw I saw you stumble there for a second and I wasn't sure if you were starting your truck or if you were stumbling. Right. Um, no problems. Um, so we can move that then what I'm hearing. Uh, if we look at the future calendar real quick, um, next month is a little bit lighter of a month generally. We'll talk about the capital improvement
056plan. Uh we're going to talk about uh language uh and the referendum. Is there anything else that you guys see should be added to next month's other than the regular every month stuff? All right. Hearing nothing. We'll keep it at that. Um so then I I guess the next the next step is to go into close session. I'm looking for motion. We got a motion. Second. Second. All in favor? Do I have to roll call that committee? I uh that being said, our next meeting date is Wednesday, December 11th. Uh Dave, I brought up action items. I think out of this meeting, the only action items we really had kind of came out of the referendum planning discussion, right? We were going to bring back um some language stuff in December. Um and then paying
057the bills, right? Did I miss anything from anybody? Um yes, you did. you missed um that uh there's a calendar request going out to different members to have a discussion on building budgets and what that might look like for information moving forward. Thank you. Gotcha. Thank you. Motion. All right. We are pushed. That's what that's Oh, yeah. The action from close session as well. Yeah, that's basically done. Let's find your