001[Music] Thank you so much. She loves I never [Music] I didn't realize Yeah. >> How are you, >> sir? Good. Awesome. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. And I'm sorry. Are you sure [Music] we're here at the hour? We'll try to be mindful of everybody's time. Uh we have happily also present everyone here and be mindful of everybody's time to go into close session uh under 55 1.072 72 best we could. We're going to hopefully not be in there more than 15 20 minutes. Take as long as we need, but I know everybody's here, you know, on Monday. So that said, I'm sitt I don't think there's Now we look all official, you know. >> Now we look all official. >> No lane. We don't get a lane. >> You got to provide your own. It's budget
002cuts, man. Come on. My chair's coming. >> Okay. 12:03 we are uh 12:02 on the clock. Back in open session. No action was taken in close session. Uh we are on our third agenda item, discuss possible bond proposal and then we've of course got a fourth action for the board to potentially take action on calling a bond direction. So Dr. Allen, are you uh going to take this up first? >> Well, I can. Um, you know, just by way of review, we that we received the committee recommendation that the board's been looking at for some period of time. Um, that would involve the potential closure of Spigville Elementary School and rebuilding a new one on a site of Spigleville Road that the district currently owns. And then there's money in there that would give us
003uh upgrades on deferred maintenance to the tune of about 40 million, 6.7 million to deal with 30 buses and ease in the operations department, about 9 million for deferred maintenance and technology. And then there's additional dollars in there to just upgrade the general feel and aesthetic of some of our facilities uh related to like 25-y old furniture, upgrading VCT to LBT. Um some general uh upgrades to the high school with regard to a PE gym, LED lighting on all of our extracurricular co-curricular outdoor spaces um and other connected type projects. And so um the board's been studying that for some period of time. And while looking at that, looking at other intersecting factors such as like so like since we got the recommendation, we've gained more knowledge but not absolute clarity on the impact of
004HB2 on school funding. Um there's also been continued monitoring of our current enrollment both the last couple years as well as where we are today for example. And so all of this data has been kind of put together and shared with the board and has brought us to this point here where um through the entire process Mr. B Mr. Barry sitting here if I said it once I said it a million times that that the board has the discretion to accept reject or modify a recommendation and modifications can be specific points within the bomb program timing of the bomb program or how to come at uh specific projects uh along the way. And so we're we're at the point now where uh the deadline to call for election for to make November is we have
005to have that turned in by 5:00 this evening. So today's the day. >> Thank you sir. Thank you. >> Your cut bait >> more or less. Yes, ma'am. >> The one other thing that I wanted to touch on because I know within the 1120 whatever pages of board packet we had last week, there was our information, Susan, on where we are on our net taxable value. >> Oh, I'm glad you brought that up. >> Yeah. So, >> and then I don't know if you had a chance to look at that, Susan. I'm gonna Wesley, do you mind speaking to that? >> Sure. Yes, sir. Sorry. about our surf values we received at the end of end of July. Um they were they did come in lower than the previous year by about 4% uh largely
006due to the increased homestead exemption from 100,000 to 140,000 uh for uh uh for residential taxpayers. >> And Dr. Allen, what's that do to our bonding capacity using our typical assumptions that we've asked our financial consultants to make? So typical assumptions being $6.5 million currently sitting in our INS fund balance and zero penny increase to the INS tax rate $175,200,000 is our total capacity. >> The bond called for 175,300,000 and so if the bond board were to call for election we would do some value engineering and we'd find that to bring that under the limit at the zero tax rate unless the board called for 1752 and then we'd have to start making adjustments to the tax rate. But to keep it at zero pennies, we'd have to be at or less. >> The point
007there, Susan, being I there have been some discussion about an anticipation that those values would go up and our bonding capacity would increase and instead it's stayed flat, gone down. >> That's important. >> So, floor's open for discussion, folks. thinking. >> So I know that looking at the M side and how it interacts with the INS side of this, I know that we have we've already made some changes on the M side and anticipation of some of these funds, right? In terms of how we how we think about maintenance and technology specifically. So, we talked about it Tuesday, but just just to make sure we're in many cases, we're able to continue to fund those things out of operations if there were to be a bond passed in May and to pay ourselves back from
008those INS funds. Is that right? >> So, what we would end up doing, let's let's say that we did not call for a bond today and delayed and did that in May as a hypothetical scenario. Okay. We would fix things as they break and then of those funds that are eligible to be paid for out of INS funds, there's a legal mechanism by which we can pay ourselves back for that. Yes, sir. >> And what's the time limit on that? >> Um, it's 18 monthsish. There's pieces that you have to do within 18 months and you can go as far as 24 beyond that. Um, so we would be well within time frame on that. Even if we ended up in a November scenario, we'd be fine on that. But it's from the date that
009you make the purchase. And I guess that scenario is no different than there are some things that are eligible for that reimbursement and in the first instance there's some things we probably couldn't pay with bond funds even if we already had the bond called and had the money. >> Yes, sir. Right. >> Okay. >> Just want to be clear on that. >> What Dr. Allen is is I know you've looked at this some um passage rate bond elections midway particularly >> is it critical that we do it in November critical that we do it in May does it make any difference one way or the other >> so in 2008 we had a bond program that passed at 60% and then in 2013 we had a May bond that passed at 51% % and then
010in 2019 we had a November that passed at 65% and then we had a November Vader election that passed at 83%. Um, and so they've ranged between them like you look at your two Mays there's a 60 and a 65 and then you look at I'm sorry you look at your two Mays there's a 60% and then the 13 bomb was 51. That was the Mac and iPads um bond program. And then you look at the two November, there's a 65 and an 83. So I I I um I wasn't here for all those, but just kind of look at the numbers and having a little knowledge of those. I was here for the 081. I think it has as much to do with the package and voter support for what it is that we're
011presenting them with as it does timing. >> Yeah, I would agree that that was my thought. I mean, I know the the one to one initiative. I I know a big reason why that was at that 51%. >> Yes, sir. >> That was a oneoff, I think. >> Well, the Bader was pretty high. Um and and just as a reminder, we increased our M tax rate, but we also decreased the INS by an equal amount at the same time that the state did compression. And so in terms of um voters understanding the value in that that was I mean 83 that's a it's like why was that number so high? I think that there were a lot of factors that went into that that made that turn out as well as it did seems to
012me and this is the way I've been looking at it for a while. We've gone forward now for give or take over a year in the expectation that we were going to call for this in November based on what we knew at that point. Obviously, in the last few months, there have been some things that have happened that make the situation more volatile. Uh there may be more there may be more that we know between now and May. But what what I'm trying to get clarity on is is will the advantage we gain by waiting longer and maybe getting more information outweigh the advantage of going forward with the things that we already have determined that we need that we could have been spending money on, you know, yesterday. That concerns me a lot. I
013don't I don't want to lose our position of being strategically, you know, informed and in a better position to make the best decision, but there's there's a cost to that. And I'm having trouble weighing, you know, what what weighs heavier. >> Um, do you want me to speak to that a little bit? >> Yes. >> You have an answer for it? >> Well, I don't I don't have an answer for it. I think what I can tell you is this. the things that we are likely to know more about um as we move forward is is I think there's I think there's two or three things in particular and one is so our enrollment will continue to tick up between now and snapshot is what I expect to happen. We are down a little bit
014this year compared to last and we were down the previous year as well. Not dramatically but enough to where I think it's worth paying attention to. I think we'll have a better sense for exactly how those numbers shake out between now and the end of October and as you know that affects our iminal funding fairly dramatically. The other thing is we'll have a sense for what our funding in year two the bianium will look like. Um the the the wild card in that special education funding >> and whether or not that change is going to be um meaningful or not. I mean, the last conversation I had was basically we were told by the state that they promised us we won't lose money, which is not nearly as optimistic as the way the conversation was
015being had coming right out of the session. And so >> they were running ads about how much new money we're going to get. >> Um, because of the way they're marrying that with the intensity of services model, I think we there's reason to not necessarily count those chickens before they hatch. >> So, I just think that those that Those two things I think in particular are things about which we may have more information. >> What I would say to you Pam that in my mind not discounting what Dr. Allen has said, not that there aren't other things, but one of the biggest areas that the bond the bond the facility study committee facility committ Yeah. the facility study committee >> struggled with was do we spend significant money increasing capacity at pretty much all the
016campuses across the district other than like Chapel right Park Hill >> because we just we just spent money on them. Do we do that or do we look at building a quote new Spiegelville? And one of the the biggest concerns that I've got at this point now is what our enrollment was last year being a decline from the year before and where we are now. Spending money on a new elementary, calling a bond election that includes a new elementary, which is the facility study committee's recommendation. and I get that, but they also didn't have the benefit of knowing what we know about enrollment now. And I think we already know it's down. I think that waiting till May gives us a chance to see just where it is. And particularly, and you correct me if
017I'm wrong, Dr. Allen, where we're down is at elementary. >> Yes, sir. So, I I don't want to go ask the v voters to pass a bond to build a new elementary when our enrollment figures don't support that. >> Or at least certainly an argument can be made um by folks that that it doesn't. Right. >> Yeah. I think that one of the challenges because it's such a broad bond. I mean, what >> what percentage of that is investment in future growth and what percentage of that amount is really just handling our day-to-day operational issues? And I I present that as a question if there's I mean I know it's hard to parse out because there's such a a broad number of things in it, but it seems like a significant portion is even on
018the on the elementary side. It's not purely for growth. It's we've also have a 1950s school that's incredibly inefficient to run. >> So, um >> it's it's a it's a bit of a both and. I I don't disagree with I I think it is I think it is. But the point is is the two alternatives that the committee was really focused on in that level were don't build a brand new elementary, increase capacity by building up those other schools. Right. Right. >> So it wasn't that that there wasn't going to be a potential for increased enrollment addressed, but it was going to be addressed differently >> the one versus the other. um that and and I think my view of it is along with other reasons, but just focusing on that one for a moment,
019waiting until May, we get the benefit basically of an entire school year of data to look at where we are and make a decision. Okay. Do we tell the voters now, yep, we really do want y'all to approve a bond with one of the pieces of it being build a new elementary school or do we want to go back and ask them, hey, let's we don't want to do that yet. There'll be a day and a time where I'm sure some board will be doing that. Instead, we want to shift to that second piece that the committee looked at and it it it didn't win out as the recommendation, but it was it was really really close. >> But what is the time frame for calling a May bond election? Is it J end of
020January? What is the date that has to happen? >> So, >> yeah, end of January, first of Feb. It's it's like it's the same timeline when we call for elections. >> Yeah. So, it's right there. End of January, 1 of February. >> And and I'll stand corrected. Not a fool's year's worth of enrollment, Dad. But by that point, we already know where we are. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I I wasn't trying to >> No, I was just wanted to be clear. I was I was not trying to overstate it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But of the things though in this um package that we're looking at, you know, a lot of it addresses future funding issues. What What will that do? Not getting those things in place. Now, now we did hear we can reimburse
021ourselves on some stuff later, >> right? >> Um, but you would just be attacking it from a broke fix standpoint, not a proactive >> let's go >> get the best deal we can on buses or whatever or >> roofs or something. >> That's that's the crisis of the decision that I've been struggling with is we're gonna pay now or we're going to pay later and later it's going to be more expensive. Growth and new elementary discussion aside, these preventative things we've seen for a while we want to invest in, does that just get more expensive the more we push it down the road? Does that increase, you know, our exposure to cost? >> Is it mean is it going to make it tougher for us to get back to balanced budgets and not deficit budgets?
022Yes. It's got to be the answer, I'm sure. But >> the the biggest challenge we've got in terms of balanced budgets is getting the ML piece in line. >> Um and that's where I think the hinge point really in this conversation boils down to. thing. Um be- because if the concern is the lack of our ability to balance the budget with us being in a $3 million deficit right now, then the only way to bring relief to that is to either increase our Mino revenue or decrease our Mino expenses. Right? And one of the things that committee struggled with is the fact that it's $2,000 more per studentable than any other campus just because of it's being small and inefficient. um to build a new facility without increasing enrollment does nothing to address that problem.
023>> Now there there are other considerations and I think that's to your point. It's like but if we start fixing some of these broken pieces of equipment, we can start to gain back some of those efficiencies sooner. So like if we replace old HVAC with new HVAC, do you get more energy efficiency and this and that and the other? And I'm sure we would benefit from some of that. I don't know how to quantify that and and I don't know how much the delta would be on doing it now versus delaying till May to start doing that work, >> right? >> And you made a a point to uh you know where we are feeling it if the the numbers are a little lighter on the elementary side, our secondary side is busting at the
024seams in areas. That's why some of this project was to expand some uh the building a little bit at the high school. Yes. In some very needed ways. >> All that gets delayed even though it is an it is a issue now and has been for a while. >> So we're >> we've got several different things on several different schedules. >> Uh >> Aubrey, if we waited till May, what do you think that does the timeline for the PE gym at the high school? I mean really that's it doesn't have to open at the beginning of school year saying that project schedule is flexible I think it's currently pushed out to a 2028 opening I think that would still very much be >> okay >> because if you remember for the committee sake we had
025everything being completed in 28 knowing that we could move some projects forward >> right >> do do we need to look at the bond almost in kind of two different buckets. I think the biggest question, at least for me, is whether or not we're going to uh reopen a new speed bill. I mean, to me, that's kind of the big I mean, that's probably the biggest part of this bond, right? >> So, for me, the the lens in which I've been looking at the bond is it's what Pete kind of alluded to is that, you know, we have to relieve some of the M pressure because like Dr. Allen said, we have to raise revenues or decrease expenses. we can't raise revenues because the state limits us on that. So, if we're going to decrease
026expenses by using some deferred maintenance to to hopefully relieve some of that, um, if we didn't reopen Spiegelville and there was a cascading effect of this, you know, the 317ish students at Spiegelville being reallocated amongst different elementary schools and then I'm sure they'll be, you know, it' be a daisy chain. I'm sure it can't all go to Woodway, can't go all go all to South Boss. there would have to be, you know, which in and of itself is some reasonzoning and is something that nobody really likes. >> But to to offset and relieve that pressure, I mean, if we don't to me, if we don't rebuild Spiegelville, I don't know if there's necessarily a huge need to wait to have the bond in May. I mean, we could for the deferred maintenance and for getting,
027you know, the gym and all that stuff built. We could do that in November and just not Yeah, we decrease the amount of the bond, but it's just sort of that's the that's the part I'm wrestling with. Like Pam's wrestling with a little bit of that. I mean, if we're not reopening Spiegelville, I mean, I could go either way on November or May, but if we don't do Spiegelville, I don't know if it really matters to push it to May as much as it is if we're adding a new Spiegel school. That's my thought. >> It's a really good observation. I think you know from my standpoint and we had talked about this in the last meeting is is there a is there a conversation where it makes sense to do part of this now
028to do the essentially the deferred maintenance and technology pieces of it now and then pause on the on the question of the elementary school till we know more on the enrollment issue. The challenge there obviously is it's a lot harder to do a bond election in November and another one in May, right? So that's that's obviously the potential downside to that. But I think one of the other advantages that I've always I've had in the back of my mind in this process uh and I said something about it I think a month ago that deferring till May might give us a chance to do, you know, the the bond capacity itself is an asset for the district, right? Um, and you know, there's obviously we can use it to issue bonds, right? What we're talking
029about right now. Um, but it also gives us the opportunity to do what we did in our last time we went to voters with Vader, which was to look at that and say, "Hey, it's great that we have that capacity, but man, it would be nice on the M side to have more revenue." And there is still there is still another, you know, lever we can pull even though it's not as palatable. um is to say is there a is there another way to do a Vader swap and use some of that some of that bond capacity to translation it transition it over to M as copper pennies um you know three of those is about $1.8 million a year in revenue from the last numbers I think that you guys had said 1.7 1.8
0308 million. So it's not it's not incon it's not you know inconsequential. Um and I think if if we are going to look at waiting till May I think I would love to flesh that conversation out a little more and see does that >> does it make sense? I know there's there's there's an element where man some of that revenue goes to the state and not to us and we really hate doing that here to our taxpayers locally. Um, but I also know that, you know, I I don't want us to get to the point where we look at closing programs and and and more dramatic budget cut changes and not at least have given the voters a chance to say, "Hey, before you do that, we think you should do this instead." So, I
031think to me, that's another advantage of deferring is to say, can we bring that into the conversation? Is there a way to do something that's a smaller package and and get one or two or three cents of a of a Vader at the same time? So that's I know we have to do that in in November because of when the tax rate happens. I get that. >> But I think if we have the conversation between now and then it's it's at least time to discuss it because we're not going to figure that out in the next three hours at peace. >> So all that to say I I would be I would be fine with deferring uh and and knowing that we have chance to get some more information and dig a little more a
032little deeper into some of these questions. And in that same vein, Colin, I was told that this is not the uh the smart move. I'd be fine with calling the bond for the part of it, the piece of it, >> and carving out that other and maybe taking that up in May or maybe pushing that all the way to, you know, a November of 26. Um, I get it. folks that are a lot more politically astute and bonds savvy smarter than I am say that you know their concerns with doing that peace meal and in an ideal world though that's what I would do right so we go ahead and address those issues now but we wait making the call of what do we do to address elementary capacity >> because essentially we've Like you
033said, two two buckets. >> Yeah. I mean, and I know that doesn't we're not going to fix what it costs to run a very very outdated Spielville Elementary. We're not going to fix that this year anyway or even or even next year. >> Right. And and yeah, some some things have been said here that I want to make sure they're clear. We're not closing Spiegel. Right. >> Not today. >> Yes. because that's some of the things have been said back and forth here that that language has been used a bit about closing Spiegelville. I just like you can make that very clear that >> well >> that that >> so there is an option that the facility study committee looked at that would close Spiggleville that would close it >> and yeah >> and redistribute
034those children between other campuses and then we would have to instead of spending money on a new Spiggleville campus you would take that money and instead add to the capacity at four of our other elementaryaries right now it's interesting when we use the term closed spiggleville Yes, it would be closed and those students would be reszoned for a period of time. If if growth were to occur, you're going to reopen something out there at some point. Uh but it would what that would do is it would protect our M budget from an inefficient campus from a numbers perspective until such time that the enrollment growth comes up to a level where it justifies building a new building. In short, >> that's not the option we're talking about. >> Um the board can talk about what
035our option has. That was what he articulated very well what I was getting at is that if we if we decide you know because that like like we said that was one of the committee's possible solutions if we not today but at some point in the future the near future but not so near future whatever if we close Spiegelville and then we operate with seven elementary schools and we take the students that would otherwise have been going to Spiegelville and redistribute them to the other seven campuses in some form or fashion. then we gain a lot of M efficiency and to me that's the ticking time bomb for us and based on what it sounds like enrollment is happening at the elementary school level I don't know it's imperative that we have a new Spiegelville
036at this moment but I do think that if we did this bond and didn't reopen Spiegelville or or build a new Spiegelville in its place and we redistributed the students we could push that that aspect of the bond the new elementary school to you know a couple years down the road. So, you're not doing one in May and or one in November and one in May or one in May and one in November, one right after another for a new elementary school because it doesn't sound like we necessarily need it at this point. So, we could be to Colin's point a little bit more judicious with our bond capacity and not just throw a new elementary school out there when maybe we don't really need it. >> If if we The only thing I want
037to be clear on is if we did not build a replacement for Spigville, we would have to spend >> Yeah. Right. funds up increasing capacity of the other. So we would we would still spend probably somewhere that every >> it's not the same but it's close. It's not the same but it's close. >> Less it's it's maybe maybe nine or 10 million less >> $10 million difference is what you're talking about. I thought it was more like 20. I was misremembering. >> So if you took if you took those two pieces that you would take Spigville are obviously out of the the new elementary out of the equation and then also Spring Valley too. Correct. No, I think you would still do the Spring Valley >> to do Spring Valley >> because you're going to
038have to add capacity. Well, I guess you don't have to. >> Why would you? It's part of the >> Is that not part of the you know, we don't need that for M. So, is that part of the equation that you take out of the >> you could >> bond package? Also, >> the board could the board could say don't do the board could basically say do nothing that deals with expansion. They deal only with basically facility upgrades. and what what that would be. And I'm kind of looking at Aubrey because I told her be ready to do some quick M if we need it, but like we've got 40 million in it for deferred maintenance, 25-year-old furniture, some light lighting and flooring upgrades, and then there's the 6.7 million for buses. There's the 21
039million for the high school work PE gym and associated. There's the 2.6 million for fine arts. And that completely leaves >> technology >> and and then the 9 million for technology. >> Don't leave technology. >> Yeah. Boy, Jesse will come over the table at me. And then that would that would leave out any notion of growth at all. Right. Aubrey, am I thinking about that right? >> Yeah. So if you take out It's about 85. >> Say one more time. >> So the 175 million minus the 91 million for new bill and addition to Spring Valley. >> Yeah. >> That will leave you 84 million for everything else that you just mentioned. >> Okay. 84 million. >> And wasn't that still doing even with that, right? No, that's not anything. >> It's it's the deferred
040maintenance. >> Okay. But I thought we had to do a few things just for the speedboat kits to fit somewhere. No. >> So there is 3.5 million that you could >> that is still part of that 84 million to gain some utilization. >> Reconfiguring some spaces inside that campus to get >> but that's not going to get us 280 kids. >> No. Right. >> Not in one school. >> I think something else we can't really quantify, but I got to believe it's true. If we close Figville and redistribute those students, you're going to lose a lot of those students. They're going to choose Crawford over McGregor at that point. >> I'm glad you brought that up because that was something I wanted to speak to if I may. Um because in essence, we have three
041potential decisions for Speedable Elementary. We can continue to operate it in a way that's not cost effective. We can close it and redistribute those kids or we can close it and build another another a new elementary, a new Spigel bill. So am I right? Those are three options. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um Mr. Wit and I had an opportunity uh back earlier this month um that I I wanted to share and I've written something that that I'd like to read if I may. Um to I wanted to take a moment to reflect on something that I experienced during the campus prayer walk earlier this month. Our very first walk started at Spiegelville, our smallest and most remote campus that by all practical measures is vulnerable in our current financial landscape. Its location, enrollment, and operational
042costs make it a likely candidate for closure. But what I saw that day served as a powerful reminder of something we all recognize. Numbers never tell the whole story. This is a campus rich in identity and care. Its very walls speak life into children with statements like, "I am valued. I am a learner. I am a champion." The fairy lights strung across dry erase boards and handmade details in the library are more than decor. There are artifacts of creativity and commitment from a team who knows and loves their students deeply. Spiegelville is not just a building, but a community, a family. And when we consider closing this campus, we're not just talking about facilities. We're talking about disruption at the most human level. Our decision will have not only budgetary impact, but emotional, relational, and
043spiritual consequence. I understand we must make hard decisions and appreciate that our administration, this board, and the challenges we all face. Let us resolve to make our decisions with compassion, clarity, and an unwavering commitment to people. If Spiegelville's future must change, let us not simply dissolve it. Let us be intentional to preserve the community that has been cultivated there to transplant it with dignity, not dismantle it without care. Because leadership isn't just about fiscal responsibility. It's about honoring the stories we steward. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> All right. So, make things more complex. >> Well, and let me just say because she's she's right. We were, she and I were both at that prayer walk and it was um >> you know it was really interesting. We we have an AP there now who was
044so excited to get back to Spiegelville. >> Yes. >> Because it's Spiegelville. And so I think it >> you know that students, families, staff at Spiegelville, they're us just like everyone else, you know, just like the ones down drive and 84 and everywhere else. So, I think it um you know, I think sometimes about my kids that like to hold on to something when there may be something better for them that we can give them. And I think when I think about Spiegelville and what I saw there, um those staff and those students deserve a better facility than what they're in. >> That's number one. And >> agree. >> I I think there's there's an argument to be made about how do we achieve that? How do we put them in a better environment to
045learn and to grow and and treat them like like we would any students anywhere else? Um, but you know, I don't I don't know that the answer to that today is different than it is in May. But I do know that there's additional data that could help us figure out how to proceed with it potentially. Um, but I want to make sure that anyone who sees this or is listening who's who's a speakable teacher, speakable parent that, you know, there those students matter. they're important and um whatever we do here today and whatever we do before May, you know, we'll be taken with the idea of what's in the best interest of those students because I think they would agree, man, where they are now is not in the best long-term interest. So, >> agree.
046>> Yeah. >> And I don't I know this is kind of obvious, but I I >> I do think it may be worth noting why we're in this spot. That that building's been inefficient for a long time. Yeah. This this isn't this isn't new. >> Mhm. But there are two things worth noting and and one is that in 1819 that building had 300 children in it. >> 1819 >> 2018 2019 >> Oh 1819 >> sorry it's an old building history. Were they had tents when they were there? >> They hot belly stoves and wood. No, in 28 2018 2019 it was 301 children >> 23 uh 23 243 2024 >> 267 today 224 and so it is it is a it is to your point it's struggling and I think I think people know that
047>> but there there has continued to be more and more and more pressure put on the M budgets of school districts the last several sessions. >> Sure. And I want y'all, please don't I don't want to turn this into the blame game or whatever, but if we've had this problem for years and it's now kind of at a cross in the road moment, one one has I think it's fair it'd be fair for a parent in Spville to say why why are we having this conversation now? This isn't this isn't new. This has always been a smalish campus and and it's and it's been built in 1954 for a long time now. And I do think it's worth noting that there are school districts across the state of Texas having this exact same conversation about
048their facilities. >> Yes. >> And they're closing buildings because um the commitment that we have for the students is not a commitment that is shared by all the decision makers that affect the the mechanisms and the streams that we have to have to run schools. And it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's not. >> It never has been. And and yet there are those who have powerful decision-making authority who have tried to reduce it to nothing more than that. >> And so it it has put us and when I say us, I mean the district in the unfortunate position of trying to struggle through this. Um and and I I don't I think out of fairness to this board, someone has to mention the fact no one asked for this. You know,
049no one asked for us to have to cross this bridge, but we're here. Further discussion, folks. >> That is a fair point and I think that's worth re-emphasizing. We in in certain to some part we're here because we have facilities that have aged. >> Yes. >> And to some part we're we're here because our district has grown. But there's a significant piece of we're here having to deal with things that we would not have to deal with if we had been judiciously and fairly funded the way we should have been for the last decade. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. And and let me be clear when I when I talk about closing Spiegelville and not reopening a new one in its place, knowing full well what you're talking about, my biggest concern is like I
050mentioned the M budget. If we continue operating at a deficit >> in the M budget, Midway is not going to be Midway like we've talked about in prior meetings, you know, special called or otherwise. So, Spiegelville, if we were continue to operate it and we continue operating in a negative M budget, Spiegelville Elementary as it currently exists, won't exist >> in the future if we have to cut all these programs districtwide to able to have a balanced M budget. So it's, you know, it's kind of six one way, half a dozen the other. To me, it's like I don't like the idea of it, >> right? >> But I mean, we have to we have to get relief for for the reason of not being properly funded. We've got to pull some levers somewhere. And
051it just it it sucks that Spiegel is sort of that lever. And I don't want to put that on them and that's not fair. But >> well, to that point, Mr. screen. I think the one thing I might add is the other bit of information that might be beneficial to the board that could develop throughout the course of the fall that would develop throughout the course of the fall semester is more direction from administration on what it is we do think we have to do to bring our budget line. >> Yeah. >> Because whether we close bigger bill or not, we're still going to have to do other things >> for sure. And if I were to bring the boards some um more information on what it is I think we need to do and
052see how far we were able to get in that effort, it it might make that part of this conversation feel more comfortable. >> And just this is really in the form of a question, Dr. Allen, but following up on what you just said, going to have to do things on the M budget side and and that is without regard to all the deferred maintenance because if we don't pass a bond election, all that deferred maintenance is just going to get deferred some more. >> It's going to get worse. >> 100%. I I think I mean pard pardon my boldness here for a minute but I think it's unquestioned that we have deferred maintenance issue that we have to deal with in a bomb program whether that's now May I from my perspective that's not too
053big a deal because we all we're going to end up doing is hitting fund balance which we are over 25% on like we have some fund balance cushion okay we'll pay ourselves back and we we we'd be fine on that front but we've got to deal with our deferred maintenance and we've got to deal with these buses and we've got to deal with the tech center like that that that kind of has to happen one way or the other or we're going to have a much bigger ML problem than we currently have. Um I I think that the I think the most difficult part of all this that we're all struggling with is how does this big bill conversation then map to the long-term M situation moving forward? And and that's why I couldn't help
054but circle back around to the fact that we're in this hole because it we've been underfunded for a long time and it's just we're now kind of stuck in this pickle where we have to figure out what the best strategy moving forward is. Um and when we are in the fortunate position of having some fund balance to give us some time to think if we want and in the fortunate position of knowing that over time we will grow. I don't know when like if there's a scenario where you could contemplate closing Spiegelville adding capacity to all of our other campuses. If you did that allow the one of the versions of the plan that the committee looked at that would give us 500 students worth of elementary additional elementary capacity at a ratio of about.5
055kids per house. Y'all that's a thousand new houses that have elementary age kids in them before we're at capacity again. And so it's it um that all of that needs to be contemplated. And I think you're right, Mr. Talis. I think that if we were to uh close elementary until growth were to occur in such a way that we needed to build a full building, I think I do think we'd lose kids up there. And I think that also has to be contemplated because that also has an M impact. And so you'd have you have to ask yourself, is M savings worth what you're going to lose on enrollment? Does anybody want to continue discussion or is anybody ready to move to making a motion or kicking the can down the road and us taking
056this back up in January for a May election? What's the board's pleasure here, folks? Just just to clarify from a procedural standpoint, the the process of deciding to pause effectively means no one makes a motion and we adjourn. Right. >> Well, or somebody makes a motion and it dies for lack of a second calling or a motion is made and being seconded and doesn't pass. >> Got it. >> All three of those mean we're taking no action. >> Taking no action. Right. >> And to clarify, the options before us are to call for the full bond. Now, that includes building for growth. call for a partial bond now that deals with the deferred maintenance and address the growth issue in May or calling for the entire bond in May and pushing off some of that
057deferred maintenance even farther. >> I I don't disagree that those are options, Pam, but those are not the only ones. I think it's all on the table. It's up to this board. We we can uh our uh math wiz she's more than that. y'all know that >> those are the ones I've heard and if there's others that I' then if you will clarify that for me that would be great. >> Well, I mean I I I think that that part and parcel of what we're dealing with here is we could call for the facility's recommendation straight up. We could call for everything the facility recommended, but instead of building a new elementary, we go the other route. So that could happen. we could take out some parts of the facility recommendation, including carving it all
058the way down to the 84 million. We can do any or all of those things um here today. That's that's up to the board. We we could take no action here today and take everything back up in January. I don't know what the deadline is for a May election, whatever it is. sometime before then. But but yeah, and again, everything would be on the table then, too. >> I guess that I'm there's a position that I've not made as clear as I would like. Um because I recognize that other districts are in the same position. I recognize that other districts have to close schools. I recognize that there's some really hard human cost decision that have to be made. But I want to stand firm on what I think sets Midway apart, makes us special.
059And I I try to be very professional in the language I just used, but the analogy that came in my head when I was considering the options for Spiegelville is I don't want to redistribute these kids like a basket of puppies, spreading them all over the district and dismantling that community. I will serve at the pleasure of this board, but that option is is extremely impalatable because of the things that we we saw in that building and and what it means to those people. It's like fostering kids out in multiple homes because you can't fit them all in one spot. There's a human price to that and I'm not like that option. >> Well, and I'll say I I wouldn't vote for that option today. I think if we were going to go that route,
060I think we need more conversation about what we're doing and why and how it fits the long-term plan. Um, >> that's a reasonable point. I don't know that it's a hard and fast never, but I think it's today. I don't think that option makes the most sense. I think the committee facility study committee agreed. It was close, but they agreed that that doesn't make the most sense today. So, yeah. Not that anyone's made a motion for that. 175.2 2 million minus how much? >> 91. >> Minus how much? >> And it kind brings it down to 84. Exactly. >> 84 and three. >> Not exactly. >> What's the uh what's the decimal point? Decimal point. And >> 83. So, are we prepared then to call for a bond of that size in November, knowing that
061we would probably task ourselves with potentially passing another one in May or the following November to address the elementary situation one way or the other? >> Probably you're probably a year out. >> Yeah, it's probably a next November. Yeah. >> Wait, Aubrey, did you say that included doing away with the portables at South Bossi? I asked you that question. >> The only hill. >> Okay. Right. >> Let me correct myself. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we made sure South Boss's changes was still in there >> and nothing for >> the capacity of South. >> Right. Exactly. If >> we keep asking you, will it keep coming down? >> Potentially, we don't have to postpone that piece of it till May. We could we can postpone it till next November of 2026.
062>> That's what Mr. Tullus just said. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I I think Rick's probably right. I I think that if the board takes action today to call a bond election for 83.5 million that while in theory we could turn around and call another one for the May uniform election day. I don't know that the board does that. Obviously board still could and we could see what the lay of the land is between now and then. More likely it's we're back in August of 26 looking at calling something for that November uniform election date of 26. >> So So if I uh I had a whiteboard and I was drawing kind of a risk or or matrix here of priorities versus things going on. Um M is now it's and it's going to continue
063to be it's been a problem. It's going to continue to be a problem. Nothing's going to change drastically at the state level. We're gonna have to we're gonna have to find our own way to to get better. And that's what part of this bond does. >> Yeah. >> Uh the other the other side of the matrix, we're talking about the growth issue. And for whatever reason, our growth has slowed. I mean, a couple years ago, we we were looking at projections of two to 4% a year, right? I mean, it was it was gang busters. Um it's it's slowed to you know you know we're we're we're stalled. We're stalled basically. >> Yes sir. >> The scary part is we can look around the district and there are still thousands of lots that are potentially
064going to be built on. >> And so I I think we can't totally dismiss that. It's it's not accurate to say that oh we we've tapped out. Midway is not going to grow anymore. It's going to grow again. >> I agree. And whatever whatever reason it's slowed, which we need to spend a little more time understanding, uh it's it's gonna uh the potential there is is still really high. So to me, even though I I man I like getting things done, it it seems prudent. We can we can wait here just a little bit longer. I think when I when I say here on the growth side, >> we got to we got to help you with M. Otherwise, we're going to keep finding ourselves every year back looking at at at deficit budgets, and
065that's going to start leading to other decisions we don't like. So, I think as I as as we weigh all this, I I see the wisdom in us addressing the M site now, waiting, and it's probably not next spring. next year would probably be the earliest time you could come back around. But, you know, if for those of us who are sitting in these chairs next year, you'll have new enrollment data. You'll have some stuff going. We'll probably are, you know, the economics uh economic growth in the Clinton counties. You're you're going to have more data there. You're going to see what's happening there. Some of these uh developments that are on the drawing board are going to start moving start moving dirt. I mean there's and that'll be easier to explain to voters as
066well, right? We've got to whatever we're doing here, we've got to be able to explain it to voters. >> In the M side, I think we can explain pretty not not easily because it's so convoluted, right? >> But as far as priority, we can say it is here, it is now. >> We got even in this and I know what you mean, Mr. Tollus, but even in this conversation, I'm I'm looking out at the room and I and I think we have to make it clear. We're not talking about a bond program that would generate Money. It's a bond program that would generate INS money. So, I wouldn't have to use Money on the problems we have because of our deferred maintenance. >> Right. >> And even that is hard to >> It is. >>
067Yeah, it is. >> Well, and it would generate savings on the LED lighting alone gener ins >> offset because of like energy efficiency. Well, and and also just so again speaking to the audience, >> yes, >> separately than the deferred maintenance because of where we are and talking about, you know, a a budget that we've adopted as a board that 3 whatever million deficit and we're, you know, looking to you and you already have been actively looking at ways to not have that when it's all done that deficit be that much. And and what that then means is if we don't call a bond election now or or May, then the things that we've talked about for fine arts and for technology and buses and those things, we don't have money for those either. So,
068it's not just deferred maintenance, it's those pieces, too, because we don't have the M dollars to spend and we under the current state of affairs, we can't hit the fund balance for >> however many millions of dollars that is, right? Because because right now we're sitting on a fund balance, Wesley, it's 25% of our >> budget, but in in millions of dollars, that's what about 27 28 million. >> Yeah. And and it doesn't take e even I can do the math on how quickly we deplete that if we're hitting it for3 to4 million a year. >> And how much of our budget goes to personnel salary? >> Around 85%. >> And with the raises they got this year that's going to maintain and continue to grow in the future that we have to cover. >>
069Well, that's where it gets interesting. Again, I'm not trying to be slippery, but because the state created that pass through for teacher retention a lotment, you you can almost think of that as its own separate fund, but but what I will tell you is the percent we're spending on personnel is increasing because they did not match that on the benefit side at all. >> And they they didn't put in nearly enough money to deal with compensation increases for our non-teers. >> Right. >> And so, yes, the percent we're spending on personnel is creeping up a little bit every year. Yeah, right. >> It seems reasonable to to determine to spend now the money on things we already know we need now and that will save us money down the line as well. Is that a
070fair statement? >> I mean, >> so the the 83.5 million if we if we went that route, is it still three bond proposals? You would still have the lighting at the athletic facilities as a separate prop >> and the seating at the pack is a separate prop. >> Oh, the technology is the other one. That's right. >> Pack's part of middle school. That's right. >> Tech. So, when we say tech, that's iPads and classroom teacher devices and then lighting and athletic facilities >> and then everything else. >> Okay. >> And then we're also talking about doing another future bond. Didn't you say the legislaturator's talking thinking about making us all do our bonds in November? >> Yes, ma'am. So then we would have to wait till next November if they >> if that were to
071pass >> potentially. >> They kind of got enough on their plate right now though. Maybe that won't come up. >> To to Mr. Wit's point, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, >> I I I was simply going to say I move the board approve an order calling a bond election for November 4th, 2025 for 83.5 million. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Does everybody understand the motion? Further discussion on the motion. >> Questions, comments. Like we said, it's prudent to adjust to um work on I can't think of the word. Work on our our current money issues and this does do that with maintenance and repairs. You think taking the growth aspect out of it helps or not with the voters? Like is that going to make it a more
072positive bond for us to pass easier? Does it make it harder to pass? >> I think it makes it somewhat easier, Brad, but I'm and again I'm not the political expert, but I think when we could tell them honestly we could call it for 175 million and not increase the INS tax rate, they know that we're telling them the truth on that and they would approve that. I I think they would. And so I I would hope that if this board approves this motion that they would in that same vein when we tell them no, we're not going to increase your INS rate to to do that, right? That's if you pay more in taxes, it's only going to be because the value of your property goes up, not because our INS tax rates going
073up because it won't. The only other part of this that bothers me a little bit is we've already lost what 15 million of our bond capacity because is that right or not? >> Yes, that's right. But just just based on our preliminary values to certify it went from the 192 to the 175. What if that trend continues and now we can? >> Well, I I had that concern initially, but hearing Wesley talk about it and looking more at it on my own, the line share of that is because of the increase in the homestead extension because if you look at our red line on that chart for the commercial stuff, it's going up. And remember, graphic packaging is only on the rolls at 266 million right now. It'll be on there for the full meal
074deal for next year. >> An electrollet's not on there yet. >> And thank you, Mr. Tulsa. An electrolyt's not on there either. So I I think we're going to I'm not going to say that we're going to see a 10 or 11 or 12% increase, but I think rather than have a 4 whatever percent decrease, I think we'll have a 3, four, 5% increase for next year is what I expect to see happen. at a just looking at those industrial properties coming on even if nothing else changed. I think that gets us there. >> Which means if we postpone part of do part of this later, we might be in an even stronger financial position than we are today. >> Oh, I I hope we are, Pam. I would expect that we would be >>
075and hopefully offset some of the potential for increased cost, you know, as we know that the cost of things tend to go up down the road. I wanted to say I didn't I didn't second the motion because we uh don't appreciate the work that the facility study committee did. That's not at all the message that I think we're trying to send. And I'm looking right at Jordan saying this too. Um tremendous respect for all the work that you guys did. And I think that we we may actually land in the same place where you said we should land. I think we may just get there in two steps instead of one. Um and I think that if if the conversation with voters says, "Hey, this is step one. We want to continue to engage conversation
076and make sure we're doing the right thing for growth and for our elementary kids down the road that this is not, you know, one and done. We're still engaging in this conversation and we know there's an issue that we still need to fix. So, I think that I think that will help us with voters as well. >> So, certainly not the fault of the facility study committee that the crystal ball got so much cloudier between when you finished and when we're making this decision. >> Yeah. And I think to echo Colin's comments, you know, and to answer Brad's question, I would like to think the the voters would appreciate the fact that the board isn't just, >> again, this is not negative to Jordan, not just rubber stamping the facilities committee recommendation without being more
077thoughtful in our process to say, "Hey, look, we're only doing 83.5 because that's what we feel today is the right answer without just going ahead and doing it all and doing it in steps. And so to me, that says, hey, we're not just spending money to spend money. We're not increasing a bond just to do it. So I would like to think the voters would appreciate the fact that we're not just >> Yeah. We're just going to do it all. We're doing all 175. I don't say willy-nilly, but you know, we're being thoughtful about it. So I I think that can only help. >> It'll be it'll be great because our friends in the media media will do a great job explaining that for us, I think, and showing our wisdom. >> Yeah. Well, in
078that same vein of y'all's comments, let me just also be clear. The last thing I expected that would be happening today would be a motion and a second to call a bond at that amount. I fully expected because y'all know, I mean, I was not an official part of the committee, but I went to every one of those meetings. I restudied and relearned all the things the committee heard and I fully expected cuz cuz it it at that point when you looked at where we were on what our projected bonding capacity was going to be, we were going to be 15 million below that. When you looked at what our demographics were and you looked at all those things, I thought that that we would be doing something down that path and things have changed.
079and um including a whole lot of what the the legislature, you know, has done still to be determined. I mean, and when I say done, I'm talking about House Bill Two and the teacher retention and all all the things that they pared the money out to as opposed to increasing the basic aotment. So, me making that motion was not because I thought the facility committee got it wrong. >> They didn't. I think they got it right, but I think the facts have changed and in my mind to a significant enough degree to support and that's why I made the motion. >> So, and we want all the kids to be in buildings and classrooms that are up to date, current, safe, and well-maintained. So that's why we need to go ahead and and do the
080money now to keep our Midway facilities at the top. They can be >> the needs we have today are a priority and deciding wisely for what we need in the future is also a priority and we need time to get more information on that end while at the same time taking care of our kids in the buildings right now. >> All right, y'all ready for question? Anybody got anything else to say? >> But we have we do the bond in November. If if it passes, when does it actually fund? What's the timing of that? >> We'll get the funds in February. >> Okay. >> All right. Y'all heard what the motion is? Everybody understand what the motion is? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Like all our
081meetings, end when you're out of agenda items, journ That's right.