001Uh the statute caps how much an employer can put into the Utah retirement system for the hybrid program at 10%. But the cost of the program is coming in at about 10.8%. So that difference the8% is now the responsibility of the employee to pay into the Utah retirement system. This year we had the same challenge and uh in balancing the budget we had agreed to provide one-time monies to cover that for the employees. So what we basically do is the employee pays the 08%. It's 7 this year but anyway pays pays that percent and then we make a equal contribution into a tax deferred account for them so that their net impact is zero uh as far as their employment goes. Uh this is the cost to do that again in 2026. Typically the funding
002from that does come from the WPU. So, I've lined that up that way. We also have turnover savings and the Utah retirement savings. So, these are the typical funding pieces that you would use for a comp package. And uh for illustration purposes, I drive that down to a zero, like we have enough money to do this. What What is turnover savings? Turnover savings happens when an employee leaves the district or retires from the district and their replacement costs less. So if they're a teacher and they're on step way at the top end of the scale and we hire someone new at step one, there's a cost differential there and we capture that as a savings. And is that where the URS savings really comes from too? The the URS savings is a rate in change.
003So the URS actually changed their rate for retirement. And so that's a a just a straight up rate savings. So that one is not necessarily going to be an ongoing revenue source. That just it is because that rate's going to stay forever. Oh, well until till the next year. It's good for 12 months. But we use ongoing dollars to fund retirement. So that's why to us it's a savings because we've already set the ongoing money aside. We just have to pay less this next year than we are this year. All right. So, this is our list of programs whose money run out. Uh we have the gang prevention, the highly impacted schools, stipens, the last of the money for library media, nurse match. This is the impact that we're estimating on school fees, which is
004better than what we thought it was going to be. Uh, House Bill 344 when it came through actually changed a number of provisions within the school fee law and made it less expensive, if you will, for a school district to cover. And so what we thought was going to cost us something over $4 million cost us something over $2 million. So, so a much better situation, but nonetheless, we lose those fee revenues. So this represents that we had um these programs were defunded but we are going to choose to continue to fund them. I am I'm illustrating what is going away. We can decide what stays and what goes. And this is a demonstration of one way that we could continue to fund them. Correct. And what is that one state funding? One time state
005funding again or one time state funding has to do with school fees. Oh. So they're providing Oh, right. a 50% calculation, 30% the next year, 20 the following. Yeah. So that's what that represents. So again, through our normal access to funds, we'd come up about $1.6 million short if we wanted to retain all of these programs. Uh the next category is is legislative impacts. We've talked about professional staff already. We also have a obligation to provide paternity and postpartum leave to our employees. This is not the paid to the employee portion. This is when they're absent from the workplace. We'll have to have a sub. So, this is our estimate of what the substitute cost will be in providing additional leave for our employees. Uh and then this is our uh latest modeling of what
006the school safety cost would be for personnel. So this is looking at a guardian model for personnel and what uh what we would need to pull that together. Again, typically these are things that would come out of the WPU. So I'm showing that as the WPU as the funding source and uh we come up short about a million dollars in that category. The one-time funded items, these were decisions that we made for this school year. So for the co-e model, additional administrators at the schools, preschool, uh ELLL software, and a kinder specialist, the these were decisions that we said we were going to fund, but we only had onetime monies available to us to do that. So we're we're now at the end of this or coming to the end of this fiscal year. What
007do we want to do about them? And um on some of these uh in the case of the risk management premium coming in higher than what it needed to be, if we didn't have to pay for a higher risk premium this year, we probably would have used those dollars for one of these programs. So I've put it in this bucket just because that's what naturally would have happened. We would have prioritized the dollars into these uh requests from last year. I have one-time monies then for the balance or for most of the balance of this program from the idea that the co-e model is still in its first year. We don't have data at the end of the year to assess how well it's doing. So we probably would put that on another one time
008basis for funding until we have the data to determine how well that program is going. Uh so not an uncommon practice is to use some onetime money till a program demonstrates itself. Uh and then uh we have our challenge with the preschool with the the grant that wasn't awarded. Do we limp along for another year? We had a presentation at an earlier session about some measures that they've taken into account to try to reduce this cost. Uh but we might in the end bridge it with onetime money until they are eligible for that state grant. At the end of the day, this one ends up about 700,000 short. uh looking at it that way. We have uh additional one-time items. These are items that that Chris you were asking about. What is that 3%? This
009is the superintendent conversations. And so we have a number of items that we need to take a look at that probably are more than just oh we had to fix something for a year. This is something that's probably ongoing. So we have the pilot that's running at Hunter. We need to determine what its future is, whether it's in place for another year, discontinues, is it the model moving forward. Uh we also have contract subs, panorama, and stipens. So these are items that again popped up, but they're they're items that probably need to be addressed on a regular basis. To your question, Julie, on school closures, what we're you're right in that when we close schools, there are certain positions that we hold on to. What this uh is representing is that yes, we would hold
010on to positions, but we need to turn around and put them right back into the new Brock Bank High School or uh junior high. You don't have to do that, but that's how this is presented at this time is yes, we will have savings. Yes, we will have administrators. And yes, we need to hire some administrators for the new school. So, we just uh have lined those up just logically. So, this kind of demonstrates the cash flow but not necessarily a savings. Correct. This is changing from one one pocket to the other. Um and at this point we are receiving the requests in from the programs and uh at the at this time it's about $3.5 million of other programming that uh we are looking at and analyzing uh for the upcoming school year. So
011when you roll that all together and again this is just saying hey we're holding on to everything. We're going to do everything. We come up about $7 million short in our funding. And so that becomes the question. What do we do? We may not like $7 million, which is fine. Uh I have the opportunity to now go into each of these areas and start trimming, if you will. This is a program this it was a state program. It's all done. It's out of our system. We're not going to worry about it anymore. If they're if they've depprioritized it, we probably are in the same place. So it comes off the list. Or there are programs uh that maybe they're coming in at $5 million, but we could scale that to something around three or two
012or something like that. So there is an exercise to trim this and that will happen. So that this is not your final number. Again, these are estimates anyway. Um but at the end, my guess is we won't trim it to zero. So, we still have a question of how how do we want to move forward uh with these requests and these challenges, but 7 million I mean that that number represents if we had the programming that we thought we needed. Mhm. Correct. Yep. So, so not even like if we if we wanted to do all these things best education ever even where just like this is status quo, right? Yeah. This is avoiding cutting. Yeah. because the legislature cut and accepting the requests that are coming in at face value. That's what this represents. It
013also um includes a 1% cola. 1% cola is 5 million. So a 2% cola would put us that much deeper. 3%. And you can do the math. We just wanted to give you a comparison of what what 1 what percent looks like. Correct. Yeah. This is illustrative. That's why I'm saying it's this isn't this isn't our target. You know, this is not the money we have. This is not a proposal in any way, shape, or form. This is just a straight up look at what numbers look like. Yep. And and what will happen in the next four weeks as we try to to fit into whatever the revenue is that we have. Do you have an idea about how much you trim like when the full ask I guess comes through about how much do
014you end up trimming down? So this what how much of this seven million will go down before we see it again? Are you anticipating? So I have already gone through my own list but it's in my head. It's not been vetted with anybody but I can pull the this down by about $2 million. Just I can explain that. I probably don't want to do that here right at this moment, but but I can I can step it back probably two million without major consternations. So this so that's the the idea for 26 is we're short um illustrated at 7 million. Uh but as we look at the full impact of the vote and boarded leeway programs, we are losing revenue over the next several years. So we're receiving 20 or we plan to receive $20
015million in guarantee money for 2026. That will step down to 14 million. So we're already looking at a $6.5 million deficit in 2027 without even getting into a legislative session. I mean, we're we are stepping backwards. The year after that, another $6 million. So, we're looking at something that is looking like we might need to talk about a tax policy, like how do we want to approach this? Is this something that we'll absorb? Is it something that we need to replace with other revenues? Uh, meaning through our property taxes. On top of that, we have school fees that are stepping away. Now, we have onetime money to help us get through the next several years, but by the time we get to 2029, we probably need to finish the one-time exercise and get into ongoing
016monies for the revenue that we will lose from school fees, which is about $1.7 million. So, so I'm just stretching your brains a little bit is we we have this year to contemplate, but it's on the edge of two or three more years that have decreasing revenues. uh at from the state. So Todd on the voted and board leeway um the who is saving money from that? Is it the I I mean I'm assuming it's coming out of income tax, right? Like are income tax will have more or and then hopefully they'll think that they'll lower that and then the taxpayer will save. Who's going to save? So the source of money is income tax. So the guarantee is are helping to augment your own local tax. So it it's state money helping your local
017money. So when they don't have to give state money through this program, it's available for the legislature to direct somewhere else. We were working during the session to make sure that that freed up money. So in our case, the the seven or so or $14 million when you add it all up wouldn't leave this program. And they resisted that. They did not want to commit to that money. In fact, in House Bill Two, they removed uh a provision that if money is undistributed at the end of one fiscal year, it gets distributed in the next year through the formula. They struck that language out. So they're capturing all of the money that's not getting distributed, but we won't know where it will go until the next legislative session. So this 20 million that we're receiving
018is coming out of income tax. Correct. But they're saying that now it sounds like somehow they're putting that money in a more flexible pot. They're just not allocating it so it can be used very flexibly. So, does it somehow come to us and then it returns to them looking like something else or being called something else? So, so if I follow the pattern that they've used in the past, when this program uh is overfunded, they will use that money the next year to support the value increase of the WPU. Oh, okay. So, will we see it come back? Most likely. Most likely through the WPU, but it won't be this program. But ultimately they'll say yes, the taxpayer is saving this money because we're lowering income tax. I doubt that they're I guess you could
019tell that story. I mean, so this will free up some $14 million. Does it become the next tax cut? Could be. Does it go to the WP? Could be. Okay. Does it go to fund some other program? which could be the same story for school fees or any other cuts. Because when it's free, it's you can tell your you can tell your own story as to where you thought the money went. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask maybe I I don't know. Uh so it was a HB37. Okay. Senator Oh, SB37. Sorry. Uh that rerouted the money. Oh, yes. would I don't know how to say this delicately would that would is there a commitment still that they would be funding at the same amount that if it were going directly to us through that
020or would this be maybe the money that they're now going to direct towards us so that they can have that money in the pot does that make sense yeah it's so I'll give you a couple of answers so The first answer is that Senate Bill 37 directs $842 million that is collected or will be collected through property tax to be deposited into the state's general fund. The bill also carries language that directs the state treasurer to transfer the equal amount that they receive. So that $842 million to the state board of education as income tax dollars. So the first question is we we will get the money. It it will just change its color. It will go from a a property tax piece of money to an income tax piece of money through this mechanism.
021So that's it's it's a bunch of accounting. So what so once it's an in like well I'll tell you what once it's once it's an income tax though can they then say oh we have plenty of income tax we're going to give you a refund. So can they refund that then? So so that transfer doesn't accomplish that purpose. the question. It sets the stage for the next process, which is we get to next year and say there's income tax growth. Let's say there's $100 million of new money. Well, under the constitution, that could only go to a couple of places. But if the legislature has needs over in a noneligible program, let's call it public safety or call it transportation, they they need money over there. They can now take this hundred million dollars that
022they otherwise would have to give to education and run it through the general fund and free it up for those other purposes. And the vehicle that they can do that through is higher education. So they swap out higher education's funding. Instead of receiving income tax, they get this general fund appropriation and then they start to exchange those. It's what they've been doing since 1996 when they created the education fund. It was designed to funnel money through higher education into the rest of government and circumvent the constitution. They've just created another pathway using property tax to accomplish the same. So it impacts future years. It doesn't we're not harmed. We don't lose money. We don't go backwards now because of this mechanism. It just opens the door for up to 842 million to get funneled through
023another mechanism into reg general government which is kind of what amendment A was trying to accomplish. This is just a backdoor approach and it's limited. It's only 842 million. It's not the whole collection of income tax. So that's a complicated answer, but that's Thanks for putting a positive spin on it, Todd. I did work for state government at one time. I think I fought against public ed in a couple of me. Anyway, I know I'm a turncoat. The days when I worked for community and economic development. I got some stories to tell. All right. So, as we look at the challenge for the 26th year and knowing that we have uh challenges on revenue into the next several years, we want to take a look at tax policy. Um, so I'm going to run you
024through some perspectives and then talk about uh what our levies are doing for us right now. I always love to talk about taxes, but I always get myself in trouble because of the words I use and the way I say things. So I'm going to try and set some frameworks here so that I don't get in a lot of trouble. The the first one is uh the first framework or perspective is tax rate. Uh all the way up until about the mid80s uh taxing entities, school boards would talk about taxes in terms of mill rates or just we call them tax rates today, but a percentage of tax. that that's how you would have your conversation with the community. Hey, we're going to raise your your taxes 5%. Or something like that. We're g but
025it was all about the rate. If if we weren't going to change your rate, we weren't increasing your taxes because we were measuring it by the tax rate. And in fact, today, even after the the 80s, there are several state programs that key off of tax rate. And if you increase your tax rate, often now called tax effort, you get more state money. And if you decrease your tax rate, you get less state money. It's kind of like what we're seeing with the voted and board. They've taken the hold harmless away. So the rate's going to come down. It's a rate driven conversation. But that's that's the history is that's the perspective. Your rate, if you don't change it, you didn't range change taxes. And if you increased your rate, you increase taxes. and if
026you decreased your rate, you decreased your taxes. That's how that conversation went for many, many, many years. And then in the 80s, the truth and taxation process or the certified tax process was introduced to some degree to overcome the misperception that well, even though you hold your tax rate the same, if my property values go up, I'm paying more taxes. So, let's let's have some truth about what's really happening. So they changed the measure from rate conversation to revenue. So now if you uh assess your taxes in a way that you get the same revenue next year as you did this year, you didn't raise taxes. So that's now the framework is how how do you measure a tax increase? Well, it's all about revenue. Did you increase your revenue? If you don't increase your
027revenue, then you didn't raise taxes. Doesn't matter what your rate did. your rate could have gone all over the place, but if you're not generating more revenue, you didn't generate more tax. Does that make sense on a revenue basis? Then we get to the taxpayer perspective and the taxpayer simply looks at their tax bill and says, "I paid $500 last year and now I'm paying $550 this year. You raised my taxes." Doesn't matter what the rate was. Doesn't matter what the revenue was. they just they're looking at their tax bill and saying it went up so you raised my taxes and uh that has some challenges to it because why the the rate or why your tax went up depends on some different things. So, back in the old days, we could take a look
028at someone's tax notice and say, "Hey, we told you to we didn't raise your taxes because our tax rate is the same from one year to the next." And the only reason you're paying more money is, "Oh, look, your assessed valuation went up." So, we didn't raise your taxes. The tax assessor raised your taxes because our rate stayed the same. they just appraised or they said your house is of greater value. Sorry, not our fault. Go talk to the tax assessor and go have them, you know, re readjust and and take that away. Um that got complicated when we got into the world of the certified tax rate because the certified tax rate now uh takes the aggregate of all the properties in a taxing jurisdiction and does this calculation on the revenue to say
029what was your revenue last year? What did your assessed valuations go up to? Oh, we're going to have to drop the tax rates to keep it the same because you've had appraisals go up. If you're an individual homeowner and let's say your your individual property went up 5% but the average calculation for everybody in that jurisdiction was 2%. The certified rate didn't help you. In fact, you are going to pay more taxes because the certified rate is on this aggregate level. It's not on the individual taxpayers level. So that's where the the Brians and the Todds of the world get to talk to taxpayers and we have to figure out, oh, the certified rate only went up 5%, but look, your assessed valuation went up 10%. And we're back to the old conversation, you got
030to go talk to your tax assessor and have a conversation with them as to why your property went up. But it wasn't because the school district had raised your taxes. That this is just an artifact of how the the tax rate is calculated. And it gets really it's frustrating. And uh so when we have our tax hearings, the the the Brian Ipsson's and Todd Hobbs of the world are asked to field questions and we're trying to figure out, okay, what what perspective did the question come from? What perspective do I need to give the answer from? And how do we reconcile those two worlds? So, so it's just challenging and and so we can have conversations saying, "Hey, we didn't raise any taxes this year." Sure enough, someone's tax got raised. It's it's it's going
031to happen. Um, there's a fourth perspective. I I don't know if I should get into the fourth perspective or not. Let's do it. You all look like you're only half asleep, so I'll put you the rest of the way to sleep. The fourth perspective is is a legislative perspective. So each of our levies has rules around them. So your debt service levy has rules around it. Your capital levy your voted in board and they from their perspective when they look at these discrete levies they say if any one of those changes then you have a tax increase. So, we might say, "Hey, we're going to take our debt service, some of our debt service levy, and go slide it over to our capital levy," which is what we've been doing for the last couple years.
032From the legislative perspective, they say, "No, you raised your taxes. You got to go through truth and taxation because you took it out of this world and you put it over in this other world." But from a from the revenue framework, we didn't we're taking the $1 that was over here and we're just going to assess it over here. So, it's the same dollar just a different bucket. We didn't raise taxes. But the legislative perspective says yes, you did because your debt service could have been refunded back to the taxpayer when you finished paying your bond payments and then you raised it on your capital levy. So you actually did raise your levies and so that's why we go through truth and taxation is it's that perspective could have given it back and you decided
033to collect it anyway. Does that make sense? So there's that last perspective is the one that we probably have the hardest time trying to explain to taxpayers is wait it's the same dollar it's just coming from a different levy. We're okay but maybe we're not. So Todd, barring I mean what the example that you just gave when we uh it's when we increase the tax rate that it triggers truth in taxation. It's not the rate, it's the revenue. Oh, it is the revenue. It is still the revenue. But now it's being triggered because it went from one bucket to another because we would say the revenue is the same. It's $1 here, $1 here. I didn't I didn't raise taxes. My revenue didn't change. But the legislature comes in and says,"Well, this came from this
034bucket and now you're going to take it from this other bucket." So that does trigger truth and taxation. So that's that's where again depends on what perspective you want to look at it through. From the district's perspective, a dollar is a dollar, but from that legislative perspective, a tax rate or a tax levy is a different tax levy. Tom, can you confirm? So we've had taxation for the last several years because of the moving of the buckets. But we've also frozen which rate? The certified rate. So we've frozen between two rates. So So in in our in our efforts of the the pay as you go process, we have two dynamics going. The first one is the one I've described where the principal and interest pay or the debt service payment won't be collected over
035in the debt service levy. We're going to collect that over on the capital levy. So that's where from that perspective it's flat. Same same dollar just different bucket. On top of that, by freezing the rate, we are capturing or we're circumventing the uh certified tax rate process because the certified tax rate process would say if valuations went up, your rate should come down, but we're holding on to that. And so that does generate more revenue. So it's not just the same dollar, same dollar bucket story. It is a do a new dollar because we're not letting the certified rate pull that down. So that is also a tax increase. Yeah. So we've done both. We Yeah, by design we've done both. And so I've got a chart here. Um so this is back when the
036bond proposition was put together on this. You can see the the high point of our debt service payments was at 60 million. And so if the if we only did that first part of the story, which is we're we're take the money from the debt service and put it over in the capital, it would have just flatlined at 60 million. It it would have only been 60 million. But that's not enough money to support the full uh future cost of the pay as you go program because we have inflationary cost of construction. So built into that was also to capture additional revenue that would grow and the mechanism was to freeze the the two the combination of the two rates at a at that level so that we then have an upward slope on this
037line. It's not just flat at 60, but it grows because our construction costs would also grow into the future. So that was by design and to be clear that was I mean I wasn't on the board at the time and so maybe you two can speak to that. It wasn't necessarily like as a voter I didn't I didn't I didn't read that but when they came out to the community that was presented that said these are the models this is the one that you're going to vote on and what we would do is we would continue to keep that rate where it's at so that we would continue to grow the revenue. So it is it does not it's not subject to the to the um rate change. Correct. That's what so as we voted
038on it we we knew that the board has to take action to hold it at that flat rate. You you have to choose to do that every year. Was that part of was that just part of the understanding or was that part of what was on the like on the voter? So your voter information pamphlet would not have gone into that kind of detail because the voter information pamphlet is all about why are you raising the the principal and interest or your debt service levy and that was to pay for five schools that was on the the voter information pamphlet. the rest of the story would be happening probably outside of the voter information pamphlet as you have your different uh community meetings and I see a couple that might want to jump in here
039uh because I wasn't part of those conversations but the voter information pamphlet is is prescribed by law and it actually would have told everybody we're going to raise your taxes because you're going to increase the principal and interest payment uh source of money. So to clarify for the public's sake, whoever might be listening or might listen to this hereafter. Yes. And we have that documentation that shows the information we provided in 2016 on the different options. And then as part of the 2017 bond, there was a voter information pamphlet that talked about the tax increase in and of itself, but then the also the 40-year strategic plan and how the rate would be preserved and the revenue retained after the bonds were paid for. so that we could administer this 40-year strategic plan. Yeah. And
040this particular slide comes from those conversations, actual Yeah. Yeah. So, this isn't my creation. This is I've pulled it from documents back in 2017. You can see this has got Dale Oakland's logo up there. Uh LYRB. Yeah. Yeah. Our financial advisor. Yeah. Just to be clear, the public never voted on that plan. That's the board who votes on that plan, right? The public voted to approve correct not vote to approve this financial model. Yeah, I think that's correct. But I think the board or the community voted on that plan knowing that our intention was to continue to maintain that revenue because we were very clear that there would be future truth in taxation and that we would be shifting that revenue over to our long-term capital plan um over the but but to your point,
041the reason why I'm so willing to articulate it again and again and again is because as soon as somebody voted for that bond, they forgot that we were going to do that. Well, and also Ben, as much as I mean I witnessed how much you guys worked to make sure and get the word out, right? But the verbiage on the ballot, it only spoke about the bond money, right? It didn't speak about this second part. Yeah. So, to Kim's point, the the actual voter authorization was for the bond itself um by virtue of the fact that they continue to vote for you and uh it's because you've committed to make this plan work, right? Um that's that was the commitment to voters overall even though they didn't have a direct say in this yeartoyear. Also
042there was no when we worked hard and went out to the communities I can't even remember how many dozens of meetings um we did. The intent was never to try to trick the public. It was never trying to hide this. In fact, it was quite the opposite. We were very here's some options. here's what each one of these means. And then a lot of that was the feedback, you know, that we got from those community meetings. So, I just want to be clear that there was never this desire, if you're thinking that to slide it by the public and not have them understand if they went to any of our meetings and took that opportunity to be educated on what we were trying to do, what the end goal was, a few different pathways, that
043information was discussed, not only like written in this little paragraph in small print, it was it was part of our discussion. You can actually still see all these uh peripheral materials on the GSD future website under the bond section. And uh there's a Facebook page that has all of our videos and peripheral materials that advertise what we were going to do. After that full-long year campaign to educate the community and give them some feedback, we did a formal survey through Y2K. They came out and that's the plan that uh the community told us they wanted us to go for. So, while they didn't formally vote for it, the survey indicated that they supported that plan. All right, I will just flip through a couple slides here because I was told that we're done at seven.
044So, uh so the the question often comes up, how much headroom do we have in our taxes? So, this is representing the voted and board uh with some technicalities in there, but we basically have about $61 million still available in the voted and in the board about 37 million. So, that's as we start to chip away, you know, you think 7 million7 million $21 million that's going to take up most of the board local levy. that's starts to feel uncomfortable because you get close to your max because then that restricts future abilities to balance budgets because it's just not available anymore. So, you want to keep that in mind. You know that there actually is a ceiling um in that particular levy. Uh same on the capital. Um we have about 70 million headroom left
045in that levy. And so as we move forward in our pay as you go program that will slowly be used uh into the into the future years. On both slides or I guess on this slide uh you'll see that to increase taxes by $1 million uh hits a taxpayer of a primary home about $5.94. So you can do some mental math there as you look at if I have to raise taxes by $7 million, multiply it basically by six and that's what the impact would be on a taxpayer of their primary home. So just some tools there for you. Uh the last piece as we come into the final stretch of our budget conversations, we teed this up last time when we talked and this has to do with our deferred maintenance or or our
046regular capital. So the first hour we've talked about new builds, remodels. This is prospective uh changing the properties, uh the facilities, but we also have all of the responsibilities to keep those properties maintained and moving forward uh regular replacements of systems. And uh when we look at that and and this is again an estimate based on the the top 10 analysis that Don does with his group, we're we we got behind on uh deferred maintenance by $58 million. So we have a real challenge and this will also be an element that we need to take up as we go through the budget process is what what will the appetite be to start to work down that deferred maintenance amount? how how do we keep the facilities we have in place operational and working well until
047the day comes that they're either rebuilt or they go through a significant remodel. And so this is just a real life page. We we really need to figure out what our capital program will be beyond just new builds and remodels. And I turn it back to you Any further questions, discussion? Yeah, I um How did we disco how did we discover that 58 million of deferred revenue? I mean, deferred costs. Well, it's it's not a discovery. It's plain every year that we have $9 million to fund requests and our requests vary between 50 million a year and 70 million a year. Okay. Yeah. I So when when this the FCI scores were done back in 2015 16, we had a $1 billion deferred maintenance calculation. Add inflation onto that and we're close to two billion.
048So this is just each year it expresses itself in what we really would like to do versus what we can do. And I would call these 58 million dollar chunks, not our nice to haves. They're they're they're not a lot of wants. These are the needs that we're falling behind upon. So it's just the continual expression of this. So, for example, a re-roofing project at Churchill, we did three segments of 11. We divided into 11 segments to replace that roof in stages because we can never afford a complete re- roof. Cottonwood High School, we probably have divided into 20 segments because we can't afford the millions of dollars to do it in one fell swoop. We're managing what we can based upon 9 million cash flow. Yeah. My predecessor 15 years ago had the exact
049same capital budget as I do. His dollars went a lot farther than than mine. um this discussion maybe I we should have had when I just when we talked about this specific thing as a in a study session but I I think that just it occurs to me are there other shortfalls that we're not aware of because in the four years that I've been here I was not aware that we of this problem and so when I saw in the budget 9 million I went yeah we've been doing that so it works it's great and I didn't know and So, I guess I I'm saying to myself, gosh, now I'm worried there are other places where we have shortfalls like this that eventually you're you're going to come and say like technology. Although, I did
050see that in the projects area. So, I'm glad to see that because I was I wasn't aware we were putting aside money like that for technology. Well, I was a little, but that was good to see to me. So, I I I don't know. I just want to ask the question of you specifically, Todd. Like, yeah. So, I'm I'm going through the effort to try to discover those things. We I've gone through different aspects of even our insurance programs and how we're paying for the current wellness center and whether we have the right financial strategy in place and don't have a surprise even in that world. So, so as I trip through and and find things that are getting teased out and so this is the one that is significant enough uh that we need
051to talk about. Uh is it the only thing? I don't know yet, but I'll keep looking. And is this something that has been being put off for everybody? Everybody was just sort of like, well, yeah, we and then you said, "No, no, no. We can't continue this." Is this what happened to a degree? Some of this is observing that we're in crisis management mode and we're using economic triage to deal with things and sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. And Don, I'm going to actually resay what I'm gonna assume Don's been ringing the bell forever. because I do know that's been happening. I didn't want to pretend like that wasn't happening. Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts, questions? Okay. I guess I wonder I guess I wonder so where do we go from here?
052Yep. So, perfect. So, the next steps are uh under statute this the superintendent has a responsibility to submit what's called a tentative budget by June 1st. So that's so we will take all of this exercise uh that we've shared with you today and any input that you have along the way and we will put that tenative budget together and have that available to you by June 1st and it's also available to the public as well. That becomes the baseline and in many cases that becomes the budget that then is presented to the board at its uh adoption hearing. So that's that's where we are at this point. So, we'll we'll go through our internal review, put some a proposal together that will come to you. And the colorful budget that you showed up there, you
053presented that to legislators at Capitol Hill. Is that what I heard you say? Not not not to legislators in that format. We definitely gave feedback on all the programs that were being cut or defunded. Uh that is for us. So, so I put it together for our conversation. I thought you said that they asked Granite to show them like how did the session impact them? Did I get that wrong? So, I was I was asked by the governor's office to represent what the GS the grant school district impact was. And so, I gave them this page. So, not not the multicolored one. I gave them this and said, "Okay, this is what the session did for granted." And that's why I left the voting and board on there at its full impact because that's what's
054really happening to us. It'll take a few years to get there, but that's really what happened this session to Granite School District on the once we had a a base idea of this information. I did share a rough summary and I think I think you guys were CCD on that message that went to let our legislators and a handful of other legislators who expressed interest. Um just I didn't want to get to our budget lunchon and have them be like, "Wait, what? why didn't you tell us about this? And obviously there was very little that could be done on that front on the last day of the legislative session, but we wanted them to be aware of what those impacts were. Did you have any reach out to you? Um I had a couple uh
055legislators reply um and then a few after the the legislative session when they had questions for me and I said, "I sent you an email about that." And then they said, "Oh, there it is." Oh crap. Okay. Um, so there was a handful of folks that I did communicate with. So then in spring we'll have a conversation with we'll invite legislators over for the budget lunchon. Um, and we'll also be having our own conversations with them. Um, and then um we as a board will be discussing this basically I would think ongoing until June because we'll be doing negotiations. will be making decisions about funding cuts, right? And do those take place in well obviously negotiations takes place in executive session. Um does the rest take place in executive session as well? So to the
056the to Todd's point between now and that June uh statutorial deadline, it's up to the board to determine how much they want that conversation to happen um in a study session or in other places. So the expectation is that I'll start to communicate some ideas to you and suggestions and then we'll have some other conversations. Yeah. Offline. But if there was a desire to come back and do this again in in April and May, we can certainly accommodate that. I think I want to like just send the message that I'm thinking about public people who are listening that this is a really collaborative effort. Yes. This is something that we like talk