Stafford School Board Budget Work Session 2 19 2026

001A motion to approve the agenda. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? Okay, then let's moving right along. Who's Who's got the Okay, >> we have to do a roll call. >> Oh, we do. Yeah, we do. >> Technically, technically, no, this is a work session. all in the roll call. >> All right. So, I'm going to kick us off. Um, and then Mr. Fulmer, I'm going to tag team a little bit here on the slides for tonight. Uh, first before we get started, I did want to thank you for your questions and I think we've gotten all of those back to you at this point. U happy to have follow-up questions after tonight or anything that comes to mind. But also want to thank staff. They've worked incredibly

002hard to get uh get answers to all of those questions and make sure those were provided. And so, um, it's just been it's been a big lift, but hopefully it's been really helpful for you to have those. >> Do we have that? Do we have written answers to the questions or they all online? They're all online. >> They're online. If you want, we can work on that right now. >> It would be helpful if somebody if somebody's available. >> Anybody else want >> No, I got I asked you. >> Yeah. Because Okay. >> Yeah. sent make that official. I'm requesting anything in writing. Please. >> So, like I said, staff worked incredibly hard on I think you'll see that in the responses and so um you know, just just want to thank staff in terms

003of their work there. So, uh tonight we are going to um we're going to provide an update on what is the state outlook. We'll talk a little bit about the local outlook as well. The county administrator presented his uh proposed budget on Tuesday. So, give you an update on that. what that looks like along with a brief update on CIP. I know we're really working on operating budget, but I think there's some things that are relevant to share in terms of the CIP that was proposed. Uh then we'll go through I think the big part of the conversation of the board was to talk around health insurance scenarios and and license scale scenarios. So we've done some put together some options there for you to discuss and then we'll talk a little bit about um

004the other funds. And so really hopeful that tonight that we'll get some board direction uh in terms of what we can do to help us set up for uh the board adoption on Tuesday. So first to recap uh just as a reminder uh on the 27th of January I I submitted the proposal to you in terms of the budget uh the recap here shows that the governor Yncan proposed 21.6 million in state funds to come to us uh was the total and we were requesting or I requested uh 18.6 6 million from the county that included the new schools at 10.6 million and then the local match of 3.75% average for all employees. And uh if you'll remember the the governor did propose a 2% raise in each year of the bianium. So part of

005that coverage is not just for the non-SOQ positions but everything above and beyond the 2%. So the additional 1.75%. We are projecting uh about 900,000 uh in federal funds and an increase there as a part of the proposed revenue uh what we believe for revenue in the proposed budget. So then uh a couple things on the state. So uh Sunday is budget Sunday and so we're really looking forward to seeing the House and Senate versions of the budget uh coming out on Sunday. Uh it's really don't have a lot of information to report other than that because we've been waiting to see what comes out of that. uh should we see an increase in the salaries from two to 3% we're unsure uh what that's going to look like. There's been some talk about some

006additional at risk funding. So we are really looking forward to that. Um and then you know usually what what we're going to do is we're going to try to make our best guess in terms of what that looks like until we get the calculation tool from VDOE that really gives us our you know firmer numbers in terms of what we can expect. So we'll have more to report after this weekend. We have uh I did want to talk a little bit about the bonus. So, Governor Yncan did propose a 2% bonus uh for FY26, our current fiscal year for SOQ positions, and that did have a required local match. There has been some changes in that uh in that legislation at the general assembly level this year. They shifted it from 2% to $1,500 uh

007with a required local match. We don't have guidance on this yet on what this could look like. I'll I'll share it from the superintendent. We've talked about getting flexibility. If you recall in the past, if they're going to let we don't like a bonus, didn't and we shared that. But if you're going to do a bonus, we'd like to give a flexibility. So, we can give flexibility to non SOQ as well. And it doesn't have to be 1500. Maybe it's 700 or a,000 everybody and have some flexibility there. Um, they've also shared that uh there would be flexibility for us to do it in FY26 or FY27. And so again, we hope to find more about that this weekend, but wanted to flag that for you as we start to think about costs for that.

008We did put some costs on this slide. We do believe and this is just our our estimates uh because we haven't gotten officially from the state yet is that that the state share of that bonus would be 3.6 million and for us to fund it for all employees would require an additional 4.2 million for a total of 7.8. So obviously uh we don't believe this is something we can do we're going to recommend doing in FY26. Um given where we are we appreciate if they're set on doing this. We appreciate the flexibility in FY27 and we're hopeful to have additional flexibility in what that could look like and or perhaps that goes into um salaries uh as we look at the upcoming budget. >> So does that mean we have more nonsoq positions than SOQ

009positions? >> Well, it's SOQ and it's also the LTI adjustment. So they're only covering the state portion of SOQ positions >> and Okay, got it. Right. Because I'm just like a bigger number and I would seem like it should >> and it's based on their state average salary calculations, not our >> Well, these are flat amounts. So actually they changed it to the flat amount. >> That that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. >> And this 7.8 is the full,500. Is that correct? Because you were just saying that even like >> you could do half or whatever. Okay. So 1,500 for all is 7.8. And this is on top of what you already recommended. >> Yeah, this was not included in in my recommendation because at the point when I did >> No, no,

010I just wanted to make sure >> at the point when I did when I submitted my proposal uh to you, um it was just out of the caboose building and it was in FY26. We didn't even have the flexibility for FY27 at that time. So now they've moved it where there should be some flexibility in FY27. Again, we're waiting to hear this weekend in terms of what might come out of that. >> Okay. So that's, you know, kind of where the state is at this point. Again, we'll find more out this weekend. I'd be happy to share that with you, the updates. So again, the county uh administrator did present his uh proposal for a budget for the FY27 budget on Tuesday. And so this slide shares uh what that looks like and the impact

011uh to schools. So, you'll see year-over-year it did suggest a $15.1 million increase um in the county transfer, another $73,000 uh in the public day school for a total of $15.2 million increase. He did in his presentation, he did talk about the new schools and the commitment that this county has made to opening up the new schools and the commitment there and pledging that uh 10.5 10.6 million towards opening of the new schools. Um and so he did there he also talked about uh debt service for 9 million um which we have not included in our in our charts and tax calculations but they it is included on this slide and then so then they also allocated about 4.5 million uh to schools for um above and beyond the 10 point for salaries. >> They're

012not pulling that 9 million in debt service from the 15. >> Correct. It was 24 million total when they included >> service. Yes. Is the 9 million for FY27 or beyond that? Because the first year after we finish construction, we don't pay the full debt service. It's it's like a prrated amount. >> Our assumption is it's the debt service they're paying in FY27. So you remember we've been pulling funds for the last two years for the big construction project, >> right? But isn't there some little grace period when you finish construction that you're still paying interest only before you start the amortization? Uh I'm not I'm not sure 100% how >> I would just like to know what that if that 9 million the 9 million is the total you that's >> that's the total

013increase for 27 >> is that with the two with the per all the money for the three schools >> all the money that had been borrowed and is going to be start to be paid in 27. >> What about >> but we're still borrowing more money this year and next year. >> Okay. So it is not the total. No, it has not been told, but I I believe it does include principal though. It's not >> authorized the second borrow. >> Mhm. >> That the last meeting, >> right? No, I I just want to make sure because that 9 million sounds a little low to me. >> Yeah. >> It's only going to go up, right? >> And that's the increase. So, they already started to incur some of it, I believe, in FY26 as well.

014So included uh you know in when the county administrator releases his proposed budget, we also get to take a look at their proposed CIP. And so we're talking operating uh budget tonight, but I did just want to give a couple highlights because I think there's some really positive news here uh for the sec. So last year we received full funding for the first time in 3R. So the the county administrators proposed CIP does fully fund our 3R request again at 19.2 million. Great. Um, we also we see that Drew Middle School and Hartwood Elementary School, uh, North Stafford Finance Wing are all still on schedule and there will be a 2028 opening there. And Rodney Thompson Middle School, critical systems of restoration, that stays on track there. Uh, we believe that I think that's the

015uh in 2027 uh, opening for to finish that. Um, the rising star complex and day school does stay on the county's proposed schedule. If you recall, we had it on 2030 opening, they had it on 2032. So that in terms of their release, CIP does keep that at 2032 and I know that was that was one of your top priorities. So I wanted to make note of that for you. But also when we were talking in legislative and we were listening to you describe um what uh Delegate Carol is looking at is that that 2032 gives us a little bit of breathing room to better get funding and support for the rebuild of or the new build of Rising Star Day School complex. But um our date would make it very So, >> and maybe

016that is a gift, >> right? And the thought is that that delegate Carol and other folks are working on actually if it's a regional school, so it's larger, can take more kids. >> Um, and they've got buy in from Fredericksburg, >> King George. So, >> so we had the feasibility study, >> the feasibility study, if that goes through, that would be due back to the general assembly by November 1st. And so, yes, so that does put us on a tight timeline for 2030. >> Yeah. Um >> so while it is something and we need and we do need to discuss you know plan B's obviously for um both thing both situations there that we currently have. Um I still think though if we are if this turns out to be a gift that we can

017certainly use that that date might not be offensive. >> Right. >> My concern would be if we push it back then there's the additional cost of what we do in the interim. So that's what I'm saying is that we need to discuss, right? Well, and also with new Drew opening in 2030 that we do need to have a an option for that. So, and we have been discussing it. So, that's all right. >> The other key point that just wanted to point out to you here is that in the proposed uh CIP from the county administrator, it does push elementary school 20, middle school 9, and high school 7 outside the 10-year CIP. So, it does push that off there. the 10 year 35 >> 35 >> it's 2035 and the board did I mean

018you you added that asterisk to our uh request that went over that we were taking a look at enrollment and and where that was but that does push that out there so just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So quick some some really positives here. So just want to at least share those wins. We are >> appreciate that they're fully funding the three hours again. >> That is amazing. >> One just one other thing I want to add >> just so it's a we know it's a proposal. It is a >> the proposal is too far >> is the fleet service facility is still in the 10-year window. It did push back a couple of years. Um so it's you know I think in seven years kind

019of like seven or eight so it's something we're tracking but we've got to really dig down and look at the rest of the CIP in 2000. >> Okay. >> All right. So then if you take a look at uh the proposal that I submitted to you in terms of the FY27 and you compare that to the county administrator's proposed budget, uh if you compare that side by side where we are, it is about $3.4 million short uh in terms of again my proposal to you and the county administrators. Just wanted you to be aware of how those two stack up. >> All right. So, um, we talked a lot about health insurance at our last meeting and, uh, really over the last year between FAB C's and board meetings and midyear updates. Uh, so, um,

020this is a a chart. It's important. We got a lot. >> It does feel a bit like an albatross right now for the health care bank. >> Yes. So, um, I included this in here. This is not new, although I did update our FY26 projection. So, what we didn't have previously was our little red bar extending up. So, we added that for the approved fund transfer that the board approved at our at our last board meeting. Um, and and you'll notice um the red actually extends a little bit above our projected cost of our black line. And that was um if you remember in general when we approved it, I said, "Look, this is a range right now. We think this is hopefully our worst case scenario of approving that full 7 million." You know,

021maybe maybe we're hoping in the $5 million range what we needed. Worst case is is that would be additional funds that go to our fund balance and our health benefits fund. Um, and I point that out because as we continue on through the discussion today and look at some scenarios, that might be something that that we explore going forward. >> But what happens if um FY27 has a little red cap? >> Um well because last year's little uh chartine doesn't reach the black line. >> Correct. So, we we tapped into fund balance in FY25 and we have about $1.4 million in fund balance left after the end of 25. Um, and so with the additional funds in 26, we're hoping that we maintain or build on that fund balance a little bit. Uh, but it's

022a great point, Dr. Chase, because I think it's going to come up here in a few slides. So, >> we'll we're going to come back to 27. >> All right. So, um had a lot of questions just about um kind of the makeup of our of our health benefits between retirees and our active employees. So, I wanted to touch on a few things. One, um our Antho plan is offered to all of our um active employees. It's also offered to our retirees to stay on that plan up until their Medicare eligible age, which is 65. >> And what retirees define? um >> like if I if if I'm a teacher right now in my fifth year and I leave I would not be considered >> you have to you have to retire from VRS and

023um right now we had updated our policy uh to 10 years of consecutive service with the division. Um but there's people grandfathered in you have to have five years of consecutive service upon retirement. >> So you can't come here for your last year at 35 years retire and then stay on our health insurance plan. You have to be here at least for 5 years, but you have to retire from VRS. >> So, can you have 5 years here, go somewhere else, retire? >> You have to have that five years before >> and retire with us. >> Retire with us. And that >> or 10 depending >> and that's all discretionary with us. Correct. >> I mean, it's >> correct. Correct. >> All right. And so they can do they pay the employee share of the

024premium or do they pay nothing for the insurance? >> They pay the full premium for um they pay the full premium. So they're allowed to stay on. They can keep their spouse on. They have to pay the full premium. So the employee and the employer >> portion of that. Um the retiree reimbursement piece is just the employee portion that we would reimburse based on their years of service completed with us. Well, how much is the employeeing reimbursement then? Because I'm I'm a little confused about that. Is that the 97% or 93% that we're paying now or is that something else? >> Hold the thought because I've got more information coming. I hope maybe it'll clear it up a little bit. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh so, uh that contract that we have currently with with

025Anthem, um expires October 1st 20 or September 30th, 2028. So, um, we're in the process of competing that. We're prepping it. That's a big a big bid that will go out and we do that jointly with the county. Uh, so we'll be starting to work on that, um, later this calendar year. Um, probably not even too late into this calendar year. It takes a lot of prep work. Uh, but we'll want to have that completely approved, probably next spring, a little over a year from now, because we have to get that information out. Um, and then we have to have it out and available for open enrollment pro period for employees so they know um who our insurance carrier provider is and what the premiums if we adjust them will be. >> And I've asked

026that um that be put on the joint schools working next meeting >> because it's a shared service and we just can't keep having the prices go up like this. So >> is the county seeing the same type of increase? >> Uh they are. You know, obviously they're less employees than us, but they're percentage wise roughly the same. Uh so and also we offer a Medicare part B supplement to our retirees once they reach Medicare eligible age at um 65 plus there we don't play we don't pay the claims there. So on Anthem insurance we pay the claims for retirees and our active employees and we're fully fully insured except our stop-loss gas of gap of $200,000 is our cap. Um, so we also offer the supplement and we we have adjusted that over the years

027that is actually out to bid right now. Uh, and uh, it was kind of a a great time and transition to bring our full anthem back to the joint schools working committee. We're actually already been in talks with the county to have our joint schools working committee discuss the Medicare part B supplement because that's also jointly bid out with the county. Uh so um those are employees or retirees pay that premium and then potentially if they're eligible they would have that reimbured as well at we do it twice a year in in December and June they would receive the reimbursement based on their years of service. >> Okay. So so let's say the premium costs them $600 a year. We would reimburse them that 600 if they had put in the full number of years

028of experience. if they if they have were only here for 10 years, they would get a smaller percentage. >> I I remember sitting down and seeing kind of how it stepped up and >> for their years of service. >> Yeah. >> So, is the reimbursement the total cost of the providing the insurance to those employees? So this $2.1 million that's the total cost to Stafford County for the 122 under anthem and the 602 under Medicare. >> Yes, it is >> total cost >> the full cost. >> So if we add the then we would add up all those reimbursements and the cost that we're paying. I mean do we have an amount per >> person? Um, >> so I have amounts in total I and I might have some of your qu answers uh that

029I can provide on the next slide. So we'll get to in just a minute. >> Um, but it might not be all of them, but I can get I can follow up or answer them while we're here. So just want to point out that one has uh our Medicare Part B supplement has a calendar year plan date. So it'll be effective January 1st, but the open enrollment period starts in October. So that one's on a little bit earlier of a timeline. So, we're actually shooting to make sure we bring that to the the final proposal to the joint schools working committee this summer. I believe it's August. So, we come back from the kind of the July time frame. Uh and then it would come to each board, board of supervisors and school board for

030final approval. All right. Uh so, of all of our employees that are on our Anthem plan um active employees, um 60.7% participate in our health insurance or take our health insurance of our total employee base. And so that's not new. We've shared that a few times. Uh and and really that actually percentage has gone down over the last four or five years. It used to be about 63%. Uh and so it's gradually gone down. Not a ton. >> But but the number has gone up. >> The number of total participants has gone up, but our percentage has gone up. >> The percentage has gone down, but we have more employees. So the number has gone up. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um is that the employees that have taken the plan or the employees that are

031on the plan? because we have a lot of >> double people, right? So even though if only if you're showing the people taking the plan, you might not actually be showing the full benefit that the employees are actually accessing. >> Yeah. And I can um Carter, can you look at how many we have on the double the dual employee plan? >> So the spouse both work for us and both they're getting health insurance, but only one only one's paying for it. So it might look like only 605. So the 60.7 >> it has I'm going to just quickly that's the total number of employees with a plan. Sorry, excluding the spouse that's also on the plan. Okay. >> But but we can tell you how many actually are on that plan >> in the operating

032fund. I don't have the other funds like in front of me, but the operating fund for the premium plan is 121. For the core plan, it's 12. Um, and for the >> So, it's 133 spouses are also on. So, you'll see a small tick up in there, but it's but it's not a lot. >> Okay. So, plus 133. >> Yep. And so of those employees that are taking our health insurance, um the one of the questions that came in was how many of our licensed or service? It was just something that came up in conversation. So we wanted to include that here. It's 57% of our employees taking Anthem are on our license scale and 47% are our service employees. >> That's interesting. I would I would more you know like certainly young people starting

033out would be on a plan how that 57%. No, it's just 57% of the people who take the insurance are yes licensed, >> right? >> So it's probably close to 60 or more% of >> So what she was saying is she was would expect to be more than 43% of the service. Gotcha. Gotcha. >> It's worth more to a service employee because in terms of the >> percentage of salary, >> right? >> That the subsidy is the same. They'll call it a subsidy. the employer share is the same regardless of whether your what your salary is. If your salary is $100,000, if your salary is $30,000, it's still the same amount that the employer is contributing. >> Um, and then so we wanted to also look at of our claims expense paid to Anthem, what

034percentage of that, what's the makeup between active and our retirees? And so 95% of our medical claims expense is from our active employees and our retirees make up 4.9%. So um honestly when when I actually told it up I knew it wasn't a huge amount because it's a smaller number because once they hit 65 they have to come off. So I mean we're looking just at our Anthem plan here. And so you see on our next bullet of our retirees 122 of them on our are on our Anthem plan we have 602 retirees that have hit that 65 plus age that are on our Medicare Part B sub. Right. Um, and then I was probably even more surprised on our on the next couple of bullets. So on Anthem, our total claims expense for our

035retirees was 1.9 million. Uh, and we do our in our operating fund, we pay out, we reimburse those premiums, and that was 2.1 million in FY25. When you look at what um employees are paying into us, what their total retirees, sorry, what total retirees are paying in with their premiums, when you net that out, the total cost to the division of all of our retiree health costs is 2.8 million. And that was surprising to me. I would have expected it to be higher, but those are actual numbers from 2020 >> because of the Medicare coverage, >> right? It's 100% >> Medicare really cuts our claims down, >> right? Well, we don't have any claims once they hit 65. The only expense we have once they hit 65 is if they're eligible for uh reim the

036premium reimbursement reimbursement. >> But I mean that's why >> it's lower than I think. >> But that $2.8 million number includes our reimbursement to employees for their premium reimbursement. >> Okay. I know you had other you might have had other questions with CLA but if you have more >> I'm just trying I'm trying to to put all these >> it's a lot I know >> filling in the blanks with the numbers but it really helps to have this in in writing and >> yeah all right so moving on one of the one of the requests and the questions were if we took part of our VRS rate savings of 6.5 and um wanted to invest that into the license scale and have employee premiums go up to cover that difference. Maybe it's the entire amount,

037maybe it's a partial amount. What would that look like to our premiums? So, we wanted to provide you scenarios. And so, um, also is is a breakout a lot more detail by plan in your packet that was also shared with you, but I'm going to go through the first column here is the superintendent's proposed. So, we are taking the entire 6.5, we are moving it over to the health benefit fund. We are increasing employees premiums between five and 7%. Um, option two, uh, which we're going to come back to on the next slide, but I'm going to explain it a little bit here, which is just if we take that 6.5, we're going to take 3.25 of it and we're going to invest it in the health or the license scale, but we're not going

038to touch the employees premium. So that's the 5 to 7%, we stay there. We now have a deficit in our health benefits fund of 3.25 million. Option three is is if we want to move that 3.25 25 to our license scale, but we want to keep our health benefits fund whole as we have in the superintendent's budget. What do we have to do to employee premiums uh to break out even there? And that's where it's we have to increase employees premiums 59 to 75%. So, it's a it's a big increase. Option four is if we want to do the entire 6.5, have employees pick up the tab there, you're looking at over 100% all the way up to almost 140% increase in our employee premiums. >> I don't think we can do that. I don't

039think these are off the table are working for us to to take the benefit of the health insurance. They couldn't afford to work for us if they had to pay for the full health insurance. >> Yeah. >> For the record, I am not advocating those options. >> No. >> But I don't think I know even I know when schoolboard members asked probably didn't think it was going to be that drastic of an increase, but we just wanted to be transparent and and respond to that with those scenarios. So um next slide as we look at our health options um specifically coming to option five but we look at coming back and kind of looking at option two but taking a slightly different approach if we were if we were set on taking 3.25 and making

040sure some of those VRS savings were reinvested back into our license scale we could do that um leave employee premiums where they're at. You could also if you decide if you want to adjust those a little bit and and tweak them you could. But in this scenario, just leaving them at the 5 to 7% increase. Um, but similar what we've done this past year, but I will say not quite as extreme as this year and last year. Um, is we basically go in saying, uh, we're going to roll the dice again if we end up having high insurance costs in our health benefits fund. We can fall back and go to our um, fund balance that we have or we can also pull from our oped trust fund up to that 3.25 25 or whatever

041that final amount maybe maybe it is. Maybe our health insurance claims level off a little bit and it's not a deficit of 3.25. Maybe it's 1.5. We don't know. These are our projections. Um and honestly, we're projecting probably on the higher end because we that's what we've been seeing the last couple of years. And so maybe it does level off. Uh it is another option that was not requested, but we wanted to make sure that for the past two years we pulled from that OPE trust fund. So, it is an option that we can pay some of those retirees um costs and we have that fund balance to help offset that as well. >> We have the option to cover all of the retirees cost to the school system. Correct from OPED? >> Yes. The

042one thing So, >> I'm suggesting we do it, but I want to make sure we know what our options So, one thing I do want to point out is our net cost after retirees pay was only 2.8 million in 2025, which is less than the 3.25, right? Which is why it says fund balance or OPED fund transfer. I would not and we'd have to check with um the OPED trust fund to see if we can actually take out more, which is >> No, we can't. I mean, it's other postemployment benefits. >> Correct. >> But we can take out what the cost is to us, >> which the net cost is the 2.8. >> 2.8 That's for this year. We don't know what it's going to be. >> Correct. Yes. >> Next year. So this year

043we could conceivably take out 2.8. What >> was the projection taken off this year? >> That was in 25. This year we're actually taking 2.5 because that was um our retiree reimbursement um payout for this year. >> Okay. But our costs are higher than the reimbursement. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But if we looking at sources, >> Dr. I know, but I was just if we did the 2.8 8 million from the OPED fund and we increase the premiums to the next highest level which I think is the 14 to 17%. That would give us a half a million which would be the 3.3 million. >> Yeah. I want to look at those solution not tonight we're not going to be able to do it but we have not addressed this. This is the

044third year in a row that we are coming up millions and millions and millions short. Yes. And I think we need a plan and we need a plan in place for going not for tonight because we have to deal with this budget. But that, you know, that's that's a start. I think we need to acknowledge it. >> It it reflects better what we're paying as far as the employer session goes, but it also gives us that 3.3 million that we're that we're taking out of the RS. So, and the other part of that is is that um we're in a better position to know next year what what the trend is going to be because last year we put in seven million I think for 26 and what was it the year before it was

045like five more >> 5.1 is it this year >> seven >> and next year >> at 10 and next year we're talking about >> next year we're increasing >> yeah so it's it's they're scary big numbers So I don't know. >> Yeah, I I I would suggest we set that as something to be talking about, you know, either at the retreat or somewhere how we're going to address this in the future because this is not just a what do we do next year. It's what's going to happen in the long term, >> you know, and the employees, >> right? Well, and for me, I just really have concerns about >> the plan being that we'll just deal with it next year. Mhm. >> I I feel like for this budget we need to do something

046more than what we have proposed currently, but that's just >> and and we do need to be considering the fact that the service employees have a very high percentage of the participation in this plan. And if we're just looking at increases in the license scale, that's really going to put more of the burden on the increases on >> the service staff. So, I think we we should consider that when we're looking at spreading this around because I would look to look at a compensation for all the employees >> um rather than, you know, just limit it to one. >> But I I I I do hope we we can address this >> and come up with some plan for the future. The plan can always be changed if the picture gets better, but so far

047it's not getting >> right now. We're in this third year now and >> our our increase keeps going. 's tan is getting dented. >> It's also the cost of doing business as well. And it's definitely not the employees fault, you know, it's not it's not on it's across the board overall. So there definitely has to be some um some plan in the future and maybe some stairstepping of of the employees taking on more of that cost and kind of giving them a heads up of hey this is why um the OPED are are we not currently funded the way we ideally should. Am I mixing that up? >> We're 100 million short. So, so I don't know that pulling more money out of that is a is a viable option >> and and it shouldn't

048be a recur like one thing I don't want to do is put a recurring line item line line item in our budget right now where we're planning to pull it out every year. It should be you know that fail safe if we do go over a contingency plan that we can go back to which is what we've done the last two years. >> Um which since we've done it the last two years and we have 45 million in that OPIP trust fund it's available to us next year. I don't want to plan on it. Uh but if we want to budget aggressively and then if we happen to see high claims again next year, we could pull it from there again. >> I feel like that's I mean we've seen high claims, we've seen high

049cost. It's it's been kind of consistent. So, just hoping again that we we don't need it and then potentially I don't >> that makes me nervous. If we can go ahead and plan and have it in the budget and use that VRS money to cover something that we know we probably are going to have to cover, I think it's a better long-term plan than us, >> which I don't I don't want to feel I'm a lot of times playing devil's advocate, you know, and to to get conversation going. To be clear, what we had in the superintendent's budget was that plan of, hey, let's make this right this year and catch us up to where we're not seeing those big increases every year. >> Right. >> But you also added it to the base and

050you took what was actually it's not even a savings. It was a cut in our expenses. So if you start with a zerobased budget, then your budget for the VRS would be the current year budget. You wouldn't have a savings of $6.5 million. I mean, we're characterizing it as that because it's 6.5 million less than we had anticipated, but it's really not a savings because it's not a cost. You know, the the fact that it was in the budget doesn't make it an expense. So, I I have a little problem with all this characterization and and we're saving money here. We're just just as we go along. I mean, it's $6.5 million that we do not have to pay that we had expected to have to pay. So I understand the proposal was put it

051in health insurance, but then when I asked before, oh yes, that would be recurring. So we, you know, we're basically increasing our base for health insurance by $6.5 million >> based on just the fact that we're short. >> And the other problem with is that it can also go up, >> right? >> Because I've seen it go up and seen it go down. So we can't guarantee that that's going to be a recurring solution. just would have been in the base. Yeah. >> For the budget. So, it just that's that has concerned me all along with, you know, the way this is put out as a savings because it really not. I mean, if you're if you start with zero, then you're adding all your expenses and or tell me if I'm wrong. >> Well,

052you know, if if your cost is X amount and your cost goes down, then then that that base goes down. >> Yeah. So BRS rates, they look at them every bienium, right? And so it's part of rebenchmarking that's going to be factored in. We look at it as these are total compensation and benefits package. We have $6.5 million in savings and benefits and we want to roll it into our other benefit line of health insurance to make sure we can cover those. Um, long story short, we're just trying to increase that base that's in our health benefits fund so we're not running into this each year. But if you start with zero on your cost, why would you even have that 6.5 in there if you if it's not being charged to you? >> I'm

053not quite sure. I'm I'm following that. >> Okay. >> I think we, you know, we saw we see the same issue that you do in terms of we need to come up with a viable solution that we have to continue to contribute to health insurance, health insurance. Where is that going to come from and what does that look like? And um so from my perspective, we saw that this was this was a decrease in our in our rate and so it was built into our our compensation line already. And so how do then how do we how can we we use that as a as a lever to support our health insurance which you know is know is an issue. So but I get what you're saying. I mean >> I'll be laboring but but

054the builtin it was built if it's built in then it's not starting at zero. >> Well zero should be the >> Yeah. It's okay. I just $6.5 million is a huge amount of money. Huge amount of money. >> I have a question. Is there any way that we could maybe instead of taking the big step take two small steps? So like in FY26 we maybe increase by like 3.5 and then FY27 we increase by 3.5 or is that just not possible? >> Well, we are already doing five to seven. >> We're already going five to seven. So we're talking about do we do another three and a half, another seven? Do we leave it the way it is? Leave it at the five to seven. Just not sure. >> We did increase four million last

055year. So, in a way, we were hoping to kind of take steps to get there, but >> but unfortunately the pace of the increases have been higher than we anticipated >> because last year we had to put an additional 7 million in to cover expenses for 26 and the year before that it was 5.1 million. >> And it's been challenging because we've had to balance the the compensation side. we haven't been able to give the raises to necessarily cover, you know, some of these. I mean, last year we were very for our our employee with the with the smallest amount of raise and the health insurance raise, they were taking home very little. And so really trying to balance that and try to take care of our employees so they're not taking home less money

056in the in the next year than they are the current year >> which is why we need to look at the non-licensed staff as well. >> Oh, absolutely. >> Because they're going to be bearing the burden if we don't increase those. I mean, I'm I'm for taking this money and putting it into staff salaries. I'm for that, but I don't want to limit it to the license. >> So, they get But the the light un nonlic service scale gets the 3.75 across the board. Correct. >> I recommended 3.75 average. The average of 3.75 for the license scale and then the service scale. Yes. Across the board. >> But we know some at least in the license scale are getting what? 1.37 the middle part of the scale >> and then in the county administrators as

057I saw it it he was recommending 4%. >> He has recommended 4%. Uh my conversation with him one of the reasons was for that is because >> I don't need his reason but but this says one staffer 3.7 >> it's because it's because they start the salary in July rather than at the start >> January January instead of >> still Oh, they're going to do that again. >> Yeah, >> that's what they did this past year. >> Yeah, I know what they did the I didn't know that was what the 4%. >> No, I don't think he proposed that starting in January, but that's what they did this pack. >> Yeah. Yeah, I knew that. >> So, I think the next two slides we just wanted to provide a couple of examples. This is what

058was proposed in and when I proposed the budget wanted to take a look at what is the month lowest monthly increase, you know, how what is that health premium look like and how would that impact just because I think we need to know that with our employees. >> Is that the lowest monthly premium for a teacher? Is that the teacher that gets 1.57? Um the lowest it would be people like top of our scale maybe that are getting the minimum percentage or off scale. >> The minimum is is the folks in the middle, right? Like year 11 years >> 30 years is getting 3.3. >> There's people above the 30 that might be at like an even one. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And so we did want to take a look. All right. What does

059this look like if we were to apply uh apply it to the >> I I think we've all eliminated this as a possibility. >> We just want to Yeah. I mean, so we just So >> unfortunately, that's the average of 3.75. So you take the employee that gets the one point. >> That's why we wanted to share >> less than half of that. So they would be paying. >> Okay. And then we wanted to share this slide again just because I know you keep in mind on what are uh what are our surrounding school divisions doing. We also were able to add what the what the Stafford County government is proposing with the county administrator's budget what he had proposed for FY27. So those rates are provided for you there as well. And I want

060to kind of propose one thing as we're moving into next year when we are going to be rebidding out our health insurance and that gives us an opportunity um for plan design as well as looking at our actual provider. Uh this would be the ideal time where we need to kind of go out and do one uh by study um on what our plan design should be and look at it compared to our market but also look at our structure of our employee premiums. And so there was a time that our employee premiums were a percentage of a certain number in order to make sure they were tied to something. And the county still kind of follows that which is why they have some bigger jumps in their health insurance from last year to this

061year. So we went ahead since they released it uh on Tuesday updated this column in the middle for the FY27 proposed um premiums on the on the county side. So they um we've kind of caught up or or p in some areas it was really it used to be that only our um employee only was was less than them but it's kind of getting to the point now where the county is passing us and that employee premium in a couple spots. So wanted to point that out. We are still higher and um a couple of our the more expensive plans >> but we're substantially less in the employee only plan. >> Correct. the spouse is employed is significantly lower than >> um you know the other jurisdictions. >> Do we know where most of our

062family or most of our employees >> um plans lie? I mean >> we do you still have that up Carter back to it. >> Um most are like in the premium plan and I would say like the biggest bucket is individuals in the premium plan. So employee only. Yeah. >> So >> which would be Go ahead. >> Yeah. So I was going to ask so I'm seeing that our proposed five to 7% increase means an employee only goes from paying 60 a month to 64 a month. >> So we're increasing it $4 a month. >> Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So here you're showing me that if I increased it by So the previous slide that shows Yeah, this which one? This one. >> That one. Yeah, that 9.26 that would be if

063I increased it. >> So that's the average. So we actually looked at everything our employees were taking. We looked at those numbers that Carter just gave you and we actually took the average of what our active employees with insurance what their average increase would be. um instead of just showing the minimum or the the greatest amount because we felt like that was misleading. So we wanted to try to take the average of all of our employees >> and what the pay plan is that they're on. >> Yes. Okay. So >> and that's what the 926. >> Yes. So some are lower than that at the $4 and some are actually much higher. >> I mean I'm just I'm sorry. I'm just looking at one staffford and one stafford. Uh the county employees are going to

064be paying $125 a month and our employees are paying $64 a month. 50%. >> So we need the same plan. >> For the same%. >> Yeah. >> And this is where they said majority of our >> 100% >> employees are. >> Oh yeah, it's 100% almost. >> Yeah. >> Not quite. >> It's half. >> Are all of these benefit do we have? Do we have people in all of these different plans or is there one that there's nobody in? >> Pretty much. um on our high deductible health plan, it's a lot a lot less employees. >> Okay. I just think this here. >> So, which is why I point out I think it's time we kind of have an outside look and a comparison of of developing a better structure for our pre employee premiums

065compared to the total cost. And so we can take um Anthem will provide us, hey, this is your total cost per employee on each of these plans, each of these levels, premium, core, employee, spouse. This is what it's costing you and then it comes up with that total cost. And then there should be a percentage that we take of that total cost and that's what we adjust our premiums to each year. And um we've gotten away from that because in years that we didn't get big raises, maybe we held the premiums flat or or we had >> really low claims. And so when we had $25 million in reserves, I didn't feel comfortable telling employees, hey, I need you to pay 20% more in premiums because kind of what is to justify that. And so

066now that we're seeing the big spikes is where we're trying to catch back up to that. >> Yeah. Because the employer share, we're paying like 20% more every year, but our employees are the last last year only paid like 5% more. >> I mean, and and we I know we've gone over this a lot and we looked at it. If you go back to and I mean we could go back farther than 2021. We weren't seeing these big increases and really 24 we saw a little bit of a spike but it really was 25 26 where we started to to see it maintain at that level >> and we used to have fewer employees though. I I remember for a long time it was 50%. I mean I may be thinking 10 years ago but

067for quite a period we didn't have this 61% of the employees you know on on here. Um, but I I I do think we need to look at the the county and the schools. I'm not suggesting, you know, we have to match, but we shouldn't be half the cost. >> It's all >> for the same insurance. >> That's a relatively new thing because they've they've grown more than than we have. >> Sure. But but >> Okay. Okay. With employee only. So, I'd like to know how many of our employees are 5 years or under with us and take employee only. So, are these the folks that are starting out and they have lower starting salaries in surrounding counties and all that other stuff? Like, is this do you >> is this a recruitment factor, >>

068right? >> Because right now, we'll show in a minute our our we already know this, but our starting salary is not even less than Prince William. It's less than going to be less than Spring City and >> Right. Right. Well, the um Spsylvania costs are incredible. I wouldn't suggest we go there, but that's >> and I I do want to caution when we look at the other divisions, their plan design might be a lot different. So, um we know that our plan design is identical for what our deductibles are out of pocket and and the co- insurance. So, we know we can line up perfectly with Stafford County government. >> Great. >> Yeah. But but >> except for the premium, >> we show the premiums for Spotsy and Prince William up there. But I just

069want to put that asterk out there. the plane designs could be drastic. >> Um when we look at uh when and and maybe this is something that happens when you're renegotiating and everything else when we look at which plans we pay out the most for claims. Do we see a difference? like do we pay out more for the premium insurance claims versus the um high deductible or the core or whatever. >> Um yes, we do. I don't recall specifics and individual like breakouts, but I will um pre the premium plan is probably going to cost us more which is why their premiums are higher, but we could break out probably our I think we can get that breakout. I know it's something we look at when we analyze every year. >> I don't mean it

070immediately. Okay. >> All right. So, the next section we talk we're going to talk a little bit about salaries. And so, um there was a question around uh or actually we had a a speaker that talked a little bit about how our salaries have progressed over time. And so, we just wanted to show this graphic to look at uh how a a teacher um and I'll say teacher because this is the license scale, how that might progress over time. And while you know I think we talked about the scale 15 while you will see some increases if you were to look horizontally across a particular scale you could see some some decreases there. Uh but there when you do look um at this it would be we have been providing steps each year um since

071uh 2021 for folks to be able to get that step and so they have been progressing and receiving those increases over time and so you can take a look at what that looks like there. Um and so you'll also see some of the you know when we when we look at the scales for FY27 that was proposed there is a smaller increase in the middle of the scale and when we look at that over time that is the place where we saw the larger increases especially back in FY23 and FY25 >> right but that was because we had years of really not paying people before that in that many >> we've been trying to fix the scale for six years since I've been on the board. >> Longer than ever. >> Yeah. And I'm sure

072that it's been >> one of the discussions we have a lot internally is yes, there's there have been, you know, big increases when you look at those percentages. One, it was so far behind. But then actually, if you still look, you know, we're still we're still behind. So, it's not like we made we made up ground. I don't want to be misleading. We have made up ground, but we have not made up all the ground. >> Right. >> I was going to say more than ground is we just made improvements. >> Yes. >> More than we might have lost ground. We just made improvements. >> Yeah. Well, last year they didn't make their stuff. So, last year we did lose ground and that's one of the challenges. Do we want to break here before we

073get into these discussions and have dinner? Sure. Grab a bite to eat. Maybe this would be a good time to do that. >> It hasn't arrived quite yet. >> Oh, never mind. >> So, the the next slide does talk about uh I know there was a question around how long will it take us to get to the 2.15 between each steps. And so uh knowing that that's a that's a desire of the board to take a look at that. So wanted to put this out. This I will say this chart has a lot of assumptions built in because we can't tell for sure what how much you're going to invest next year and year two and in year three. But this does put together a plan that shows how we could get to 2.15 uh

074between all of steps one zero through 25. And you'll see the cost to do that. Uh we have if we went did what was proposed this year the cost next year if you were to invest to 8.7 million there increase that starting salary again from 52900 to 54,000 and then again in year three to to round that out what that would look like at a starting salary of 56,000 in FY29 and what the cost would be there. So, just wanted to build that out and you could see how that takes place and and how we really got to start at kind of the the outer ends of the scale uh at the top and the bottom to get some of those steps in line, but then eventually get to all of the steps. >> 8.6

075million is about what each of the phases were costing us every year, too. >> I would say those phases are actually costing us a lot more than that. Um, but yeah, they were in the 14 to$15 million range. as we got a little bit further along and like phases four and five were more going to be like 10 11 million but >> right >> and we started falling behind because we couldn't increase the base of our scale like the original phases really called for >> all right and then on the next slide uh wanted to show and again going back to the scenario that was requested around investing an additional 3.25 25 million. If we were to invest that in the license scale, uh what would that do and what that what would that take

076a look like? So that does raise the uh the average raise to 4.9% across that license scale. It didn't provide the entire scale here, but it is we wanted to show you some increments there. We showed you step zero. So that would take the starting scale to 54,000. And we wanted to be able to show the percentage increase here. That's why we added step one. uh here you see at 55 161 at 9% and then you see the five-year increments for each of those and how those compare to the current FY26 adopted scale and uh the proposed scale uh that I included. So you can take a look there also in the top right corner just to note we were able to put uh what the which each of the superintendent proposed in each one

077of those districts. Uh so Prince William at 65,000 for the zero scale the starting teacher salary uh 55,000 for Fredericksburg 54,900 for Spennsylvania and 51,000 for King George. >> You know that 3.25 million does bring us closer because you move from the proposed to 529 to 54 >> which puts us just behind spots. >> Um >> and yeah, >> so I mean it does put us a little closer. Yeah. fraud city. I mean, I we're always we're never going to be Prince William, and I don't think that's even our aspiration, >> but we need to balance health insurance costs and how much money can we give people. >> And in your package, you do have the full scale with every step if you want to take a look at that. This is just for the

078slide. >> Thank you. Now, that's this is helpful. And honestly, any of these where we've have little snippets, the full scale is um in the handouts. Hang a little bit bigger because I know it's hard to read on the slide. >> But the threeear plan, we wanted to I wanted to show it all because you can see the progression to get to that 2.15%. >> Okay. >> All right. Anything else on the license go really quickly? I just want to point out um it's it's been in the budget book the whole time. Each year we talk a little bit about just making sure part of your resolution that you will approve hopefully next uh Tuesday has our other funds in it too in including some fiduciary funds for ATI and CGS and so those are

079estimates right now based on the best that we know. Uh but it has our other funds. The other a little bit more detail of the other funds is also included in your in your packet here. Uh but these are at least just the totals that we wanted to make sure you saw those make sure you were aware. They're in the budget book online and the hard copies are in front of you. >> Um, and then so as we >> can I ask a question about those other funds right there. >> So ATIMW >> Yeah. >> Uh, why are we paying are we paying 4 million? >> No. So we're just a fidiciary agent. >> That's what I was just asking for some clarification there. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Well, except they're not. Oh, there they

080are. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So those two at the bottom are our two fidiciary funds. We still have to get those funds appropriated because we're spending money, but it is it is the >> I just was like, wait, what? >> Yeah. All right. >> Um All right. So, as we kind of look at the calendar coming up, uh obviously we're on the 19th today, but then on Tuesday is when uh we will or the school board will approve the budget. Um and then we have our joint meeting with the board of supervisors on Thursday. So that's a very quick turnaround. So, we are hoping um tonight that we leave here with a lot of clarity on what the school board uh wants us to come back with on the 24th with a solid plan.

081Uh that will allow us not only to be prepared for the 24th to make sure you have um very uh firm documents in front of you that you've seen in advance. We can provide them um as quickly as possible if there's changes to what we've provided tonight. And and then we can also if we know going into the 24th what your plan is, we can turn that quickly around and make sure we're ready on the 26th for the joint meeting. >> Does anybody have any additional questions before we >> Well, we saw adding the money to the license scale. What if we added some money to the um >> service scale? I I'm not I don't know whether we would take it from that amount or take an additional amount out, but I do not

082want to just add to the license scale if particularly as we we know we're going to be increasing these health insurance benefit, you know, premiums and we know that 43% of the service, you know, the participants are on the service scale. That would be an automatic cut in pay. But the service scale is getting up 3.75 across the board. And the license scale is the license scale is >> but some are getting more getting. >> So what you >> the service is an average too because we say you know one it's not an even step across everybody. Those scales have fluctuations >> the service um raises. If you don't have it you can >> yeah it's pretty I think equivalent to the range that you're going to see on the teacher scale. We're bumping up

083the bottom point something to >> yeah increasing the base of the scale a little bit and then it's spread throughout. Um I mean we can >> those are a lot more um a little bit not as varied as the teacher scale because the teacher scale we're trying to like de like recompress the bottom of the scale and increase the top of the scale. So we're shifting that scale and the teacher scale a lot and we're not doing as much scale work on the service side so it's not as wonky for service. a fiveyear plan, which is I guess now out the window in the rain. Um, we we had been making progress on the on both, but we we still had moved to, you know, we had room to move forward on the service scale.

084So, did we just throw that out? We're not even >> Well, we we had the service and comp classification study that was done um over the past year and the thought was that we were hoping to implement that this year as part of this budget, but as we got to implementing that uh it was it was all over the place. There was we needed a lot more time and probably money to invest in that. We were seeing that implementing that was creating more inequities than it was actually solving. So, they have to kind of go back to the drawing board on that and hopefully Unfortunately, didn't we say when we were when we had the five-year money plan, which we've thrown out, is didn't we say that our goal was to get the service scale

085to 50% of the teacher scale? >> That's no comparison. >> We were trying to get the market, you're right, the service employees to 50% of the market. >> Oh, gotcha. Gotcha. >> So, that was part of the market study that we just did that >> and some people are way above market. So, The paras are on the service scale. >> No, they're on the license. So they are to be clear not licensed employees. >> No, but they get their salaries. >> It is based on So when we do adjustments to the instructional scale, it does impact our pair of professionals. >> And then all the new ones that were hiring, >> right? >> Y >> Patrick, was there something else you want to add? I I was going to say it seems like y'all got

086to the to where I might have added on to the exact point, but just to emphasize what Dr. Warmer shared that the point the recommendation that came out of the compensation study that is aligns with what the board has been over the past has been to target having our service employees uh that the average of those salaries to be at at the median market. Um, you know, we've updated that market definition to better reflect labor markets over time, but that goal is still there as Mr. Formal was sharing as we looked for ways to do an interim implementation of the recommendations of the Comclass W. I mean, I think this gets to your point, Miss Healey. Um, that variance in who was seeing what type of raise um and the number of people who would

087have been seeing a very minimal raise um was where we were getting a lot of heartburn as we looked at this. Given all the factors that have been shared tonight, we uh Dr. Smith's recommendation uh was that it really was not responsible overall to say that in order to make a move to this we were going to have so many employees that might be negatively uh impacted. >> So if we do it across the board then in effect there's no change. I mean, if it's an equal increase for everybody, we're not any better off or worse off, >> right? >> But we're still >> of implementing the study. Correct. >> Half full, half empty. We're still as bad off as we were before, >> but then we're not in >> partial implementation may have made

088partial progress on one goal, but would have had negative externalities that made the trade-off bad. >> So, what's the plan for the future? >> Back to the drawing board. not we're there. There were strong elements in the compensation study that we thought still should be incorporated in terms of some um uh factors that we can be using going forward to uh reassess the how those positions align with one another in our compensation plan. But in terms of designing compensation scales that both align with the board about what we want to target in the compensation philosophy and also are responsible and sustainable going forward. U that's essentially something something that Miss Fitch and I have been asked to take on as we get on the other side of this budget adoption. >> Just out of curiosity,

089if we since Paris are linked to the license scale, the the license scale and Paris scale would be the bulk of our employees. Correct. So there wouldn't be that many service employees beyond that. It would be a relatively small percentage. Do we know >> roughly how many that is? >> I'm going to go >> 25. It's probably >> 25 to 30% of our employees are are either not on the license scale and not on what I call the instructional support scale which is pair professionals daily building subs. >> So some of those 43% that are also getting health insurance are payers. >> Correct. >> Of course. >> Very much so. >> And their raises are linked to the teachers care. >> Right. So >> something to think of. Um Miss Baker Holtz, do you have

090any questions? comments, thoughts, opinions. >> I have lots of opinions, but I'm good for the moment. >> Miss Blackwell, >> Dr. Chase, >> um I'm leaning towards uh Mr. Ful former's uh throwing out this idea of a reduction to >> is that option five? Is it option five? Yeah, I'm leaning towards that and and maybe increasing health premiums to get that extra half million to get us to where we needed to be so that we can then perhaps implement this teacher scale that puts us closer in terms of competitiveness >> um for starting teachers. I mean, we're ahead of Spsylvania when it comes to uh more experienced teachers. So, that's that's kind of where I'm leaning. >> If we do that, though, then you can't get mad at the end of the year when they

091come back and they want a whole bunch of millions because we we didn't plan for what we could have predicted. >> We'll we'll expect that we're going to have to put in that that those other two and a half million. So, is that really getting us closer to making the plan of what to do or is that kind of keeping us in the same >> Well, we're still increasing the health insurance. You're talking about increasing the health insurance premiums to the 14 to 18%. >> Which would take I mean, we would still be >> um >> that's a different that's not the option. >> Option five is taking money from the OPAP balance, but I think what Dr. chase that option five with increasing to the next >> within the next >> just to be

092clear where were you proposing to put the 500 >> I was saying I was saying we would we would get the because you're getting half a million from this >> that would go into the go into the the salary right >> that would go into the fund right the healthare >> it would go in as an increase in employee premiums right which would increase the base in the health fund >> right Yeah. Right. >> Independent from the employer contribution. >> Right. >> But if the employee increases, then hypothetically the employer reduces >> if it if we're going to contribute the same amount. >> No. >> We would be if we increase the premiums then the employer shared drops by half million. >> I want to look where you want. So this if we increase the

093premiums then the employer share drops by half a million. So we put that into the benefits health benefits fund >> and then hope that we don't need to take the additional 2.8 million out of >> that's not a financial strategy >> but it's to cover it's the equivalent. No it's not but I we can't increase the premiums 100% either. >> No no we can't. So, and and right now we have too many unknowns. >> So, I I >> and that's just my I'm just letting you guys know my thoughts. >> I mean, I'm glad we're addressing it, which is more than we've done in >> We have We have ignored it for two years. >> Well, we didn't Yeah. I wasn't aware that it was as significant. >> Well, I kind of thought we were

094just like in what it was an aberration. Isn't that what they >> called it? >> Yeah. But it's really been over 20% for the last two years. The employer share has gone up. So I I just I just don't see how we cannot raise the health the employee share more this year to try to fill some of that gap. I I just I don't know. >> Well, I'm I'm still as long as we increase the salaries. >> Yeah. And then we put >> they put everybody on notice that this is not going to be any less expensive in the future. >> And It gives the salary to people who don't use our health insurance. >> Right. The current plan is give all the money to >> to the 61% who do and nothing to the

09539% who don't. >> It's not nothing though. >> It's not Well, no. If you look at it, so >> it's nothing. >> It's not nothing though because there are a lot of employees that have partners that they're on their insurance currently. that's why they don't take our plan. But knowing that they have that plan available, especially if they're federal employees right now, that is a huge weight off their shoulder that, hey, at least I know if something happens, I can have that available at school. So even though they're not currently taking it, it being available is a benefit to our employees, >> right? But the cost to us is based on the premiums we pay out. We are paying no premiums for them. I we're not paying for any claims for them, right? >> Um

096and we're taking money that was VRS money that was going into their retirement and instead giving it to the 61% of the employees who take our insurance. >> Well, in the >> but the insurance is still available if they decide to get it. It's just that we're saying we're trying to get to a cost that's maybe more reflective but in a premium that's maybe a bit more of a percentage so that the employer isn't picking up the gap. I just don't like the narrative that it's it's taking money that was going to go to everybody and now it's only going to a few. And that that's not the case. When a bill changes, that money doesn't stay in that category, right? Like if we have a a lower electric bill at one of our schools,

097that money doesn't stay, oh well, this is that school's money, so it just stays there. No, we actually have more money now to spread across where it's needed. and it's needed obviously in the health benefits at this point. So, I'm not saying that it's it's not a good plan. I'm just saying I don't like the narrative that it's only benefiting a chunk of folks and that we're taking money from from one set of people and moving it over to another. It's >> I see kind of balancing. >> It's it's a nonmonetary compensation is what I understand what you're saying. I agree with Dr. chasing the taking the money. But I understand what you're saying that that that there is a nonmonetary benefit >> psychologically, I guess, to some employees to know it's there, but that

098doesn't help them pay their bills. No, >> it's not it's not in their paycheck. And and what Dr. Chase is saying and she and I have had many conversations about health insurance over the years particularly recently is that there is a certain amount of money that's available and do we limit it to benefit the money benefit the 61% of the employees that are taking you know the health insurance whereas the other 39% get no monetary >> benefit But >> but if we apply that money to the salary scale, everybody benefits. >> Yes. >> And then if you're getting the insurance, you you may have to pay a little extra. When you look at the increases, it would go from 64 to $70 for an employee only, which is the most. So that and we're still

099um lower than the county proposed for for both um employee and one child, employee and children. The only places we're we're slightly higher are employee and spouse and employee and family. Is this employee both spouses employed? Is that the premium if both people work for us? >> Yes. >> So, so, >> so does each of them pay that premium? >> No. >> That is a huge huge savings. >> It is. >> It's like onethird of what it would cost. >> Yes. >> if they were not together. Yes. because it's that it's 178, but it would be like 3 381 proposed if you know just employer employee and spouse, but employee both spouses. It's just >> so we're kind of taking that employer benefit and applying it to both employees if you think about it though.

100And if it was two separate employees that weren't spouses that they're coming onto our plan and bringing a spouse and three kids, right? Where instead it's just four people total with that employee. So >> So it's less people. Can we get some information on on each of these categories? How many we have them in there? That might help because, you know, if it's a few dollars here and it's only a few people, that's one thing. But if it's hundreds of people, >> that's something else, you know, in terms of balance balancing. >> Sure. Dr. Chase, just clar >> for not for this year. I'm talking about going forward. >> Yeah. >> Just clar on your plan. So the 3.25 25 that you your suggestion. Um would that go across license scale? Would that go across

101license and service? >> I was just going to have it go across the license. >> The 3.25 just across the license. >> Because that covers teachers and paras. >> And nurses and everybody who's on that license scale. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. And then I think we'd still have to increase the premiums to the 14 to 18%. Right? >> Because we have to put some of that money back so that if we do need to add more money, we're within that 2.8 million of the open fund that we can then pay out towards retiree benefits. So that keeps us under that. >> I I would like to add some money to the service scale whether it comes from the 3.25 25 or it comes more out of the 6.5. I'm okay with either way, but

102I don't want to not add to the service scale when we're adding to the license. Obviously, teachers number one classroom, but the teachers can't do it alone. >> No, it's Can we get an idea how many employees and what that would look like for that 25 to 30% that would not be Paris and >> that are on the service scale. What is it? And also what the rate >> we actually today. Well, yeah, give me a couple minutes. Talking about like 800,000 in other years and 800,000 would be 75% of what was proposed there. So, I would not be surprised if it's not in that range, >> but they're the they're going to get hit particularly hard with these premium increase. Everybody's going to get hit, but the the the hit is going to be

103harder when you have less money in your in your salary because the salaries can be half >> or less than half. >> So So what we're talking about is having an additional 3.25 for salary >> period or just for the license or do we want to say 325 and that's >> for license? >> Well, that's for the service and the license. doing. Is that what we're saying? I'm okay with either way. >> That's what I'm I'm saying. >> So, we need to find out what the what it would cost us for the L and what's the increase. So, if the average is 3.75 now, what what do we want to increase that to? >> Four. >> So, I do I do know roughly um it's about 500k for our service scale to increase on average

104of 1%. So, if we want to try to get that 5%, we already know based on the teacher scale enhancements that we made what their new average would be. So the service scale that 500k whether it's increasing premiums or we take it from the 3.25. >> So if we took so we took 2.75 and and put it towards the teachers and half a million towards the service and then raise the premiums. >> We have to raise we could do just a half a percent off the service scale too. >> Yeah, we could just take 2 >> 250,000 then just take the 3 million and put it in two. Let's see where that goes because 500 500 is getting us 1% which doesn't get us up to the the five. So let's let's see what that

105number is, you know, for the the non-licensed. >> Just to be clear, the number we're pulling right now is nonlicensed non-instructional support that are taking is there any is there any service any non-licens other than pars that is on the service on the license scale? >> Okay. So >> daily subs. >> So it's just it's just people that are >> it's everybody other than carers and licensed. >> Yes. >> Oh, so is that so are we talking about administrators as well with this? >> No, they're on a they're in a separate separate already. >> I don't know. Okay. >> So what does the number? >> Yeah. >> What about the central office staff that have licenses? >> Are they on the license scale? There there are not teachers >> there are a small number of

106department staff their salary is uh affected by the license scale. >> Okay. But large in large part their standalone salaries and they get a full 3.75 >> the daily bill. >> no she but they were asking about central department employees. Were there any central department employees who are on the license scale? I said there are a number >> there are a number who salary is affected by the license. >> So then the rest of them we were asking are they strict a flat 3.75. >> So anybody that's on like an administrative or like a payband scale right now on the range then right now in the proposal it's just a flat 3.75. Anybody that we have folks here that are on those bands but we also have people that are on the step scales. If

107it's a step scale, it's an average of 3.75 with some variation between them. >> So I guess we want the amount to increase just the the uniform salary scale that are not linked to the license scale >> and that's about 500 when you exclude administrators. So central office 1% 1% is just >> and what would the the 2 >> but what what's the percentage increase if we currently the range >> right now right now it's 3.75 for those employees >> they're >> average average for the step scale >> average >> for the step scale people >> oh yes it's an average 2.75 going to the license scale which includes non-licensed on the license scale. >> What percentage would that come to? >> 2.75 million or 2.75? >> Well, it's it's the it's the original 3.25

108minus 500,000 whatever. >> Can you repeat the question for me? Sorry. >> Service the 500,000 the 1%. What would the pace be? >> So you don't have to Can you start back over because there was two people talking? >> How about I How about I do it? Okay, perfect. Thank you. So your your suggestion here was that we could hold back we could take 3.25 million from option five from the VRS and put it towards salary. And we're saying if we put half a million of that towards service, so we would be giving them an extra 1%. >> Yes, ma'am. What would it do for the license scale that's getting an additional 2.75 >> versus the 325? Right. >> Um >> I mean, and I know you you I know it's a lot of work

109for you guys to pull the scale together and everything, but >> yeah. Well, it went up from 3.75 to 4.5.2. So, it went up about a 1.2. So if you're reducing it by >> we we could do the rough math >> because we're still gonna adjust it but >> we go to 1%. Carter's got something to show you. 1% for everybody would be that but like obviously the scale is going to be like all over. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. I think we're looking at another average of 1% on the license scale as well. >> There you go. Okay. >> Above the goodness above what was already in the 3.75. >> Above the 11th grade. Okay. So, can I repeat this back to make sure I'm following because I lost y'all somewhere in here. >>

110Um, so are you suggesting taking the money putting it towards salary to increase salary from the 3.75 to roughly a 4.75ish on average and that would be both for our license scale and our service folks, >> right? >> But then also increasing the insurance premiums to that 14%. So, what does that do to our overall budget, right? In the end, are we is it a shell game of money because we're raising more here, but you're paying more here. So, is it just in the end a shell game and we're still asking for the same amount of money? >> It puts it puts us at risk of a potential >> our total operating budget request >> in the health benefits fund next year. >> Right. Right. that. So, we don't know what that's going to be,

111but that is a potential, but it's no different than it's been for the past three. But meanwhile, we are going to be working on a longer term plan, right? >> That will be in place before >> everybody gets a bigger raise. if we get the money. >> Yeah. >> We have a gap right now. But >> I mean, but >> but we can always >> I can't say mildly like that, but I mean there's thing other things that we can do too because I have questions even about like >> the new staff that we are bringing on and SOQS and things like that too. So >> the other thing is we you know >> I I think it would be a bad idea for us to increase the ask. >> Agreed. Oh, I'm not asking.

112No way. >> So, I think that and I think we have to stay within that parameter. So, it's what's the maximum we can do to increase salary. >> We we are going to have to increase healthcare costs. We've gone three years where we've been we've just been putting millions. >> No, I don't disagree. And I think there needs to be a plan and there needs to be a stair step along the way to and give people a heads up like, hey, this is >> this is what we're looking at. >> This is this is what's going to happen going forward. I I I don't disagree on that at all whatsoever. I just wanted to make sure that I'm understanding that we're asking for the same amount of money. We're just moving it around differently and

113the >> employees really aren't taking home any more dollars after they're >> except for the ones that don't take the health insurance. >> 39% >> right >> have it all. But we don't know what that average is. Obviously, if the increase is a percentage of the premium. So if my salary is $100,000, The increase to me is going to be significantly a less percentage than if I'm taking home 30,000. Correct. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Dinner is ready. Why don't we go eat and kind of hash this out? Can I get a number what it would have cost if we were to put all of the service scale employees that we're talking about on the 4% that the counties put us so that they had a flat 4% on average instead of the 3.75. Yeah. Does

114that make correct service? >> Okay. >> You're right. Good. Yep. Thank you. All right, let's let's try to wrap this up as do as Miss Randall I just gave you a promotion. Dr. Randall >> I get raises. >> Yes, you do. >> No, you get >> so we want to maintain the ask which was 18.6 million. We don't want to go above that. >> I think that we take that 3.25 million and then invest it. >> But one of the things I'm concerned about and maybe Patrick could address this. If we take that whole 500,000 and invest it into the service scale that we're talking about, the group of people we're talking about, how is that going to affect that market study that we did? Because I don't want to make it worse and and

115can we get an maybe have you guys work on a a way to maybe targeted do that that's maybe up to the half a million dollars, but not >> we can certainly develop uh some options there because there not all of the recommendations in the compensation study were created equal. uh as it were, there are things that are more out of alignment uh than others. We could prioritize uh addressing certain areas, some areas that we've looked at and said um even within our current scale structure, there are some uh situations that we would want to make adjustments to. Now, this happens every year, right? Like we do get requests every year to reassess positions. That's part of our job. That's part of what we do um uh every year. But there are some that through

116the course of the study we did identify and say hey this is something that we may be able to make a more targeted adjustment to um and that in doing that we could stay within the current ask stay within the current overall structure and what we would actually be looking at are market corrections in a targeted manner for some >> well I think our concern is really the folks who are making the least amount of money who will be most affected by the health insurance and so that's I think that's what >> which is not going to really help doing what you're saying. I'm not suggesting we not do it, but if it were important to do it, why didn't we do it when we had the 3.75 when we just split we just put

117that evenly across? Now that we're talking about 1%, it's going to have even less of an impact than the others. So, I mean, if if that's important, we should do it for the whole percentage, not just this additional 1% that we're, you know, adding. >> I'm just worried that if we do this just the flat 1%, are we are we distorting that market analysis? >> Not any more than we are, then with with the 3.5, >> right? >> Yes. You're right. We are, but we didn't choose to correct it with a 3.75. So, one, it would even have less of an impact and it wouldn't help the ones who have premium increases at all. That would be back to the >> I would say that it sounds like because I want to understand what the

118request from the board is here in terms of scenarios. Um, the question I thought I was answering is what might there be things that would do that would be implementing recommendations with the compensation study that would be about targeting positions where we were where those positions were further off the market. Dr. Chase, what I heard you say was something slightly different and I just want to make sure I understand what the report is. The >> board has not decided these are questions, >> right? And that's why I'm and that's part of why I'm clarifying uh because it would probably look quite different to target that towards folks that were in uh positions on pay grades with that are associated with lower salaries that would be more >> what I was saying is I didn't want

119to be doing this just whatever um at the expense of the employees who make the least amount of money. >> Right. That's what I was saying. And so if what you're suggesting would do that, then I'm not a fan. If I would just do the flat, but otherwise um but if if it would help those employees particularly, then that's also worth considering. >> So I guess the question is where do those employees fall in those targeted scales? has been targeted. >> I was going to say I want to make sure >> well if we were to like where would if we were to start >> the worst the worst >> I'm not I'm not sure that the positions that the would identify as being most aligned were in the lowest pay grades I'm not saying

120that they were the highest but um the ones that were I'm obviously not looking at my screen right now but the ones that I that did seem most out of alignment were ones that were not at the lowest pay rates right now. Maybe it would be helpful if we knew the salary range within the service field. >> You what's the lowest salary and what's the highest salary? >> Sure. >> And the increases and the raises is it how close to the 3.75 versus >> the range. What is their variance? Yeah. just >> in adjusting the health insurance percentage. What about adjusting certain plans? Yes. As more so than other ones to start getting us towards so maybe increase the employee plan more so than some of the other ones >> and it where both spouses

121are employed. I mean that's where the bids >> there's a big difference there >> differences really. >> Good job. >> Yeah. I mean I think we can we can look at that even now how now versus even like in if we wanted to wait till this summer. It was one of the things like hey let's look at the comprehensive look of our plan design and our premiums but we know that that like the employee we know that some of the plans are a lot less than others. So evaluating those um and adjusting them differently even this year if we want to expedite that. Um and so maybe um if we're doing on average a 15% increase maybe it's 20 or 25 at the employee only because that's still >> um uh is what 12 to

122$15 a month uh compared to you know 25% of our employee family plan um is a lot more. So the employee family, we can have maybe a 10% adjustment employee only that are 20 to 25, but we still get to that $500,000, >> right? >> That's that's something to think about. >> It's Yeah, can you do that? >> Good job, Shannon. Because I mean I'm I I we could go the 14% or the employee plus child down to the family and then do like the 23% for this both spouses full-time employees which would increase their premiums up to 192 and go up to the 27% for the employee loan. because it's still under $100 a month. >> We can go through and create kind of a new structure or a proposal um that we can

123share out if you if you tell me what your goal is. If our goal is now to create another $500,000 >> that's kind of the goal is to split it up closer to that 500,000 so we can do the flat 1%. >> Yeah. The goal is to have employee premiums increase by 500,000 in total. >> Correct. >> In the nicest way possible. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> In the most the most equitable in terms of >> the the value >> of the plan. And part of it is I think we have to look at the county as a comparable. >> Right. >> Um or at least for a comparison purposes because they're on the exact same plan. Right. >> Right. But then we also can look at >> how many families are affected, you know. >>

124Yes. And if we can get the number of families, the number so for each category, how many people would be affected? >> We try to do that. >> That's an interesting math problem. >> I'm sorry. >> What's that? >> We just gave you an interesting math problem. >> We just gave you a math problem. Hopefully, if we all agree because we're not changing the ask, >> right? Right. >> So, the only thing we're trying to do is we're trying to keep If we have to add money to the OEP fund from the OPED fund, we're trying to keep it under the cost of our retirees. >> We can't >> but we can't predict what that's going to be. >> Take more than the cost of the retire. That's what it's for. It's to help us

125pay the retiree cost >> and we've already tapped out the excesses in the workers comp fund >> so we don't have pools of money sitting around. So I I think that if we can all agree that this is a reasonable solution then then what does that look like? So, we're putting 2.75 million into the license scale, which is linked to the Paris scale, and we're adding we're trying to get that 1% to the service scale, and we're trying to fill that half a million dollar hole because really it that gives us that much more money to put into the license scale. So, if we can even come up with another, you know, couple hundred thousand, that that means we can we we pay that 500,000 for the And then whatever x's is over that all

126gets put in the license scale or the repair scale. Does that what everybody's saying? >> It sounds reasonable to me. >> Dr. Chase Randall. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, Miss Finger, >> I'm in a different agreeance, but it's okay. I'm odd man out. It's okay. >> Um, >> this is way preliminary. We are miles away from >> right now. The worst part of these discussions is this is monopoly money. None of it's real. We don't know what we're going to get. >> It's real lives, though. >> It is real life. >> It's real. It's real lives. >> It's real families. >> It is real families. And and and I absolutely hate doing this. I know people who have seen their insurance premiums multiple go up 300%. >> Yeah. So, >> I know. >> And and

127and I'm just really worried about >> the sustainability of these increases that we've had. It's going to be >> Miss Blackwell. >> Yes. >> Oh, sorry. >> I'm sorry. But >> you answer my question. >> Oh, okay. >> I was just asking were you she had gone. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I thought I thought I did I did her first, but yeah, that was So, >> Oh, all right. I just want as much as you can. >> Okay. So, we're going to put together the scenario where you have 2.75 million going into the license scale >> at least. Yep. if we can increase those targeted areas. >> I thought we backed off of that because we didn't do it with the beginning three 3.7. If you if you started out and said we're

128going to target the areas, we're going to take this three and a half% average and target the areas, I'd be okay with >> No, no, no. I mean for the health insurance. So we take the target. Obviously, if we take the health insurance and do 14% in these areas, increase this one up to 27 and this one up to 23, they're still paying under 200 and they're still paying under 100. Is that reasonable? >> And that gives us a little bit extra money to put towards that 500,000 affordable. >> So, we're trying to get to the 1% >> but they were paying more than the county anyway >> to get to the 500,000 and add whatever of that 3.25 25 >> y >> to the teacher scale >> because it's not going to be probably

129that much money from these these groups I would imagine. >> So you want to put 500,000 into the service scale and then you want to put whatever's left out of the >> license >> by increasing >> 3.25 and increasing the premiums to the license scale. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Just see everybody on the same page. to 2.75 and change to license 500 to service and then >> because I do think this is gonna be a little 500 >> whatever we get from those increases in the two premium groups for the employee only which goes up to 27%. And the family the spouse both working for us goes up to >> stays 23%. I got it here. >> Well, I think what she's talking about is using the employee plus child plus children, spouse

130and family in the 14. >> I just want to cross like I don't want to commit to certain percentages. We're going to look at those and see what what makes sense. >> Right. What I was what what I was thinking is you're going to try to get to 500,000. >> Correct. >> It does not have to be an even percent across the board to each of those. >> I was not I was not thinking you were going to do all this increase and then see if you had more than 500,000. I was just thinking the math problem is this equals 500,000 final question >> based on the current participants we don't know what it's going to be next year >> yes >> every budgeted >> projection to get to 500 yes >> and just to

131set some expectations I know we talked about this but on that employee only it's about a,50 on the premium employee only,50 of our total 2700 like so as we that might it's a smaller increase, right? So, but on our employee family plans, it's, you know, 300 employees. >> So, as we start to mess with those, it might not be as easy. >> I just want to caution like >> we'll get it to the 500 and we're going to make sense. >> That's what we wanted to see. >> But we should keep in mind you don't want to exceed the counties in any of those. >> We already do in two. So, >> and more than we are now. >> Correct. I mean, I would really want to not >> try to keep it wider competitive

132to where it is. >> I mean, we could find $500,000 elsewhere and then I'm just kidding. >> We're going to have to be finding money. >> We're going to we're going to have to reconcile the budget and we're going to have to >> So, like I said, this is monopoly money right now. There's we don't have real numbers from the state and we don't have final numbers from the county. So, so we'll get there. So, everybody's in agreement and then we're going to have this in a proposal of resolution for those. >> So, what is what are we going to do with that 500,000 or we just going to >> that goes to service? >> Service. >> No, but I mean the ones that we're going to save, we're just going to >> It goes

133into the healthcare fund. >> Okay. Yeah. So, it'll So, it means that then we'll have the 3.25 25 plus 500,000. Right. Okay. Good. >> Yeah. >> So on on this option five where we had our contingency was maybe 3.25 that we'd have to pull out at the end of this. It's more like a 2.7 bond. >> It's very close to what we might be able to pull out from correct. >> Okay. Very good. >> Yeah. >> You know and and if it's Yeah. >> If we can just reduce that a little bit more by doing that then we'll be good. So, are there any other questions, issues, challenges? >> Well, just recognizing as Miss Rand said, you know, we're >> every still have to be looking at this whole thing, >> this whole thing. >>

134We get the real numbers. So everybody's in agreement with these changes to the salary scales and the insurance at this time >> and the and the other categories at the bottom of the resolution >> and the Yes. So the grants the food and nutrition all these are accurate. Well, the grants are passers. >> Yes. And so is um techni and the governor's school >> and and it's great that they're funding 19.3 million for the um CIP. That is amazing. >> That's three years in third year fully funded. >> Yeah. >> And we came with a you know when we presented it, right? We're going to slowly increase it. We increased a little bit more this year and they're still funding it. So >> I think they're recognizing that it's an investment >> in the county.

135Well, it's Yeah. through the stuff we own. I mean, you better take care of it. You build it. >> Yeah. But >> that has not been the case in the past. >> No. No. But it So, it's it's a very welcome change. >> It's a very welcome change. >> Okay. So, does everybody have what they need to do what we're going to do? Any questions? You can definitely keep on asking your questions about, you know, things that you're because some of these could have be carried forward for when we do reconciliation. >> We're going to have to look at other categories. >> Do we have a reconciliation specific meeting scheduled already? Last year we added one. >> I think we >> I mean we have work sessions that are after the school board or after

136the board of supervisors through. It's not even on my calendar. We just went with the high >> um >> Yeah. I just want >> kind of the big topics, but there is one >> we have to pass it again after we >> There's one. >> Correct. There's one between the 21st and 28 and depending on >> how much of reconciliation we'll add another one. >> That's what I was trying to avoid. Yeah. >> Will we know the state figures by then? >> We should. I mean, we're trending that way. Yes. We're going to know House and Senate hopefully this weekend. >> And depending on how close they are will kind of clue us in on how quickly they're going to >> I remember May and June that we got this. Yeah, a couple years contracts

137out before we >> I do have one final question though. What would people like to discuss when we present the budget across the street? I know Miss Randall is going to talk about security. Miss Healey, did you have a topic that you wanted to brooach or comment that you wanted? >> Are you taking the lead on the thank yous? >> I think that's appropriate. >> I'm I'm good with wherever you need. Like I said, deans was my my focus, but she's got it. So, >> opening the new schools. >> I I am happy to do >> Why don't you do opening the new schools? >> Oh, yeah. You got two in your district. >> You've got two in your district, and I think it's really critical that they stay locked and loaded on that. >>

138I don't have one. >> Okay. >> All right. Less is more. >> So, we we're going to put together some slides that we were >> I'll tell you what I want. >> Okay. for mine. I because the the one slide that you did is one that I want the um with the SSOs and who has what and that I feel like that's pretty strong. >> The one we're adding to the old school. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think that's a good sign. >> Do you want to slide the new school thing? >> I'll let you I'll chew on it. >> Yeah. Let you know tomorrow. I mean the big buckets of things are teacher compensation um >> the healthcare which we're trying to address and >> what >> so as I understand it you

139guys are going to take these topics and then I'm going to pick up whatever's left >> you're doing you're doing just we're only doing two numbers okay >> everybody else is doing one slide two minutes just to kind of reinforce our budget >> we're doing the reformation Would you guys like to >> She'd like to talk about the interventionist. >> Interventionist. Absolutely. That's a great word. >> Would you guys like to talk from a student perspective about some topic? >> Doesn't just where the money goes and >> absolutely. I think we can reconcile together and get back to you if that's okay. >> You know, one two minutes each maximum. >> Okay. >> If I'm feeling generous. Okay. >> Liza changes the rules. Especially >> the rules don't apply to No, I was born. >>

140That's right. >> And that's okay. >> I have always I have spent my entire life fighting rules. That's okay. >> Do you know one of the things that impressed me and I'm just giving you my perspective and totally don't take it if you don't want it. But when he did the um the tour you >> Oh, me. I'm sorry. >> When he did the tour um like he did the you know when he visited all everybody and did all the interest groups and he did the student group and Dr. Schz did an amazing job roaming the room and getting all the questions answered. >> But one of the things that really stuck with me and I've asked and I even asked him to tell me what the negative was. He hasn't gotten back to me

141yet. Um is that students were very very very um supportive of the opportunities that Stafford offers at all levels. Yeah. And it's not just in even in the academic and I don't think people often realize that but even in the like the activities, the sports, um you know the opportunity to serve on a on a board. I just think that those are things that from a student perspective, I don't think all the adults in the room even get how we just go over beyond backwards, forwards, and off the rails to support our students, whether we're feeding them, whether we're teaching them, whether we're doing anything for them. I just feel like it was so impactful to me to hear the the little things that the kids were saying in the room and they're they're high

142school kids. I get it, but they've been here for a while or maybe not, but there it was very impactful to me that they realized that's what we're offering. I mean, so >> I I absolutely agree and that's actually something that's kind of like in our plan that we've implemented is not just letting everyone know what their next step is like, oh, go to for a university or go to Germana, but like when you're in middle school, you have such amazing opportunities waiting for you. When you're in elementary school, you have electives waiting for you. So, being able to take students and really put them in the positions to understand what they have next. and us using our um our experience in like our CTE classes and reaching out to people like that. I have

143not always been in Stafford County Public Schools. I was in Fredd City schools as a younger child. Um also went to Bowling Green um schools as well. And just kind of in those different counties and looking back and saying like, "Wow, I didn't have those opportunities that I had then." Exactly. And even some opportunities I did have in those counties I wouldn't wasn't aware of. And I think that's something we're really good at doing is not only having the opportunities, but making them so accessible to children as well, I think is a really good thing we're doing. So, >> I think adults have a tendency to focus to remember what their experience was like >> and they don't understand that times have changed. >> Absolutely. >> And I think it's really critical that we provide

144them with student voice. >> That one thing is if you can somehow build into your your your two minutes um the You have two minutes. >> The impact well two minutes each but the impact of your teachers because that's what our focus is here. You know the salaries I mean the bulk of our our budget is salaries and benefits for our employees and the most important you know element is the teacher in the classroom. >> Absolutely. >> You know for for the students but that's that's really what we're you know we're we're there for and everybody else supports and you can't teachers can't do it alone. >> I absolutely agree. you know, when they hear it from you, it's it's going to be a little >> it's going to hit a lot >> more a

145lot more impact than hearing it from >> I think they're going to >> That's right. And if you want to if you want a slide on the PowerPoint, then just reach out to Dr. Smith. >> So, do you think it would be like better if we just like allotted our four minutes to like him having the first portion and then me just like following up to >> you guys having both of you talking is a great idea. bouncing back and forth. >> Yeah, you can have a dialogue. >> And I do want a regular biscuit THAT IF ANY INTERPRETIVE dance would love that >> interpretive dance we'll HAVE JUST LIKE background music for Miss Guy. Take a breath. I would I would also like to say if you guys get a chance driving by um

146Dr. Chase's daughter's house >> that she designed is such a cool thing to do. Like I drove by it. I I've been to others and then when um Bobby Jet mentioned it, I was like >> give me the address. It's so cool. It's so cool. >> Is is everybody comfortable with the plan and everybody knows what the expectations are? All right. It's only step one. >> It's 8:00. Look at that. We're on time. >> We have a budget that we will have to change. >> See you Tuesday night. So excited.