I would move to add a discussion item. It's under the board member report on the online agenda. So, we could put it under there uh to see whether or not the board is interested in um approving a resolution encouraging a legislative change. Um, and it's similar to legislation that I showed you. So, just a discussion item. Uh, I would move to add that to the agenda.

Just discussion.

At KLEC, we house five early learning programs. Um and while these programs each are um individually address different community needs, we've worked really hard to be collaborative and to present as one early learning department.

Screening is a free developmental opportunity. Um, and this process is one of the uh few requirements for entering kindergarten. The optimal time to complete screening with children is at age three and a half. The purpose is truly early identification for any health or developmental concerns.

The state does reimburse for ECSC students served. Um and we are required to provide services. So we're ex we're required to provide any services to a student that arrives at our doorstep with an active IFSP or individualized family service plan or an IEP. Um we can't say no or place on a wait list.

New legislation that states by July 2028, public pre kindergarten teachers will be required to have a license. And in a field where there's already um a teacher shortage, we are going to face concerns with recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers when that happens.

We just don't have have the capacity to do that. Um, and currently, uh, one of the other things that we've talked about, and I've talked with our our enrollment team and with Tracy Brold, um, we're using an averaging method to estimate the number of 0 to four year olds that reside in our district to receive funding for ECF and school readiness rather than using a census process.

I can't emphasize how important it is to have these services available. not only are you providing services to our youngest learners, but you're also um a family's first introduction into our school district and just giving the getting the feedback from the community on um early childhood services. Everything I have heard has been positive.

So looking at the levy there is multiple different variables affecting the actual values. So we're going to go through and define each one. We have going to start with the market value go uh go on to the next tax capacity the sales ratio and then the adjusted net net tax capacity.

Our total is still about the same. Um, so you can see that you're seeing small increases in our our LO and an operating referendum and you're seeing a small decrease in equity and that's normal as the as the operating referendum gets larger for us. that means we have a higher closer to that cap and we lose our equity revenue.

The one thing I really want to point out here is the vocational section. So vocational that is based on our expenditures in our like CTE courses. Now to get funding for those, we need teachers to be licensed in the program that they're teaching. And hands uh kudos to our teaching learning department. they've been doing a fabulous job of ensuring that people had the proper lensure or the proper OFPS. So that's why there's such a big increase in that vocational piece.

So the general fund we're seeing an increase of 4.7 million for fiscal 27.

So you can see overall just like we had last year our overall levy is shown there to increase by a quarter of 1%. And I just want to say too that because of all the building that happens or is happening here in Lakeville that that those numbers get diluted as the new comes on. So most people won't see an increase at all.

What essentially it is, it's a a resolution to encourage the legislature to kind of address a gap. Um right now, current state law requires us to approve um our budget, our annual budget by June 30th of each year. Um however, as we've seen, you know, consistently there are there's new legislation passed by the legislature that affects that budget. Um and once we've approved our budget, we're kind of stuck.

I would say yes. Um, I know that the Association of Minnesota School Districts, uh, which we are a member, lobbies and they lobby along these lines, uh, and have for at least 20 years. Um, I would say anything can help if MSBA were to adopt this u from multiple districts seeking it. Um, that could be helpful and just be be another lobby opportunity uh with the legislature. But this has been a long-standing problem in the system.

I guess the issue that that I have with it that um or at least that I see is that a resolution without action is just a piece of paper that we've printed and and wasted a tree on. So, I kind of feel like um if you want action, like go and talk with your legislators, like write an email, um call and talk to them on the phone about the things that you're concerned about.

I think the the likelihood that this would ever take um or have legs is pretty um not realistic. um uh just because of how like I think for some of this the state constitution would have to be revised in order to accommodate what's being asked here which obviously is a big process but nevertheless like it's it doesn't hurt to like let people know that we continue to like think about how how the different levels of government interact with one another.

I feel that section two breaches us into partisan uh politics.

Again, I brought this forward just as a discussion item to see if the board had interest in looking at this further and possibly um adopting some form of this uh before the September 24th date that MSBA is requesting that resolutions be submitted. Uh if there is not enough support, then we will not waste time on the 23rd.