Starting in the 2526 school year, school boards would on an annual basis be presented with or have the chance to review the language access plan. There's a set of criteria that tonight will be shared by Dr. Leoo, associate superintendent. The approval will happen in August, but this is just a chance to review what those requirements were and what our district's doing in response. Dr. Leoo. Thank you, Superintendent Law, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Um, tonight I'm going to provide you with an overview of why we're talking about a language access plan as well as what we are doing within our district to ensure that all families have access to the information um about their child's education, have the opportunity to engage in their child's learning, and um really helps us lean into our belonging goal of all families feeling welcome and included. So, beginning in 2526, as Superintendent Law mentioned, all school districts will have a language access plan that needs to outline um information uh about how we will be communicating particularly around academic outcomes, student progress, any determinations, and placement of students in any specialized programs or services. um and making sure that parents know how to access the information, what's available, and what their rights are. And every two years, a school board must review uh that plan. So, the plan will include information about interpretation services, translation, and then language services and access related to notifications, uh communication, and training for staff. So language identification is a process that's been in place in the state of Minnesota and in our schools for many years. But uh the way that this occurs is family or guardians when they register they complete a preferred language uh question as a part of that process which allows us to know uh the family's preferred language and to provide appropriate supports for that family. Additionally, they identify um or we identify students who are learning English. Um all families complete the Minnesota language survey during enrollment as well. And then uh we as a school district screen any potential English learners using an approved screening assessment. And then following that, we notify families of the students status as well as any services that are needed andor available to that to the student. Um, again, we've had in place for several years strong interpretation and translation services, but I'm going to quickly just highlight these for you as they'll be a part of this uh plan that'll be posted online. Um so interpretation we use the language line. This is more for impromptu type services. We need to get in contact with the family. We have something we need to share with them. We have access to um many languages for this or we also have a group of approved um interpreter services. And often those are folks we would bring in for um conferences. It could be for an IEP or for a special school event. As it relates to translation, we have both informal and formal tools. Um, we use the talking points app. This allows our staff to notify parents in a text message format in their first language or their home language, their spoken language. Um, that there's messages or information or to give them a short reminder like field trip tomorrow. Those short little messages. Um we also have auto translation that's available through school messenger um through Seessaw and through Sped forms for our top languages of Spanish, Somali and Mandarin. For the spedforms portion, we also use Google Translate for messages when a teacher sending an email that might be more customized or when using the schooly tool. Um, the state of Minnesota has also made Transact available, which is a service that allows many common translated messages um for schools or other public um officials to use. We use it often with our health offices for when you're sending things like a strep notice um because there are already translated into 26 languages. Um, there's notices though for things like conferences. There's signage available that allows if someone comes into the office to find out do they need an interpreter, what language, um, those types of things. So, it provides many, um, pieces of information. They're just not customized. Um, additionally, uh, we use Google Translate and as you know that can be used informally just for spoken language and then again we have approved translation um, services where if we have messages, surveys or other things that we want to be fully translated, we can contract with them for that purpose. um other language services as it relates to notification. Uh on the website, we do have builtin translation tools that uh translate automatically things on the web page for our top 12 languages. Uh we have had staff test it and find it to be highly accurate um as far as getting the essence of the message. Um, we also have our district English learner page that has many resources on it for families um to gain access to information in their first or home language. Um, starting in the 2526 school year, we'll include this information in handbooks, both student and family handbooks as well as staff handbooks. And that's um in response also to that legislation. We'll continue though to use our multilingual uh learner teachers. They're a great resource and they often have um connections with many of our families. And then finally um we will formally train all staff um in person to make sure that they're aware of what services are available, how to access them, and where they can find information either for themselves or for their families. Um, this will include both step-by-step guides as well as video tutorials which currently exist. You know, often, uh, teachers if they have a need, they'll, uh, ask about the app, for example, and you can go right on and watch the video and it walks you right through setting it up and using it effectively. And that's an overview of our language access plan. Thank you board members. Any questions for Miss Leoo? Oh, go ahead. Thank you for that. This is just to clarify, this is not new legislation, is it? um or the requirements to have a plan that is in handbooks and that is approved or adopted by the board was part of the 2024 legislative session. Okay. Um however, the tools and the resources and much of what we're doing has been in place for many years. So, I think it's streamlining it and really just wanting to show that intended support for family engagement. um and welcoming and inclusive schools. So, it sounds like we're already ahead of the curve again. Yeah, we have Yeah, most of the things in place. There'll be a couple of tweaks, but that's great. Thank you. Yes, Dan. Yeah, I I agree. It seems like we're doing a really great job with being equipped to to handle like scheduled communications and outgoing communications and thing like things like that. The the one thing where I would be a little curious or concerned is, you know, a parent who speaks a a different language and how, you know, does that language barrier prevent them from coming to a forum like this or doing something on a more impromptu casual basis? I don't know what the answer to that is. I don't know how to fix it. And I know our um English as a second language population isn't huge in the district, but I just think that's something that we should be mindful of is just knowing that that barrier might exist for folks and chipping away at it when we can. Yeah, I think that's a good point. And I think when we're aware of, you know, interest in accessing any of our school events, whether that's with an interpreter or s, you know, sign language to a language, we try to be responsive. Thank you. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Leoo. Next item up is update on curriculum resources. Superintendent. Mr. Chair, members of the board, tonight we have two brief updates on curriculum resources for implementation in the fall of 2025. One you've heard before, which is our elementary English language arts instruction materials. You heard a lengthy presentation. We're also going to give a brief presentation on some changes within our international balorate course aligned to requirements from that organization. Our final meeting with director of uh instruction Dr. Steve Leoo and uh literacy coordinator Alyssa Steve I yeah I um blended those terms sorry I was anticipating Dr. Lu up here Dr. Steve Urbansky and literary coordinator Alysa Rutherford. Welcome. Thank you, Superintendent Law, Chair, Madam or uh members of the board. Uh we really uh appreciate your time once again to talk about our instructional resources. This has been a long process, especially for our English language arts resources. Uh but as you know, we always come before you at this time of year to share some updates as far as curriculum review uh resources as well as APIB uh new courses and uh any other areas that we have that need to be updated. So as uh Superintendent Law shared with you today, we really are sharing um kind of uh three main resources. Uh the first is an update to IB and uh that is just essentially an IB global politics course companion and that is uh really created by the uh and endorsed by the international balorate association. So each summer uh as we've talked about in the past, our uh high school teachers really attend uh training not just with IB but also with AP and oftentimes there's resources that are recommended to update as part of the course. So that is our main uh recommendation uh as far as an additional resource at the high school level. Our main uh recommendation that we're sharing with you this evening is uh really a followup to our presentation to you in April uh where Alyssa and I were uh sharing a little bit not just about the curriculum review process but also um the resources that we've been piloting and Alyssa has been uh instrumental in the K5 uh piloting as well as the teams that have been working throughout this process over the last two years. It was one of the first things uh she started as she started a little over two years ago. Uh so it really has been a comprehensive process as we shared with you. Um we're now ready uh to be able to um formally present to you our two programs uh which are functional phonics and morphology. And as we shared that really is getting at um one area of the the braid as Alyssa shared with you earlier. Uh and the other is arts and letters um which is really in terms of thinking about things such as comprehension and vocabulary writing. Uh and we know that both programs from what we've uh experienced not only in our pilot but also what we've learned from other districts uh those two programs uh have been very successful uh and uh many districts are adopting those same two programs for the upcoming year. So with that said, we also want to share that in the upcoming year, although I won't be here, um there are many areas still continuing um through review. So as we look uh at the upcoming year at the secondary level with English language arts, there will be additional pilot materials that uh the team will be bringing to you at the end of next year. uh as well as in the areas of uh Spanish immersion, Chinese immersion, uh we are we have completed science and then the final area is social studies. So those will be some areas in the upcoming year that we will be piloting several resources and coming before you over the next two years uh to really um be able to move some new materials out that are aligned to new standards. So with that said, um we'd like to present this to you this evening. Uh we will have all the materials available all summer uh for uh community review and uh we will also be coming back to you in August for uh final approval to everything. Thank you very much. Uh board members, questions or comments for our presenters? Dan, just for for the community review piece for for folks who might be interested in that, how do they go about doing that? Okay, great question. So, we will have um the full um digital uh access to both resources. So, even though both resources can be accessed as far as a preview online publicly, uh we will have uh a computer as well as login so that community can come and actually spend as much time with the resources as they would like. Uh and that will begin this week. So at any point here at the at the Thank you at the district service center reception desk. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next item then. Okay. Thank you. Um next up we have review of policy number 526, student use of cellular phones. Superintendent Law. Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, our first time we shared information about this was a year ago in the summer as we were coming back to the schoolyard. I wrote a letter to the community talking about the fact we'd be reviewing our cell phone use in our schools and laid out our current practice, which was at the elementary school, we recommended parents don't send any smartphones or uh technology. At the middle school, students can bring it, but they shouldn't be out from bell to bell. And at the high school level, we recommend that students can have it at school and in passing time and that they're not used in class. And uh to support this, at the high school, principal Ericson, a pretty robust series of communications throughout the year with expectations for parents about cell phones and supporting teachers. Um towards the end of the year, we surveyed students, parents, and staff on those rules. And we actually a month ago brought that data to the board. disagregated by level. Uh there was overwhelming support by students, parents, and staff with our current elementary policy. There was general support for our current policy from our middle school. Some of you heard from our middle school students. It's a little awkward to ask for permission to use the cell phone during the day from staff, but students generally report that kids are following it and it's a non-issue. At the high school level, much different review. 75% almost of students support our current practice. Parents have a slight majority in support of our current practice and staff have a slight majority opposed to our current practice. So, um, in front of you is our policy for the cell phone. And I'm going to reference for the public the line that we're we are recommending that we continue with that says cell phones and other personal electronic devices shall remain silent and kept out of sight during instructional time unless specifically allowed by teachers or other school staff. That is the the language that we have. Um, at the last study session, we recommended that we have work to do at our high school because that is the area where staff feel the most disrupted by it and yet we have all the tools in place for staff. Some staff feel like it's an onion class. Other staff feel like it's a a tremendous burden to monitor that. We do have a department, I believe it's our math department, that's going to be piloting um a a type of pouch that students put in before they go to class to see if that is an advantage. So, we're trying some different things to support our high school staff. Um but it's our recommendation that we would continue with this policy as it's written and continue to study how to better support our high school staff. With that, I'd open it up for board discussion. We're not for approval tonight. This will come back in August for final approval. Okay. Thank you, Superintendent Law. Members, comments or questions? I bet there will be some. Chris, maybe more just a comment. So, as I'm looking at the packet and I specifically looked at this one, and I don't really, it's more of a comment. Uh um you know, my thinking was we have a cell phone policy that was last updated 10 years ago and we're bringing it back to the border. We're not having any updates to it. and and and so and I'm not advocating that we do, but I'm really glad that you went through kind of all the things that that we have gone through the surveys and all those things that we'll continue to look at it because I think the policy is is good. Um uh it's uh I think vague enough that that it applies and allows us to do all these things, but um we know that we have more work to do with this. And so more for the the public and people listening because I think people are going to see this and go really you're not touching a policy and I mean cell phones have changed everything in the last 10 years. And so I just think we you know we need to be ready for that and we are doing that work and I'm very supportive of it. So I just just my thoughts Megan um so when I read through it uh I'm generally in favor of what we have. I think you know data showed that what we have is working. I do think that there are still outstanding questions about wearables. Um you know like the watch situation there are so many questions about it that I don't think we've really addressed well. Um I think most of our data is around phones and I actually hear more about inconsistencies with watches than I do with phones. And so I just am not sure um how we address that. Um, it sounds like, you know, like when you read that cell phones and other personal electronic devices shall remain silent and be kept out of sight, but then if they're wearing a watch and it's in sight, then some teachers enforce it and some teachers don't. Or at the middle school, it's different than at the elementary school. And so I think we just need to be thoughtful about that piece of it. Um because I have heard and I've experienced with my own kids like there there are wild discrepancies in what is allowed and what's not and it's very teacher dependent and so I think that's leading to a lot of confusion among families because I had multiple multiple families after the um Groveland discussion around the anxious generation. I had multiple families asking what our policy was on watches and it sounds like some elementary schools have been very clear in one direction, some haven't and then within those schools there's a lot of discrepancies and so just something for us to think about is how do we holistically when we have this policy around personal electronic devices I think we've done a really good job with the phone component of it but with other emerging technologies. How do we respond to that? Dan, um I think Megan's point is really well taken and sort of piggybacks on on Chris's point. You know, this this policy has been substantively working, but hasn't received a substantive up update for the better part of a decade. And we've seen that technologies advanced in such a way that it might require closer examination in some areas. Um, personally where I come down on this, I I heir on the side of being more restrictive of students um, having devices in class and everything like that because when we had our forums and things and we we heard from students about what they liked to use their phones for, it was for things like communicating with their parents or for music and things like that when allowed by their teachers. But we're a district where students have onetoone iPads and they can communicate with their families that way. My children do sometimes. They can listen to music on their iPads. And particularly concerning for me just because I've been through this is um 3B here, respect for privacy rights. I mean that that entire bullet list has been violated like for on on the part of one of my kids. You know, there have been people recording in the bathrooms and sharing those recordings around the school. It's been a very very serious situation and that can that that can escalate from innocent to something that's potentially criminal and very serious very very quickly. So, um I understand all the reasons why parents like to have their their phones in the hands of their children. Um, I mean, I have the same concerns and the same fears that every parent does, but I think airing on the side of keeping phones and things locked away during the day, before the bell and after the bell is is the the the the better policy for our kids. And I know it requires increased work and enforcement on the part of the teachers and it requires like a cultural shift to to get there which isn't necessarily easy. But um I I just think there's just too much risk for for harm versus the benefit that kids have having access to their phone throughout the day. Anyone else? I mean, I think those are all great points. I'm I read the policy having in mind our discussions and we've been talking about this over the past year or more. Honestly, it's come up in uh most of our student listening sessions at the various buildings. We've discussed it with and we've discussed it with our cohort groups that we're now working with this year. And uh I do think the information and feedback we've gotten from the community in those sessions is consistent with what Superintendent Law presented earlier in terms of uh sort of broad support for the treatment at the at the elementary school and a slightly slightly different picture but essential support for the way we treat uh the devices in middle school and at the high school. Um, I share Dan's thoughts about, you know, as as a parent who went through this, maybe at the time this was t when it was newer, um, starting starting to deal with it when our kids were going to middle school, it becomes more of a challenge to just keep track of of your kids because of the active rich lives all these kids lead at sixth, seventh, eighth grade. um and keeping track of them, keeping track of each other and you know just logistics becomes sort of a fact of life that we are all used to but that doesn't mean that it's uh the right educational framework and so I was struck reading the policy that it it doesn't really talk about the different approaches at the different levels and I wonder if that is a if that's a change that should be in a policy like this or if it's something we simply need to communicate differently to our community um as reminders. Uh and I agree I think the I also want to be supportive of teachers thinking about the high school level where there would be the most probably enforcement need. It's interesting to me that the teachers were the strongest opponents of the current policy if I'm understanding that data. So that they would be the ones who most need to deal with it. But um I don't know that any of that means we have to change our policy, but I do think we need to look at it. And I I I guess I agree that there's some updates we should consider making like because uh smart watches were not a thing for my kids 10 years ago. Um and um that has been changing rapidly. Um, and all technology continues to sort of change rapidly and move further down the grade levels to the younger kids. Uh, the more we the more we all get familiar with it. Well, uh, just we are in there's we are in compliance with our current policy. We we are enforcing in alignment with our current policy. So, there is no need to formally approve this again in August should we continue to study it. We um you know of the things you've talked about wearables and consistently enforcing wearables. Uh we don't have consensus. We have consensus from parents that they want them to go to school. That's a very loud voice. We heard from parents. Um and then the question is how should they be handled at school? We've also heard from parents don't make my child lock up this device because elementary kids lose things. So our current practice is to try to have them not be a distraction. Um so and we are we can continue to study this. There's nothing that says this should come back for review. Um the the we're piloting something locking away in classes. The you just as a reminder all of our students carry cell phones. None of them are required to by the school system. This is a parent decision to send these devices to school. So when you are choosing to not have students have those devices, you're taking on every single parent in the district who has sent one to school. So I mean that is that's a board discussion to have. I'm certainly supportive of the board revisiting policy, but last year when I sent the letter to the community, I said, "Keep in mind, we're not expecting you to send phones to school." If you do that, I mean that then you're, you know, the question is how do you expect your student to respond at school? So, uh, based on this discussion, I I think we'll not bring it back until we have, uh, we can specifically look at, um, I I'd recommend not going detailed level by level because that might have to change on an annual basis, but um, the two things to to look at are how we communicate and what we might attach to this as procedures. um that would we could clearly share with parents if that makes sense to you. I just have one question. We're piloting at the high school level. Why did we classroom at the classroom level? We're piloting. I wonder about the middle school level if that would be more appropriate because just that level of sixth, seventh, eighth grade kind of not really understanding the significance of you know recording. I think the problem though is that at the middle school it's less of an issue already. Like if you're in the classrooms in the middle schools, the teachers report that the kids don't really have their phones out during class. So locking up in a pouch like that in middle school wouldn't really give us much data because is that why we chose high school instead for the pilot? I think so. That's where I think our high school teachers are the ones who said most. Our students reported that you know it not to be critical of anyone in our building. and they report that the more rigorous and engaging the class, the less cell phones they see. That the general level courses that are more lecture-based, students are more likely to pull out a cell phone. So, it's a it is based on the students that you visited with and I visited with it. It is a high school issue more than middle school. Our middle school students reported that it's awkward to ask for permission to use the phone. And I but and I I would just I would just counter and say like to Key's point like when we're talking about respect for privacy rights and things like that that's that's likely not happening in the classroom. That's happening in public in in passing time and in other parts of the building. So that won't be that won't be solved by a classroom by classroom lock it away approach. It would have to be some sort of like all day approach and and stringent enforcement. I would also chime in that that is one of the reasons that a lot of people went to watches when we've been talking about it is because you can't take pictures or record or anything like that. And so I I do think we are getting into the realm of like just technology has changed so much and people have tried to like adapt and make decisions accordingly. And so I think we just need to be thoughtful about that stuff because I think that is a big problem. Like I I'm appalled to even hear that that was going on, that people were recording in the bathroom is just horrifying to me. Um but a lot of parents kind of went that smartwatch route that I know personally just because they had some locus of control around the image sharing and taking of photos and stuff. So just another piece to throw out there based on this discussion. We won't bring this back for an immediate approval, but we will study two things. One, we'll be able to monitor the high school pouches and see if that makes a difference. Two, we'll really focus on communication at the elementary level with um where and communication and expectations. And I think at middle school too, like I think that is still uh very common at the middle schools that the kids have watches of some sort and not a phone. Um so I think it probably extends through both of those levels. Any other thoughts? Good discussion. I think think it needs to be continued to be looked at. And I also think just as a reminder, we did hear a lot from our surveys and from our community. So there's um as the superintendent says, we, you know, we if we decide to clamp down, we will be um we'll probably get uh a reaction. So, and maybe that's the right reaction. Just to keep that in mind. All right. Uh, next item on our agenda is uh, review of possible property purchase. Superintendent law. Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh, you have heard a recommendation from our facility task force that met most of the year and and actually later tonight, you're going to be making a recommendation on that action. But one of the things that was not a formal recommendation but a long-term consideration is whenever possible the district should consider purchasing land near our sites for the purpose of future expansion or addressing future needs. Um lately that has been most prevalent near Mitankka High School. I'd remind the board and members of the public that building and land funds are different than classroom funds. As everyone's aware in the room, we can't ask for a tax increase to support hiring more teachers, but we can use existing funding streams to enhance our buildings or uh purchase land. So, tonight, executive director of finance and operations, Mr. Bourgeois, will be giving a summary of a proposed parcel of land that the board could consider for purchase aligned to that facility task force recommendation. Mr. Bourgeois, well, I am waiting on technology. I'll try again. Oh, there we go. Second times a char. Okay. Um so uh we um there's a a parcel that's for sale adjacent to Minnitonka High School and um we currently own this parcel in and this section here um a number of years ago about 10 10 or 11 years ago we actually uh bought the the well this parcel actually went down to to this and came across like this. And this parcel came out all the way to that. We bought this whole parcel, but we bought the back portion of this parcel from uh Mr. Fricky um to be able to take our bus driver, which used to be uh navigated through that way. We pushed the bus driveway out and then converted the bus driveway into more parking. So, we own uh this parcel and this parcel. This parcel is for sale. It's um.7 acres. Uh between the two parcels that we we currently own, we'd be getting close to um pretty close to two acres of of contiguous land adjacent to our our school site. There's not too many of these around our school site that you really can have an opportunity to do something with. Uh maybe in the future, um you know, acquiring one more parcel there uh might be be valuable. But even this even with this parcel, you would have options in the future or future school boards would. So what I did is um I uh um used a I used a block of space as a as a proforma footprint. So I I use the the West Gym and the Blackbox because it's a block of space that quite frankly I could very easily cut out and tape onto. onto another copy. So CPA means cut, paste, and attach, right? Um anyway, so uh with with Okay, I'm missing a page. Well, with with um this this parcel right here or this this this footprint would actually fit on this parcel uh in this in this area. And that's approximately 37,000 square feet, which is the same square footage as we have in the Vantage Momentum building except on three floors. So, it would be valuable to be able to to put um uh to put this or to have acquire this parcel for future use. It doesn't have to be for a gymnasium. Again, I just grabbed a footprint to utilize that um and and put it on the site. So, it's worth considering in that regard. The purchase price is $400 uh and uh $30,000. we need to or um we have we have put down a $5,000 um uh you know contingency fee on it uh earnest money. So uh if and and have made an offer if we don't if we don't uh go forward with appro with purchasing we will lose the earnest money but it was it definitely was worth uh making sure that we were able to for in essence pull it off the market so that you could consider it because these type of situations don't come through come along very often. Thank you Mr. Bourgeoa board members comments questions I mean I I'll go first. Um my my thought or one thing to remind everyone in the community paying attention is that um we just went through a facilities uh study. We've done a lot to winnow down what we might do out of all of the uh all of the needs that were identified by the schools in the community in doing that facility study again for major facilities uh upgrades that had not been done for many decades. And so there I believe there are certainly some things that were left on the table there that uh the schools and the community would be interested if we had additional space and additional funds for them. Um this wouldn't be part of any other decisions about a bond uh a bond offering for tonight. But it just seems like there's uh one of our limitations is that we are uh in a very developed community. We don't we can't spread outward like a large school in the exerbs. We are stuck with this footprint and so whenever we have a chance to expand that footprint in a meaningful way I think it's worth serious consideration. So yeah but there we give you time to and you you you took most of my thunder. I would I would just add that uh during my time on the board, it's just it's been a common understanding and direction from the board that any chance that we have to acquire uh adjacent parcels to to our our schools um you we should take uh serious consideration and I haven't seen one yet that we haven't u um adjacent like this. Um it just the opportunities don't come along uh enough uh very often and um you know we're so space constraint as uh um you said Patrick ve very well. Um so I think this is something we have to have serious consideration. I'd be very supportive of it. Thank you Mike. Um just because I'm not that familiar with uh zoning policies. Is there an issue with school uh and a residential zoning? Do we have to worry about whether or not we would be able to build on that property just because a zoning restriction would need to be approved by the city and possibly denied? Residential zoning is is uh zoned something called R1 and schools and churches are allowed in residential zoning as as a matter of course across the state. So now that doesn't mean that the city of Minnitonka won't have very detailed input into whatever we did, but um but a school is compatible with residential zoning. Megan, I would imagine we'll hear about water and if in if in in we move forward to something it seems like where there's always something around water and reservoirs and holding whatever. Um well, if we built on this site, we'd be able to put an underground storm water tank underneath the east parking lot. Well, there you go. Um, well, I'm not going to be here for this special meeting, so I just wanted to chime in that I echo exactly what Chris and Patrick have said that I think, you know, we're in a situation where we are so landlocked that I I think that's a matter of course that, you know, if we already own the adjacent property, I don't know why we wouldn't want to make that a bigger space. So, I'm in support of it. Also, thank you. Yeah, just one other consideration for the public having been through this a few times. It's always taxpayer friendly to purchase land when it's open for sale versus when we need it and have to ask to sell it because fair market value goes up considerably when the government tries to negotiate with the person. So when this person put it on the market, one, it makes our existing property more valuable because we can do something with it. and two, it'll probably be a better deal than it'll be in if some future board needs to deal with acquiring land for the purpose of an expansion. So, all right. Any other questions, comments, discussion? All right, that's it for our study session. We'll move to our special meeting. Good evening and welcome to the June 26, 2025 special meeting of the Minnitaka School Board, which I will now call to order. Let's stand and say the pledge to the flag. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda? So moved. Uh Dan, may I have a second? Second, Mike. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh the first item on this uh agenda is the approval of resolution calling November 4th building bond referendum election. Superintendent law. Mr. Chair, members of the board, way back in November of 2023. That board charged the district with creating a community advisory board, a facilities task force to study all of our current facilities and make recommendations for improvement along with costing. In November of 2024, that task force recommended to the board a lengthy list of potential improvements that the board and committee have worked with back and forth to the point where um there's a a viable ask that this board was comfortable with depending on tax impact. Tonight, executive director of finance and operations, Mr. Paul Bourgeois, is going to summarize that process. the final ask the potential tax impact and then bring it to your decision whether or not you want to put this on the November 4th election for community consideration. Mr. Bourgeois, thank you. Superintendent Law um Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, we um have done a lot of work on this over the past uh two years, and I will uh breeze through some of the detailed items that you've actually seen over the last several years, but it's an opportunity to just uh let the public uh see where we're at and and kind of a preview of where we're going. Uh so uh as superintendent law mentioned we had the creation of a facility study task force and uh it was uh it was a goal at that time. So the board authorized the creation of it in February of 2024 and we put together a cross-section of the community uh elementary, middle school and high school families, empty nesters, teachers, pair professionals, district and in employees, open enroll families and we had a a uh charge of assessing each district facility as to its ability to support current and future instructional need and develop recommendations for potential future actions for uh consideration by the school board. Uh I'm not going to read the name, but the names are out there and so these are in the public record and you can see uh who they are if you want to get on our website. Uh we actually met 15 times and went to all of the school sites uh had presentations, walkthroughs. Uh the the community group did a great job uh studying, putting a lot of time and effort into it to and very were very thoughtful with their recommendations. So, um we had some we had some uh recommendations from the community task force and uh what uh this what was presented was a a number of of possibilities and then the school board is as superintendent law indicated kind of synthesized that down to $85 million in in facility improvements under consideration and then you as a school board authoriz us to do a review and comment to the department of education and mark just to see um uh and to to see if there's how they were thinking about what we would possibly be proposing and then also what um to be able to to have a placeholder uh available in case you decide you were going to run a a referendum uh for a building bond. So, we received a positive review and comment from the Department of Education in April. They turned it around in 27 days. And that doesn't that sounds like a long time to some people, but typically anywhere from 60 to days to 90 days um is is the more normal turnaround time. So, uh we they they thought very positively of what the proposals were. Uh if we would do a building bond referendum, it would be the first building bond referendum run by our school district since April 23rd of 1996. So, 29 years and seven months. all the various building projects that we've done in the ensuing almost three decades uh we've done utilizing existing district revenue streams uh and and trying to stay within uh existing resources so that we did not ask taxpayers for additional facilities dollars. What we have done over those decades is gone to ask for operational funds for uh operating referendum dollars and capital projects, technology referendum dollars, but no building bonds uh which is actually uh three decades is is quite a while. Uh this is just a uh a rank prioritization list from the community uh from the facilities task force. The $85 million are the items in green. I won't read through them all and I'm not going to go through all them in detail. We've gone through them in detail, but uh we'll have chances to talk to the community if you approve moving ahead with a building bond referendum about all these as we move ahead. But $85 million covered approximately twothirds of the overall recommendations from the facilities task force. I'm going to zip through various um pictures of just doing a teaser of of um of of buildings, but uh I'm just going to talk about the the whole initial bond and construction plan. Uh $85 million worth of improvements if we what the typical way to do it is to sell $85 million in one bond issue and immediately uh do that after a successful referendum. And that's a traditional bonding option. and we would basically look at trying to build the buildings as fast as we could um in about two and a half years. We worked really hard to actually make that be hopefully reasonable in terms of an ask, but and we got that down to $4.99 per month on a $500,000 median home price. So, that was reasonable, but we thought that we could do better. So um one of the things that that we always look at is um and we want to be considerate of is in Minnitonka we have uh basically about 90% of the tax base is either 71% is homestead or and then another u another 18 to 19% is basically uh non-resident or residential non-homestead. So those are people who own property here but and they may have may used to have been residents but maybe now they're snowbirds and their primary residence is another state but they still are here for a long part of the year and that would have had about a 2.64% levy impact in year one and it would decline over time. So um you know not not very big but we thought that we could do better. Uh you know that's the tax impact that it would have had of $4.99 for the median home price and $841 for the average home price. So, but with continuing economic uncertainties that we've seen, um, we actually thought, let let's let's keep working at it. Let's try to get better at it. So, uh, we did some outside the box thinking. Uh, we've done outside the box thinking to mitigate tax impact over all the last couple of decades with all the bonding for construction that we've done, staying within about a $4.5 million annual existing revenue stream. So, we weren't taxing more to to make improvements to the district during those last these last couple of decades. So, we've been able to do 370,000 square feet that way. So, we can apply those same strategies to an $85 million building bomb bond referendum by uh timing the projects a little differently and timing the bond issuances differently. So, if we spread out the design and spread out the construction, uh it can mitigate the tax impact even more. So, we actually came up with a solution that would literally have no net tax impact. And what I mean by that is we'd be levying we're levying a certain amount for general obligation bonds and as some of those bonds are retired the bonds from a successful bond referendum would come online so that the net dollar amount would not change. I kind of used the metaphor of a a family that has two cars and maybe they're paying off one car with a $400 a month car payment and uh they want to pay that car off and when they do pay that car off it'll be time to replace the other one. So they can they pay the car off, they get a second car to they replace a second car and they have a $400 payment. So their payment stays steady and they're not dipping into the grocery money or any or or the utility money or their home payment money so that you keep it keep it level. And that's the idea behind this. So there's no net tax impact on their budget with their cars. The idea would be that there would be no net tax impact because we try to have the dollars come online while other payments are coming offline. So, we look at issuing $5 million uh in February of 2026 to fund some projects at MME and M&W. They're the largest recommendations that came out of the committee. Uh and then we would uh start construction on those in June of 26 and complete them in September of 27. Following that, we would do a $3 million bond issue to design and construct the other projects, which are the elementary schools and then the high school. Uh some some but there are some smaller projects, $27 million in total. And uh we would start construction on those in 2028 and complete them no later than August of 29, but they would be finished probably sooner than that because they're not quite as large a projects. But at the same time, uh we would so by doing that, uh it allows us to break apart the bonding into four tanches. So the thing is is there would be a net incremental tax dollar amount on the new bonds at $2.62, but this would be offset by declining payments. So you can never tell anybody, hey, we're doing more bonds than you're not paying for them. Yes, we're asking people to continue, we would be asking people to continue to pay the same amount, not more on our general obligation bonds. So, uh, the net tax impact would be zero, uh, across the board. And, uh, so again, just reiterating, uh, paying the same amount instead of paying an increased amount. So this is what the bonding would look like where we would be able to layer it in outside the tan as existing bonds and then the four bond tanches that I've talked about are different colors on here would be layered in a little bit at a time and then a little bit more later as we paid off more bonds so that we would be able to pay off these over about 25 years and um uh but still just be flat. And this assumes also that there's no additional uh new properties being built uh new houses being built and there's a lot of new home construction. We have a lot of large lots that are being subdivided into twos and threes. Uh we we have infills coming where there's vacant lots. And so generally our property values go up by 1 to one and a half% a year. So this is actually done based on the idea that um we're not even counting on that. But as more properties would be constructed in in the district, everybody's share actually even goes down. So a taxpayer would see that portion of their of the of of their responsibility for paying off these bonds at a lower amount. So this is a chart. It's hard to read, but basically it says the net tax impact. It's the net tax impact. And this was computed for us with the help of Baird uh financial advisors. Their names on it. It's so it's it's not something we made up. It's the real deal. And uh we would be able to have no net tax increase across the board for all property classifications in the district if we would implement that bonding strategy and that construction strategy. So, uh, that is that would end up being in essence the ask that we would be doing if you would approve going for a building bond referendum approval. So, [Music] resolution. So, moved. Second, any discussion? Chris, more just comments. Um, I've and uh I think this entire board has been uh really supportive of the facilities task force and all of the work. I've specifically been um a long time wanting us to to look at the middle schools and and really look at at our investment in that. We've had a lot of discussions around that and so but just want to a couple of thank yous uh from that standpoint. uh Paul Bourgeoa, Carrie Lindberg for uh facilitating and uh the the the facilities task force, the 27 members. Um and uh for us to we've gone through this a bunch of times and for us to break it down that uh we hit all of the highest uh needs that are identified with that. Uh Paul, you said twothirds. I it's probably more than that uh uh from that that standpoint of it. And you know, you and your team and your wizardry to to uh get all of that done. $85 million of investment back into our district to hit all of these highest needs things at with no net uh tax increase is is just amazing and a great use of taxpayer dollars and and being mindful of that when we're having all of the the budget and you know our a lot of families across our our district are are are feeling it. So I think it's it's great. I'm very supportive of this and uh you know thank you to everyone that that's involved. Great. Thanks, Chris. Mike, uh just to clarify for the sake of the public, um the the ballot as they will as it will appear in November or will if if we vote for this um will have the comment on the bottom of it in bold printing, by voting yes on this ballot question, you are voting for a property tax increase. Uh and it appears very clearly by this that that there will not be a property tax increase per se. Practically speaking, what it will be is there won't be a decrease in taxes because those those previous bonding resolutions are falling off. Yes. Yes. And and we'll have to communicate that very clearly to everybody. So because yeah, if you issue new bonds, there's there's payments that go with it, but we're trying to design it so that um that as those payments come on, other payments are dropping off so that that you don't see the net you don't see an increase uh you just continue to pay at the same level. Yeah. And so in essence, it's the basically the same messaging that we had when we did the tech levy, which was we're not increasing your taxes, we're just keeping it the same because we're just extending the the previous commitment. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. Yeah, I I like to look at this as we're living within our means and certainly in the economic climate we're in, we all think about that in our own families, I imagine. I know I do, that, you know, where things are uncertain. Uh I think the uh the work you did, the work that the uh financial advisory committee did to uh help push us toward finding other solutions was was uh very appropriate given that climate. And so I I really appreciate that and I and I want to again uh second the comments about the facilities task force for if there are people paying attention to this meeting who weren't paying attention previously. Uh it's a uh been said a few times, 27 members, a great cross-section of our Minnotonka schools community. Uh and they really dug in, did the work uh and identified areas of greatest need. Uh I'm I'm looking forward to uh this conversation. Hopefully it passes and we get to do the the project, but I think it's uh great work. It's overdue and uh the price is right. So I'm strongly in favor. Dan, I'm kind of just echoing what what everybody else said. I mean, I'm I'm I'm very thankful. I think this was really really thoughtfully done and really really responsive to the feedback that we received from all sorts of stakeholders. I know my Minnotonka city taxes are going up and I know my Henipin County taxes are going up. But because this was so thoughtfully done and went through such a deliberate process, we can make improvements to all of our schools in the district without our school district increasing the tax burden on our families. And I think that's a really important thing to continue to make investments that way, but also be cognizant of our famil family's budgets. And you know, just tonight we heard a couple parents concerned about class sizes in space in Minashta. And we can't solve that immediately, but we can take really practical uh measures like this when we have the opportunity to bring more space into those buildings so that we can live in them and grow into them the way we want to for our families and our kids. Any other comments, discussion? All right, we've got a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. All right. Next item on the agenda is approval of sale of 2025A general obligation equipment notes. Superintendent Law. Mr. Chair, members of the board, the next seven items are approvals related to sales of bonds, bids or purchase. I'm going to let Mr. Bourgeoa walk through these one at a time rather than introducing all of them separately. But we'll start with the first one which is the sale of bonds for the tech infrastructure rebuild. Mr. Bourgeois, may I just interrupt before you do that and just note for the board members that we do have carrying items on some of these items that we have now done, including 7, 8, 9, and 11 on your agendas. Thank you. Thank you, Superintendent, Mr. Chair, and members of the board. Uh these uh c are $2.2 $.2 million in 2025, a general obligation capital equipment notes uh that are being paid for out of the the capital projects fund. Uh the bonds were issued to basically begin or to begin and complete a a rebuild of the infrastructure of the district. So uh we are uh actually increasing the capacity of the district. Uh so many so many things we're doing now of course with everybody on iPads and video and all the other things is we need to increase the bandwidth uh widen the freeway so to speak. So, we're actually um doing uh these bonds are going to be paying for uh about 60 about 57 miles of cable, nine miles of fiber, and approximately a thousand different data access points. Uh and we're going from 1 gigabit speeds up to 10 gigabit speeds. So, hopefully it'll provide capacity into the future. Uh you authorize us to sell $2.2 million worth of bonds to pay for that. uh and we sold them on June 3rd uh at a total interest cost of $343. We'd like you to approve the ratifying resolution so that we can close on the bonds. Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the 2025A sale resolution as prepared by Dorsian Whitney? So moved. Dan, may I have a second? Second. Mike, any discussion? We've got a motion in the second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Bourgeois, get my paperwork in order here. Um, thank you, uh, Super um, Superintendent Law, Mr. Chair, and members of the board. Uh, the next item is the approval of a sale of 2025B certificates of participation for construction of parking at 18407 Delton Avenue. Uh we uh uh this these bonds will pay for they pay for the purchase, they pay for uh the demolition of the existing home site, they pay for the underground storm water tank, there has to be a retaining wall built and uh then a parking lot built on top of it. So uh uh 1,950,000 par value bonds uh were sold on June 3rd and uh uh they were sold at a a total interest cost of 5.07%. a little higher than we were hoping, but interest rates moved up a little bit at that time, but we uh still were very competitive in the market and uh so we're recommending that you u please ratify this sale. Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the 2025B sale resolution as prepared by Dorsy and Whitney? So moved. Camry, may I have a second? Second. Chris, any discussion? We've got a motion to second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Bourgeoa. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Uh, this next item is to approve sale of 2025b certificates of participation for replacement of the veterans field retaining wall. Uh, and because of the esoteric nature of the uh rules regarding um public and municipal debt, we had to not sell these on the same date as we sold the other two. We had to split them up in time. Uh so the um approval of the or the bonds were sold $1,300,000 above par value were sold um at a total interest cost on 5.12%. They were sold on Monday June 23rd. Hence the reason to have to carry them in. Uh but uh we would ask that you approve this so that we can commence with moving ahead with that project. Thank you Mr. Bourgeois. I may have a motion to approve the 2025 C sale resolution as prepared by Dorsy Norton. So move. Chris, may I have a second? Second. Mike, any discussion? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Bourgeoa. Um, agenda item eight is approval of a bid for Aviation One modifications to the physical health center. The Aviation One program uh has been housed in the in the east half of the loft. uh like say the national award-winning loft section at Minnotonka High School for the past two years, but the growth of the program has made it prudent to relocate it uh to some space that is a little bit more lightly utilized. Uh so what we uh are looking at doing here is is uh moving the aviation one program to the physical health center. uh it's possible to uh divide that up and still have enough space for the physical health center on one side of of the space to still house the largest FIAD uh classes that they have. Uh they have they have had 60 machines in there. They'll still have space for about 39. So that's larger than the largest FID classes. And with the the space that we're in essence, it's like free space that we're capturing. We're converting that into a um 1,600 foot space for Aviation One and their their level one simulators. Uh and this is uh will also then free up the loft then to be used for other other classes that they would like to put up there and are looking for space to to do. So it's relatively it's it's relatively low cost for a high impact uh because they're basically you know gaining that education space that has has been relatively lightly used. So, we uh have it out for we put out for bid on bids are open on Tuesday, June 24th and the low bid was CM Construction at 191,450. Uh if if this is approved, we will look at at at working on this uh almost immediately as soon as we get our permits from the city. And uh uh the goal is to have it done by Thanksgiving, but we think we can beat that. And uh Principal Ericin says he can work around that uh as long as he knows it's coming. Thank you, Mr. Bourgeoa. Uh, would a member like to make the recommended motion approving the low bid of CM Construction, Inc. in the amount of $191,450 for modifications to the physical health center? So moved. Dan, may I have a second? Second. Camry. Any discussion? All right, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Bourgeois. Uh thank you uh Mr. Chair and Superintendent Law and members of the board. Uh this next item is approval of the bid uh which we actually opened this afternoon for replacement of the veterans field retaining wall and then um this will also then include the construction of a in essence essentially a donated uh because they're providing all the dollars for it uh uh concessioned and restroom facility on top of the space that in essence is going to be created with the the replacement of the retaining wall. Uh so we uh had have basically about $2.3 million of available funds with the 2025C bonds that you authorized and the Diamond Club is donating a million dollars to construct the the concession restrooms uh facility. So the low bid uh actually we had really good appetite for this. We had 10 biders and uh so a lot of interest in this project. Park Construction Company was a low bidder at $2,231,100. So, we are within our available resources and we'd ask that you approve this um so that we can start moving ahead. Just as of a note, we still have to get through the city in terms of their planning commission and city council planning commission on June 10th and and city council on I'm sorry, July 10th and then city council on July 28th. Um and you know, then then we'll be able to get our permit. but by uh and so the the resolution actually approves the the uh low bid contingent upon us getting our permit from the city of Minnitonka. So if for some reason they said, "Oh, no, we don't want you to do that." Um this would be it it would be null and void. So we we we we hedge our bets in that regard, knock on wood, that the city of Minnotonka will look favorably upon having restrooms for people at the um at at at Veterans Field. Uh anyway, so uh thank you for considering this a little bit. Great. Um, may I have a motion to approve the low bid of Parkus Construction Company in the amount of $2,231,100 for replacement of the retaining wall at Veterans Field, etc. So, move. Chris, may I have a second? Second. Mike, any discussion? Chris, just a a quick comment and um uh again to thank the partnership with Minad Minnotonka Diamond Club uh for their generous donation that allows us to really tonka up this this project and and and and provide another high quality uh facility for our our athletic teams to use. So, thank you to them. Well said. Uh without any further comments, um there's a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed. The motion carries. All right. And uh this brings us to item 10, superintendent law. Mr. Chair, members of the board, as we discussed just earlier tonight at the study session, one of the recommendations from the facility task force was whenever possible, should adjacent property to the district become available, the district should recommend to the school board that we purchase that property for future use. One such property has become available at 56 5264 Michelle Lane. This is convenient because we own the lot next to it and it makes our own lot more usable for the future. There are no current plans to use this property, but this does leave open uh the option for future boards to use this space. So tonight, Mr. Bourgeois is going to talk through uh that sale and recommend purchase. Mr. Bourgeois, thank you, Superintendent Law, Mr. Chair, and members of the board. Um yeah, the district uh purchased approximately 12 years ago uh 52 um 58 Michelle Lane uh which enabled that plus uh purchase of a partial back piece of 5252 Michelle Lane for us to relocate our bus driveway and uh kind of push it out a little bit and then convert the existing bus driveway into additional parking which was badly needed at the time. So, we've we've um held 5258 Michelle Lane at that since that point in time. Uh per uh I'm sorry, 52 Yeah, 5258. Pardon me, getting my numbers tied here. But 5264 came available and it is a a parcel that if combined with our existing parcel would give us a chunk of land about 2.6 6 acres, which actually is more more footprint than we actually had available to put the uh Vantage Momentum building on next door. Uh the building is big. The site would be big enough to have a building with a footprint of up to 37,000 square feet on it on one floor. Just for comparison, the Vantage Momentum building is 37,000 square feet on three floors. Uh so uh depending on on what what a future board might need whether it's science rooms or music rooms or more classrooms or more experiential learning uh it has the ability to house a significant uh you know amount of learning space uh while still having sufficient setbacks uh for the neighbors in the rest of the neighbors in in the neighborhood. Uh so it came on the market it's it was $430,000. we have a uh an offer in on it and uh if you approve this, we will close on it. Um and uh and take that into the district inventory and we will we will probably be in the spring by the time everything would get done. It's starting to get it's kind of odd, but it's the end of June, but it's late in the construction season already. And um uh so uh probably in in spring and summer of next year, we'll look at at modifying the you know taking down the existing building and uh just kind of flattening it out and and preparing for you know future use at some point in time. But uh for for the moment and for the foreseeable future, there's not a specific item available to it. But it's a matter of um once in every 30 or 40 years a parcel becomes available adjacent to this high school. It's it's it's it's prudent to be able to acquire land on our tightly landlocked um school high school site. Thank you, Mr. Bourgeoa. Uh may I have a motion to approve the purchase of 5264 Mike? So moved. Camarie, may I have a second? Second. Thank you, Dan. Any discussion? Um when would the close date be? I didn't hear that. Uh July 9th. July 9th. Thank you, Dan. Uh, I think this is a prudent investment of our funds, just another forward-looking step we're taking. We don't know how we're going to use this property, but we know that when property is limited, it's advantageous to uh to acquire it so we can, you know, think ahead and provide for the future of the district. I'll just add for the benefit of anyone who didn't uh follow the study session that was streamed a few minutes earlier that we had a discussion of some more of those details and there's general consensus at of the board uh board member Celinger who couldn't stay for the special meeting. I think uh you can check the check the playback if you want to know what she said but she I think it's fair to say it was generally favorable as well. Um, and I do uh agree that it's a uh a timely and and good investment that does not in any way degrade uh take away from operating funds. As we've said many times, we're spending uh we have different buckets that we're allowed to spend on different things. And we can spend uh capital improvement or uh similar money for this this purpose. And uh I strongly strongly recommend it. Motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Superintendent law. Mr. Chair, members of the board, by June 30th of the school year, every school district in the state is required to submit and have a board approved adopted budget for the upcoming year. Um, you have seen in preview of this budget. We had hopes with a legislative session that we'd get some bit of good news that would tip in our favor for the outy years and unfortunately we we didn't haven't seen that yet. There are future legislative sessions to keep working on. But tonight uh executive director of finance and operations Mr. Bourgeois is going to run through the different budgets in our system and recommend board adoption. Mr. Bourgeois. Thank you, Superintendent Law. Mr. chair, members of the board, I'm going to go through uh the general fund. We've gone through in in very deep detail uh all the funds at the study sessions. Um so typically at at this adoption, we'd look at the general fund for any final changes and uh there weren't really too many this year. Um and uh and then uh recommend approval of the budget so that we can uh get about continuing on the business of the district. Uh I started with this slide. Um, it's the 10th year that we've had additional operating funds from the November 3rd, 2015 election. The disappointing thing about this, these have been our additional operating funds have been so important to us over the years. We've had three different tiers of about $4 million each over the last couple of decades that we are still able to get because the authority continues. But under current statutes, we don't have any further capacity to increase the operating referendum other than receiving the annual inflation increases that the school board uh or that the voters had approved for our operating referendums. And there'll be little more that ties into a couple of other notes a little bit later in about another six or seven slides back. Uh just as kind of an overall overall strategic look at things, uh we had the district going through some tougher times from the middle of the 90s after some funding changes in the state of Minnesota to the middle of the 2000s. Uh then we were able to look at we had enrollment growth. We passed some operating referendums. We had an 18-year run of of no budget reductions, which is really unheard. It's very unique, unheard of uh probably most places um if certainly in the state of Minnesota. Uh the last two years uh we've actually had to do budget reductions as we've topped out on enrollment and as we topped out on operating referendum capacity uh in spite of our intreaties to the uh to our legislators. Uh we have not been able to get them to uh help us out. Uh they have not taken the step to help us out to try to get additional operating referendum capacity so that at least we could even ask our voters. Um so we soldier on and but as part of that then we are now like most other districts in the state with almost annual budget reductions to keep balancing our budget. So uh we but we uh uh reduce about 3.7 million out of our general operating fund uh for fiscal year 25 and now we're looking at about 4.3 million out of the general operating fund for fiscal year 26. The other important point about that as I mentioned general operating fund because one thing that's very unusual for the public is that um compared to the private industry or an LLC somebody owning a business where everything kind of goes down to one pot for school districts uh we actually have multiple pots of funds. The biggest one is our general operating fund for school operations and and instruction. But then we have other pots of fund that are related to capital which are a lot of the other items that we have. We have a separate fund to maintain our buildings, you know. So there's different separate funds. And so when we're talking about budget reductions, all of our other funds are basically they're smaller. They're for a specific purpose. They're on a break even basis and they operate on a break even basis. Um but the general operating fund is the one where we have the biggest challenges um in terms of being able to have additional revenues coming in at a pace that equal the increase in expenditures each year. So this is just a uh a bottom line summary of of how much we get per pupil. Uh our each one of our our K6 students are generating about $10,915 for fiscal year 26. Each one of our 7th through 12th graders are generating uh 13,098 just under $13,100. So the average is about $12,000 per student. uh 7 through 12 gets are are weighted at a higher amount uh based on headcount uh simply because there's a lot more u science and kind of resourceheavy type of classes that you start getting into starting at the middle school level in grades 7 through 12. So, our general operating fund budget for fiscal 26 is uh 173 million $1116,521 uh which is a 4657 million increase or about 2.8%. Which sounds a lot like a lot. Um but expend it's it's catching up with expenditures because we are still deficit spending in this current year. So our expenditures are 172 thou,432,000 which is just an increase of 1.6 6 million important of about 0.9%. So because we've held things tight and we had some additional revenues coming in, we're able to have a net surplus revenues to expenses of $684,000. So we are we are right there at you know basically at break even. So but if you look at that that's basically about um you know about 4% surplus. So we we are uh we we don't earn a profit but if it was a profit margin that'd be a real tiny profit margin. Our unassigned fund balance is projected to end at 18,387, uh,416, which would be about 10.7% of our unassigned fund balance percent of expenditures. The school board has had a long-standing policy since the late 1980s. I believe it was 1987 when they developed a uh a policy of maintaining at least a 6% unassigned fund balance. uh you know 6% is is basically not not even it's about three weeks worth of of operations for a school district our size. I list out a number of the assumptions down there. Uh one of the things is uh we have our average teacher salary and benefits. It's a good profession 134,321. Average new hired teacher salary and benefits 107,533. And uh there's a teacher shortage. We need people to go into teaching. We need good teachers. So uh just a couple of of uh pie charts. Uh we have something called general education revenue which is made up of something called the basic formula primarily. Uh and it that generates about 92.9 million of our of our 173 million in revenue. Uh we have then our operating referendum is uh 28 uh 28.45 million. And uh there's something called local optional revenue. That's a $724 per pupil local levy. That's another $9 million. We get very little federal revenue. We get $3 million worth of federal revenue. In most other districts in the state, this yellow pie chart slice would be four, five, six, 10 times larger than what we get. Uh miscellaneous revenue covers all kinds of things from bus fees to in interest earnings on our cash uh to donations and about 5.6 million of that. Uh in fact, we get about $1.5 million worth of donations every year, which is incredible. I mean our community is great in in that regard just really really giving. And then categorical programs are all these various state items and actually for a lot of districts this categorical slice is actually a lot bigger too but uh for us our categorical program about 23 million of that. So basically you know about threequarters of that is actually special education which everybody uh gets based on the needs of the students in their in their district. So on a percentage basis the general education revenue is 54% and the uh operating referendum is a critical 16%. If you think where would we be without that 16% of revenue uh there's be a lot of things that wouldn't be here. Uh local optional revenue 5.2% actually I mean but it's all critical when you're trying to balance down to a point4% surplus. Every slice of this pie is critical. So uh federal revenue 1.7% miscellaneous 3.2 2 and then that categorical including special ed of 19.7. So from an expenditure standpoint uh we are are in our general operating fund we are still uh even with all the technology and everything else we do uh we are still a a a personnelheavy operation. It takes a lot of people and a lot of interaction uh of people working with students to help them help them do well. So uh our the bulk of our of our salaries are in teachers and and and pair professionals and then all of which are the most student contact people and then all other salaries and benefits are the the the remainder is about 23 million while teacher salaries and benefits are about 114 million and pairs are just under 13 million. We run a very efficient uh ship in in uh in in the support areas, the purchase services which actually includes um natural gas um or I'm sorry, electricity, natural gases and supplies. Uh but uh that that covers everything from various consultants to electrical to uh anything anything that we need where we need somebody to come in and fix things uh once in a while too. That's in there. supplies is is everything that we need in terms of paper supplies, uh cleaning supplies, you know, any classroom supplies that we spend out of the general fund. And then we also natural gas is a supply, so it's the only utility that's there. Um, and then transportation. Uh, we're at about $8 million, which sounds like a lot, but we spend on average about $300 less per pupil on transportation than the rest of the districts in the state. And then we have a small transfer of $757,000 that actually goes to the uh that's that's to fund the operations of the arts center. So on a percentage basis, teacher salaries and benefits are 66%. So two out of every $3 that we get um of all the revenue that we get from any source goes into teacher salaries and benefits and that's the way it should be because that's what we're here for. Uh pair professional salaries are about seven and a half. So between those two, direct student contact, we're basically at about 74%. So almost $3 out of $4 out of every $4 is goes into that direct student contact. And then um other salaries and benefits 13.6 and you can see the purchase services 4.3, supplies 3.4, and transportation 4.6. So this is a slide that there's a lot on here. I'm only going to hit a a couple of items, but this takes um our projection of our current year budget, which is on the left, and then we always show five years out. And be because we don't have a lot of enrollment growth because we don't have the opportunity for additional operating referendum dollars. We're really dependent on whatever large s willing to give us, uh this year, we got 2.74% uh increase on our biggest our basic formula, which is that general education revenue, but remember that's only 54%. Uh so you know 2.4% on 54% is really like 1.2% across the whole the whole entity. Uh so it's it's really important to remember that. So going forward uh we're showing that uh that we we will have an annual deficit for the next 5 years uh absent any additional revenue changes that we'll have to continue to to deal with. So we still have this challenge. At the bottom, I've added a a set of slides showing what the dollar amount is based on our current projection that we would have to do. So, because it looks like a lot because on top it looks like a really big dollar amount on the far right side, but we're actually going to be spending about $912 million over the next five years for uh um or we're going to be getting that much in revenue. So, we've got to bring our expenditures in line with that $912 million over the next five years. Uh but to do that we're going to have to do uh budget reductions in the annual range of between you know approximately there's a two and a half million to three and a half and then approximately 3 million uh for the next three years. So you do it a little bit at a time to to be able to do that but it still is to the point where it it ends up it ends up uh uh being difficult because uh the reductions are cumulative. So, um, but it's something that we just have to deal with and it's out there. And, uh, in the meantime, we also got to have to continue to just maybe we'll break through one day with our legislators and, uh, the ice will break, the dam will break, whatever you want to call it, and they'll let us uh, get some operating referendum dollars. This is a really busy slide. It's the same numbers, but in more detail. It's just here to show give people an idea of what to do, but also then if they want to look at it online, they can kind of study the general uh general part of how we operate in detail. A little more detail there. Our unassigned fund balance uh you can see in the years when we were when we were not um uh having to reduce the budget, we built it up fairly steadily. Then we got hit by COVID uh and then uh we were spending down a little bit uh but we were able to uh basically turn it around and and have it start going back up again with that 18.4 4 million figure on the far right. And uh so these are just some revenue categories. Same thing over again. Uh but resident pupils bring in about 58.8 million on general education revenue. Open enroll brings with them about $34.1 million. uh the the inter our open enrolled students bring in enough revenue to cover all their incremental costs and still have enough money left over so that every resident students is able to have 30% more dollars spent on them for regular instruction that would have been if we didn't have open enroll students. So they are a huge asset to our our district as as participants but also to our resident students uh because the additional revenue that they bring in makes makes it possible to have a lot of the things that we offer. You see special education at $23.4 million. Uh there's something called a TR pension adjustment revenue above $1.8 million that's related to um it's revenue coming in but it's an identical expenditure going out. It's related to uh giving teachers an option for earlier retirement. Uh and then our investment income is is buried in in that $5.6 million. So, uh voter approved referendum 28.4 at $2,266 per pupil. It's growing $6342 uh because it does go up with the rate of inflation, but other than that, it's at the state cap. The state cap does go up at the rate of inflation. and our local optional revenue. This these next notes are actually kind of important because um one of the things that I I that our district has had to do is we get well we we're kind of swimming without we've we've always had to kind of do it on our own uh for lack of a better term because we get le significantly less state aid than the average school district in the state. If you looked at just how much general fund revenue that we get in state aid out of the 329 school districts in the state with the district getting the most being ranked number one at the top and the district getting the least being ranked number 329 we get we're we're ranked at 320. So it it's a it that just continues a decadesl long streak in the bottom you know the bottom 5%. Uh the average state aid on the the most recent comparison dollars that we have available is $12,448. We get $10,254 in state aid. So we're we're $2,194 or 18% less in state aid per pupil than just the state average. Uh and the other thing about that is so where does that put us? Um we're actually 197 positions below the state average. If the state average was a school district, it'd be up number 123. We're 197 positions below that. Uh the other thing is is uh with our, you know, I have colleagues like, "Oh, you you you have your your operating referendum. You're at the top. You have all this money." Well, even with that, thank God for our our local populace and the operating referendum approval, but that brings us up to 167 out of 329. So, we're still below the median. We're not even at the middle of the pack. Um, so, um, it's thanks to the operating revenue, but that still means that there's 166 school districts that receive more total revenue than Minnotonka. We're and we're 64 positions below the state average in total revenue. Uh, that's the latest school district data. That $2,194, it's it's the first time we've been at that in our in our audits every year. uh Clifton Larson Allen pulls comparative data for us as part of the audit summary that you get and year after year after year the amount of money we're spending in a year is less in the current year is less than most districts were spending a year the year before and by a significant amount by 600 700 800,000 dollars less per pupil. the amount of state aid that we get. It used to be we were 1,200,500,600. The gap keeps growing. That 2,194 gap is the biggest it's ever been. And unless something changes, it's going to keep growing. We're going to keep falling farther and farther behind. So, it's the latest uh information from the school district profiles. And it's just really important that everybody understands that because um at some point in time we need we need to have this this be addressed where you know we need to have we need to be at least be put into the middle of the pack if somehow general operating fund uh expenditures $150 million of salaries and benefits which is 87.3%. Again we are a people intensive organization and and we have to be uh purchase services are 4.3%. You see a list of some of those there. Utilities of 1.7 million. Uh property and liability insurance 865,000. The value of our buildings if we had to build them new is actually over $900 million. That's how how costly new construction is. So they're insured at replacement value of approximately $900 million. Um special education uh some some expenditures there for care and treatment. Supplies again instructional supplies are about 2.5 million. testing is about 400,000. Um I always thought these are kind of interesting though maintenance supplies. So all the all the cleaning supplies, they're good deals. U our purchasing department, our maintenance people do a great job, but only 171,000 for all the paid pier supplies and all the uh cleaning supplies to keep the buildings clean. Uh and fuel for heat, natural gas, 557,000. transportation. Um, we've been running for a long time with 50 routes uh in the morning and afternoon and 21 special education bus routes, but we get three trips in the morning and three trips in the afternoon. So, that's all uh that we have in the general operating fund. So, um in the the resolution that you have, which I have to find my board item here. Uh the resolution that you have, I've talked about the general operating fund, but that's just one of our fund. the res resolution that you have is to adopt the budget for all funds. So, um all funds put together, it's it's also in in the backup packet, but if you include all of our funds, the total revenue and other sources is $278 million 821,199. Uh and then the projected expenditures and other uses for all funds is 277,465,720. and uh we would be maintaining a balance of all governmental fund types at the end of fiscal year 26 of 66,676,179. The difference between that and the $18 million is uh such things as our self- insurance fund, our op trust fund, um our construction funds, our our nutrition services fund, uh our uh community education fund, all of which contain uh you know fund balances that are restricted for them and they they can't be used to help out the general operating fund. So, uh but that's the that's the motion that you need to approve so that you're in essence approving the budgets across all the funds. I just went over the general operating fund tonight as kind of a capstone for all the other review we've done in the last uh couple of months. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Bourgeoa. Uh any uh well, let's take a motion first. Um may I have a motion to adopt the fiscal year 2026 budget as presented? So move. Chris, I have a second. Second, Dan. Now, any discussion? I want to thank you for all of your work. I feel like in some ways we've been talking about this budget since about this time last year. Um and uh with all the work you've done uh on this and on the many ways we've tried to ring some more dollars out of the capital. So I also would be remiss if I didn't mention Ash Mooney. He's not here, but Ash Mooney and actually Jess who's moving on to another job. um we we coached her up well, so we're going to miss her. But both of them have had a big a big role in this also and I want to thank them. Yeah, kudos to your team. There's a motion to second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Superintendent law. Oh, consent. Oh, forgot about that. We have a motion to adopt the consent agenda. So moved. Dan, may I have a second? Second. Camry. Uh, all those in favor, please say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Um, may I have a motion to adjurnn? No. So moved. Chris. May I have a second? Second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. I. We'rejourned. Hey.