[Music] Good evening. The time is now 6:05. The Visetta Public Schools Board of Education special regular meeting for Monday, September 22nd, 2025 will please come to order. Will the clerk please call the role? >> Heidi Kedar >> here. >> Sheila Prior here. Sarah Johansson is absent. Paris Bende >> here. >> Valentina Ays >> here. >> Dan Janestra >> here. >> Milan Sahony >> present. >> Chase Anderson >> here. >> Thank you. We have a quorum. The first item on our agenda is the approval of the agenda and the consent agenda items. Consent agenda items are considered routine in nature and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a board member or a citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed as a consent agenda item and addressed. The consent agenda items are listed in the materials. The recommended action is to approve the agenda and the consent agenda items. Is there a motion? >> I move. Second. Moved and seconded. Will the clerk please take a roll call vote? >> Dan Janestra. >> I. >> Sarah Johansson is absent. Paris Bendy. >> Yes. >> Sheila Prior. Yes. Heidi Kedar. >> Yes. >> Valentina Ays. >> Yes. >> Milan Sahony. >> Yes. Thank you. We have an agenda. Okay. Next, we have the admin reports and recommendations. Executive Director of Finance and Operations Trevor Peterson will present the preliminary preliminary 2025 payable 2026 levy certification. Trevor. >> Yes. Thank you. I'll wait a little bit for the presentation to come up. There it is. Uh so good evening uh board chair Sahony, members of the board, Dr. Anderson. Um thank you for allowing us to present the preliminary 2526 uh levy levy certification tonight. Um the finance team members and I have been working hard the last couple of months to bring the the data for you. Um tonight um in the board packet you did receive um a memo that has a little bit more information, a little more detailed information with some uh graphics and some some more details and descriptions of certain things. So I will refer to that a couple times. Um but for the most part, this presentation is a little more uh summary in nature. Uh, I would also encourage you I it's not a real um easy presentation to do in a linear fashion. So if there are questions that you think of maybe wait till the end of the the presentation because I trust they might be answered somewhere along the way. So um getting started with that um looking at the levy certification timeline. So uh it's definitely a multi-step um process. Um my I think my first action in front of you was in July where we talked about the LTFM um our long-term facilities maintenance revenue application. Um so in July the the board is asked to approve that. That's really the first step um in looking at the in this case it's the 25 uh payable 2026 levy. Um and going forward you might hear me just refer to it as the payable 26 or pay 26 just to keep that short. Um the next step then is um in August all districts are required to submit levy information into the MDE uh levy information system. So that takes place over the month of August. Um that brings us to September. So once the the calendar flips to September, that's when MDE takes all of that information um that the districts put into that system uh to start calculating what each preliminary levy for every district in the state looks like. Um after the the approval tonight, we will uh submit that information to the county um who uses this data to turn around and prop mail out the proposed properties tax statements to each property owner. Um November is um where a month with the special or with the general election where districts may hold referendums for operating levies or building bonds. And then in December, we'll be back again um where I will have the the truth and taxation public hearing um and then ask for the final levy uh to be approved in December. So that is the the timeline um of the levy. Um for another a little more of an overview too, when we say payable 2026, that means that that's the funds that are collected from the taxpayers um in calendar year 26. So the first half is due uh May 15, 2026. second half due October 15th, 2026, which probably everybody knows is aware of that um timeline. Um and then the school districts generally receive their portion of the taxes of the property taxes sent from the county about 2 to 3 weeks after those collection dates. Uh it's important to note that uh this does provide revenue for the district in fiscal year 2627. Uh I think I've said it at a a previous board meeting, but um this highlights that um the finance team always seems to be working in in three fiscal years. Um this week we welcome the auditors on site for to look at our 2425 fiscal year. Um we're living and breathing in 2526 and uh we're looking at the levy which is revenue for the 2627 fiscal year. Um and when we say fiscal year just a reminder that that does begin July 1st. Historic fiscal year runs July 1st through June 30th. Um and that is different um from cities, counties, and townships. So their budget year is actually January through December. Uh so when they um have a prelim or uh levy report, their payable 26 levy or taxes do provide revenue for their 26 calendar year. Uh so a little bit of a different timeline between uh school districts, cities and counties and townships. Uh the funding is highly regulated. Uh so MDE does um set a lot of the formulas which determine our revenue. Um most of this revenue is based on specified amounts per pupil. Uh there are a few other funding categories that are not based on pupil but um based on other things. Um then they also calculate what the maximum authorized property tax levy is for each property um each parcel as well as what that means then for the district as a whole. So, um the districts may levy less um but not more than the amount that's authorized by the state uh unless there is an approved uh referendum in in November. So, between now and uh the final levy in December. Uh the state also does authorize school boards to submit referendums for operating capital needs to voters for approval. As with everything else uh school finance related, it is is not a simple system. It's very complex. Uh there's about 39 pages of levy calculations um that contains over 50 different revenue um and by revenue I do mean aid and levy categories. Uh the levy is based on two property tax bases. Um referendum market value and net tax capacity. Um that does get a little confusing but I'll get into that um a little bit more in a in a future slide. Um it does contain four different funds. the general fund, community service fund, debt service fund, and then OPED debt service fund. Uh the last of which does not pertain to Weisetta public schools. Uh we just have the first three. Uh and then when property owners receive their property tax statements, uh it's divided into two different categories. Um voter approved levies and then other local levies. So what causes levies and property taxes to change from uh year to year? Um state law is the biggest one. So that's all those formulas that I talked about. So as formulas ch change as a legislature puts things or changes up things that definitely has an impact on every district's levy. Um pupil units um and district population pupil units is another way to say enrollment. As I mentioned that's a huge driver a lot of these funding categories. Um the market value property market values and tax capacity not only of each property but also the district as a whole. Um so as a property base, property market value and tax capacity grows throughout the district um that allows um any levies to be spread across more properties um for new um properties that exist within the district. And then changes in expenditures. Some of these funding categories that I'll highlight do are based on actual expenditures that dis that the district incurs for various programs. All right, looking more into these taxbased definitions. So the the referendum market value, so that's the taxable uh market value of all taxable property in the school district excluding seasonal, recreational, and agricultural land. Uh there are some other really really minor classifications as well um such as um you have some managed forest land um secondary student or post-secary student housing um private airports those things are also um not subject to tax capacity. They're based on the referendum market value. And really what that means is there are four funding categories um in the levy. um the operating referendum which is voter approved. Uh then you have local optional equity revenue and trans transition revenue which is non- voterapproved. Um those classifications those property class classifications of seasonal recreation and egg land are exempt from paying property taxes on those four funding categories. Um that leaves the other um tax base which is the net tax capacity. So that is the value of property which properties taxes will be levied against for all other school funding formulas uh calculated by multiplying a property's taxable market value by its assigned classification rate um which is determined by the legislature. So some examples of that um if you if your property is classified as a residential homestead you will get taxed or your net tax capacity is 1% of everything up to $500,000 and 1.25 25 for anything over $500,000. Um meanwhile, a $500,000 commercial property um has a net tax capacity rate of 1.5% for everything up to 500,000 and then 2% for anything above 150,000. So, so again, different um same property values but different net tax capacity based on your classification. So, getting into the numbers um for our district, um this you'll see a few graphs that compare our actual tax levy um for payable in 2025 versus what we're proposing tonight um for a preliminary le payable in 2026. Um overall with these three funds, we do have a 4.74 um% increase. Um the you can see the general fund is just under $78.6 million or 4.09 09. Community service is up about 123,000 or 5.78%. And then debt service is 1.3 U million which is um 7.21%. Um just for reference at 4.74. Last year we did have a 4.26% increase. The year before was 4.9. Uh and the year before that it was 2.63. So just gives you a little reference as to what this how this compares to the previous three years. Here is the same total um levy broken out into different categories. So that top one, the truth and taxation category, as a reminder, those are the um that those are the descriptions that property owners will see on their property tax statement, voter approved levies, and then other local levies. Uh the voter approved levies is pretty self-explanatory, but it includes all of the successful referendums that are voted by the taxpayers for either building bonds, operating levies, capital project levies, or technology levies. Uh the other local levies is exactly what it is. everything else. So, of the the $2.5 million increase that we see in the voter approved levies, 2.1 or 2.1 million of that is for the operating referendum due to increased enrollment as well as the inflationary increase that are on those operating referendums that were on the ballot language uh when they were passed. Uh the remaining thou $300,000 or so is attributed to capital projects and technology levies. uh and those are due to the increase in the district net tax capacity. Uh that is the the formula that's used for those. The bottom one then looks at the tax base. So I talked about the referendum market value. So that it's roughly half um a little bit more than that about 46% or 45% is our referendum market value. Um and then the remaining is based on net tax capacity. And there's another slide that that shows that in a little greater detail. uh diving into the general fund a little bit. So, this is one that there is an exhibit in that board or that memo that I included in your board packet that has all of the the funding categories broken down a little bit more detail. Um that would be hard to see on this slide. So, I broke them out into these four categories instead. So, just to give you a taste of what's um what might be the main drivers in each of those four. Um the the referendum market value voter approved levy. Um this is this contains only the revenue from the voter approved operating referendum. Um I mentioned too that those are based on an inflationary factor. So for payable 26 the increase um in for inflation allowance is about 2.69%. Um when that increases the per pupil amount from two $2,238.84 per pupil up to $2,2991. So when you add that on to what our increased enrollment is, that does um increase our revenue for our operating cap our operating referenda about $2.1 million. Um you will see that the total change is 1.6. Um so of that we did have last year we had about $638,000 um in prior year adjustments which which are pretty common. Um and this year we did not have that. We had about $155,000. So, um, this is a good time to talk about those prioryear adjustments. A lot of these, um, levy categories that we're talking about are called what's there self- adjusting or self-correcting funding formulas where we do our best to estimate what our enrollment's going to be. We do our best to estimate what expenditures are going to be. Um, we plug that in um, into the system that the MDE levy information system that I talked about. um but we're still trying to project out for fiscal year 2027 which is difficult to do. So once the actual data comes in then MDE takes um takes advantage of that to um put in prior year adjustments in every levy. So you do see that it's kind of a catchup. Some of them might be negative, some of them might be positive. The goal is to get those as close to zero as possible. That's not always the case. That always that can't always happen. Um, and there are a lot of errors that happen as well, both on the district side as well as MDE side. Um, but just know that usually what you see is a pretty flat levy from year to year as those adjustments kind of take care of themselves. Um, moving on to the referendum market value, the other local levies. Um, so this is where the three other funding categories are um are they're combined to be local optional revenue, equity revenue, and the transition revenue. um for that current year um that did increase about $365,000. Um and again, this year we have um less in an adjustment than the previous year, which is good. And that's good for the taxpayers to show um a dollar increase or a percentage increase to have some of those negative adjustments or um adjustments be a little bit less than what we've experienced in the past couple of years. Moving on to the net tax capacity voter approved. Um so this is where the capital projects and technology leveies lie. Uh those are uh voter approved levies that are calculated on net tax capacity. Um we do have we currently do have two existing levy authorities um for capital or capital project or technology levy. um one of those um when the ballot when the ballot is presented to the taxpayers for those kind of levies, it is based on the net tax capacity, a percentage of the net tax capacity for the entire district. So, one of those um has is being calculated at 2.66075% of the net tax capacity. So, as the net tax capacity of the district grows over the years, so does the revenue that is generated from these levies. Uh the other one that we have and that one so that one brings in about $6.6 million. Uh the other one is a little bit lower. Uh it's at 2.36 266% of our net tax capacity which brings in about $5.8 million. Uh for the last one, net tax capacity, other local levies, that is primarily our long-term facilities maintenance that makes up the majority of that one. Um, and I I think it's been well documented in some of the budget presentations that this one has uh seen a few swings in the past few years. This is one of those that's based on those actual expenditures. So, we do our best to put into the long-term facilities maintenance plan what we might expect to see on any given year for LTFM projects and expenditures. Um, if we spend less than that, then that is reconciled in subsequent years in a negative adjustment. Um during the co years, we did see a significant adjustment of a negative $8.8 million. Um again, that has been presented in in the form of the budget this year. And these are always a couple years behind, too. It takes a couple years for these to get caught up. Uh this year, we're seeing less of a a negative adjustment of about $4.2 million, $4.3 million. The other thing to talk about here, one of the other um bigger ones that fall in the general fund is our lease levy. Um I only bring that up because we have seen um pretty good roller coaster over the last few years of what is um what some of those prior year adjustments were in our lease levy from fiscal year I think it was last year. Um so payable 25 goes back multiple years and the so the most uh the furthest back year that would go would then be fiscal year 22. Um so MDE um did recognize an error in our lease levy um which prompted us to have a adjustment of about $1.4 million um that they were excluding from our lease levy authority in previous years. Um this year uh we are seeing that that is something that the MDE continues to work with. Um what makes that a little bit complicated is for the lease levy there are there are five um data factors that are being um uh compiled into the lease levy. One of them is estimated lease payments for payable 26. Um you we enter what our fiscal year 25 actual payments were. Uh we enter what our actual 2024 um expenditures were 2023 expenditures um and then any adjustments. So, uh, it it it takes into effect five years essentially or five calculations to figure out lease levy. Um, so we hope after the MDE had their um error corrected last year with that adjustment that we start to see that level off a little bit. Um, again, this is one um that there are some questions out there um from districts of how this might look. One of those things that MD is currently working on. Um, and just full disclosure, this that is one that may change between now um and when we present our final levy in December. So, we're keeping an eye on that one. Moving on to community service fund. So, community service fund um is definitely the smallest of the three funds that we have for levies. Um, but it is does provide significant revenue to our community service fund. Um, a lot of the the biggest change here would be the $215,000 increase in the school age care. Um, this is one of those that's based on estimated expenditures. Uh, so we are estimating that in fiscal year 27 we will spend $1.2 million on the the technical term is called disabled school age care. So, it's expenditures that qualify um to meet the needs of students um that might not otherwise be um able to be met um in, you know, during a regular before or after school time. Uh they require one-on-one needs, those kind of things. So, um as enrollment in Weisetta Kids continues to increase, so does that number. Um and you might look at that 21.83% to be like, well, that's a pretty good jump, which it is. Um but we've also experienced 24% increase in the number of enrolled students in one year um and 36% going back two years. So uh that increase does uh reflect um correspondingly to what we are seeing in total enrollment in Weisetta Kids. Uh this is one of those self- adjusting or self-correcting levies. Uh so if in fiscal year 2027 we let's say for example spend only $1.1 million, there will be a negative adjustment of $100,000 the following year. Uh the other one to pay attention to here is the early childhood family education. You look at that to say why is that such a decrease? Um that is based on our district census not our enrollment. So the the total number of children under the age of five in our district. Um that has not decreased to what you see on the screen. Um but the ECF revenue is a aid and levy split. So as that changes as our sentence census changes from year to year so does the core the the percentage that you might see with aid and levy. So, for example, last year the total ECFE revenue in total I mean by the by state aid and e and levy revenue was about $753,000 of which the 531 that you can see on the screen was for levy and the remaining 222,000 was in the form of state aid. Moving to payable 26, um the total revenue is increasing from $753,000 up to $929,000. Um, however, based on the change in our net tax capacity and the census, um, the levy amount of that is the $456,000 you see. So, it is $74,000 less in levy. Um, but it's about $250,000 more in aid. So, they are not receiving less revenue in ECF. Instead, they're they're receiving about um $275,000 more or $175,000 more total revenue. the top one there too, the the basic levy, you can see the little note there that that's based on the district population. Um, so that is um districts receive $6.35 per number of uh people that are in your district um plus $1 for for youth service. Um and then there's some afterchool aotments as well or allocations as well. For us, that totals about $590,000. You see that hasn't changed. That did not change from last year. That's only changed um when administration brings forth to the board in the form of a resolution to approve a change in the district population. Um districts are held harmless if the population actually decreases. So, uh we did bring to the board, I think it was a couple years ago, um a resolution to change the district population or the official official district population. Um, and that's something we monitor each year and if it does warrant uh if the increase in district population is enough that warrants us to bring a resolution to the board, we will do so. Um, we did not feel the need to do that this year um just based on the uh what the difference between the population from last year and this year is. And then lastly is the debt service fund. Uh this one's pretty straightforward. Um it's mostly comprised of two funding sources. debt service, that top one, um, which is 105% of our principal and interest payments. Uh, I think I've said it before, but 105% is, um, required for districts to levy, um, to make their scheduled principal and interest payments. That is in the event, um, if district taxpayers, um, are for some reason not paying their property tax bills, um, the 5% additional um, will hold will allow the district to receive enough revenue in theory. uh to make those payments without having to dip into their general fund dollars or other um funds to account for the lack of property tax payments that were made. Our district is historically really good about that. So that has not been an issue. And then what that leads to then is that second line uh which is a reduction for debt excess. So as that additional 5% adds up over time, um there does come time where MDE says it's time to pull some of that back. um that did happen last year um and a very very minimal 40 cents this year u which is a little bit weird. And then the other one is long-term facilities maintenance. Um that one increased about $684,000. That is due to the um capital facilities bond that was recently sold um to for the construction of West Middle School. This is very hard to see. Um but one thing I want to illustrate on here is um there's about 10 um market values, estimated market values for residential homesteads. Uh then you have about five for commercial commercial industrial and then four apartments. Um so we look at that 4.74% total increase. And I mentioned as a district's net tax capacity grows um that really offsets a lot of the uh the impact for the property tax increase um for school districts. So, in looking at this, if if if an uh property owner had a market value, residential homestead market value of about $500,000, despite the district property taxes or tax levy going up 4.74%, um that property owner would see an increase of about 1.9%. So again, it's just that 4.74 is being spread across more uh more properties, uh more parcels, more taxpayers. Uh similarly then commercial industrial um will have about a 7 to8% increase um and then apartments about a 2.1%. And I I do want to go back to this slide just to say that this is all based on a lot of assumptions. Uh the assumptions based on the net tax capacity truly does grow as to what the assumptions are. Um it also does assume that our final levy is what we are presenting tonight in the preliminary levy. Um and it also um assumes that one property um the the market value of the property in question um stays the same from year to year. We know that has not happened um very frequently from from year to year. But um in order to have an apples to apples comparison that that that is one of those assumptions made in this graph. As a district, um the total market value of all of our properties in the district is just shy of $22 billion. Um you can see how that is broken out percentage- wise between residential homestead, other residential, uh commercial, industrial, um non-qualifying agriculture, qualifying agriculture, and then seasonal wreck. Um moving to the middle column, you'll see that that's the referendum market value. Um so the second to the bottom there um remember that agricultural land is exempt from referendum market value. Um those those funding categories that are calculated based on referendum market value. That's why you see a zero there. Um you might look at the bottom line to say I thought seasonal recreational property was exempt from referendum market value as well. That is true. um to a to the largest degree, but there are a few even though they might be classified as seasonal recreational property. Um they are subject to those taxes and and that's for cabins that might have too high of a value. Um where the they might be in question as to is this really a seasonal wreck property or is it a residential homestead? Um and that also includes that $6.8 million does also include mun municipal golf courses um and a few other things. So not every seasonal recreational classification is exempt from refer referendum market value but you can see majority of it is. And then over on the right you can see the breakdown of net tax capacity. So I when I talked about net tax capacity I mentioned that commercial and industrial generally have a higher tax rate than residential homestead. So you'll see a little bit of a shift um between the market value where commercial and industrial will go up and the residential homestead will go down. What's really important um to understand with our district too is um what you want to see when when you start having some conversations about what referendum might look like if if you're going to go out to voters for different things. Uh whether it be building bonds or operating levies. Um it's important to know what you label that as. So what what does the ballot language say? What's it called? What's the funding source? Um because if you're a district, let's say in northwestern Minnesota, um that has a lot of qualifying agricultural land and you go out and do a an operating referendum, those property owners are going to be um exempt from paying those taxes, which then creates more burden upon those who will be paying it. Uh so that that's important to to note. Um likewise if you are a district let's say Walker Hackinack Aley um for your northern folks up there um you will see a lot more of the seasonal wreck property um as to as versus what you might see in our district. Having us be very consistent from column 1, 2, and three is important. Um, just because you it's it's not real crucial. Um, it puts us in a position where we can um go out um or seek funding for what we want rather than having to play that game as to um what might be best or how might we have to um frame the language in order to um not um take into consideration what some of those exempt or non-exempt properties are. So to see that split is is a good thing. It benefits us. All right. So um this is the the final slide. Uh just again a summary of what the recommendation might be. We we are looking at a preliminary levy for payable 26 of 100,885,58629 which is a 4.74% increase. um as as so as right now the dis the board will have two options. Um we can approve it at the maximum um or we can approve it at a specific dollar amount. Um I I have been in this I've been doing this for quite a while. Uh I always like to tell the story. Um the recommendation is to do it at maximum be by because doing that does still allow us the flexibility to change this and levy for less if we so choose um at the board meeting in December. Um if you approve it at a specific dollar amount no matter what happens between now and December that is the dollar amount that is the maximum dollar amount you could do. You could also do less um but it does not provide you the flexibility if there's any changes between now and December. Um I again the story I want to tell is I am aware of only one time one district in the state and I don't remember the district it doesn't matter um chose to do a specific dollar amount instead of the maximum at the September preliminary levy um once they were once they adjusted their enrollment projections once MDA MDE had found a couple things that weren't right on their preliminary levy uh they ended up losing about 5 about $5.5 million in revenue. venue that they could not levy for um because they approved at a specific dollar amount. So again, I I I want to stress that we still do reserve the right and have the flexibility and ability to to levy less, not more than the maximum, but um we can do that in December and have those discussions then. Uh so with that, I'll entertain any questions and otherwise ask the recommended approval. >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Trevor. So the recommended action colleagues is to approve the preliminary 2025 payable 2026 levy limitation and certification at the maximum amount allowed by state. Is there a motion? >> I so move. >> Is there a second? >> A second. >> Moved and seconded. Is there a discussion? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you so much. Uh it was a real joy having our uh CFAC committee um be a part of the introduction and summary of what this um levy approval would uh look like. So thank you so much for taking uh community member and board members questions. Thank you to the finance team for all their hard work and dedication. Um we know that uh things today were a little bit fast-paced in the morning um with some uh alternative numbers coming out but thank you so much for um you know very quickly meeting the moment. So it means a lot and we're so grateful and um thank you. >> Yeah. And I wanted to say the same um I think the way you explained and this is our second time hearing this presentation so I'm sure I cannot present it back but it resonated and especially when you presented with CFAC members which are again our community members um you could see that it resonated well with them as well. again specifically about 4.78 levy to the max not to the dollar or lesser percentage right that doesn't mean that your tax bill is going to go up by 4.78%. Um so I think the range that you have shown uh by property by classification I think that resonates well and that helps tell the story. Uh and then the last but not least is the wiser distribution of those qualifying or non-qualifying classifications. Um we don't have whole lot of exclusions if you will. So we are not going to burden taxpayers or certain taxpayers. So yes, it's a increase tax bill but it is still lower because it's going to get distributed across you know broader population. So I think those were some of the points that resonated really well with that CFAC committee. So again just wanted to share that with the group. So again thank you for simplifying it. I'm sure once we start peeling the onion there will be more questions but this was really helpful and Jack and Jen you guys were super helpful in CFAC um meeting as well. Thank you. >> Yes, man. >> I have a question. Did we have any time such kind of situation when we actually came I mean at the uh at the end of um it's uh we we you came down with a percentage I mean with a uh what we actually what you actually take right now we're taking maximum. That's what I'm trying to say. But did we have any event situation when we actually uh when we had final meeting when a board came? >> I don't know for sure. Um I would I would guess yes. Um I I think with the amount of work that has to be done between in September first of all cuz um I also want to uh acknowledge what Dan had said and apologize for the the the late minute uh our last minute changes today. But that's how we roll. That's how it does. And I would anticipate we'll see a new report out tomorrow morning that will be different. Um not maybe not for our district, but may maybe for other districts. Um so I have a hard time believing that it it's never not been lower. Um I don't know that for sure, but um I I certainly if it hasn't been for us, it has been for other districts. And um it it seems like if there is a year where that might happen, this could be the year just because there seems to be a lot of changes yet to be made um at the MDE level uh within for various districts. And uh we our hope is that it doesn't change a lot between now and the final. Um if any changes that what were presented tonight and December will be um clearly um communicated just to make sure everybody understands what the changes were. Um what I don't know for sure is if um if it was ever approved or voted to um to underlevy. Um so we we use the term maximum that that allows us to levy up to the maximum. Um and then the opportunity to for the board to underlevy is um maybe a different question. So um I don't know if that's ever happened nor uh do am I aware of any time happening where the final levy came in less than the preliminary levy. Um, but I'm sure it has happened and I'm sure both have happened um at some time. >> Yeah, I might just offer some clarification too, Valentine. I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I think that could be interpreted two ways. One, would the state ever come back with a lower maximum levy amount for the school district? I think that would be yes. >> That would be yes. Correct. And another uh way that I might have interpreted the question is has the district ever levied to the maximum in September and then done less than the maximum in December? This will be my 18th time through this uh in Weisetta. I don't think we've ever not levied the maximum in September or in December. And um I would not recommend that we do that. >> Yeah, it it would be rare. It would be rare. It it certainly does happen um for multiple districts, but um I don't know the history of of Weisetta either, other further further back than Chase can provide, but um yeah, it would be it would be extremely rare for that to happen. Mhm. Okay. I have three questions and maybe now four. Um Chase just said that uh the state has come back with by reducing the maximum levy in December compared to what it was in September. That would be a tough one for for the district. How do how does one handle that? Um if if the if the maximum is less than what we presented now. Um I I guess the good thing about that is because this is for fiscal year 26 27 revenue. Um we're really not making any decisions or huge decisions yet based on that. Um I I think if it's one of those things where a district was projecting to see a revenue increase um next year or in fiscal year 27 and then um comes back gets a little surprised the wrong direction and says we're actually receiving far less revenue especially in the general fund revenue um general fund um levy. You can't do too much with the debt service. That one's pretty much set in stone and what it is. Um but certainly if that were to happen with the general fund um it it might take a district by surprise um and it could also be to to Valentina's point if there are some adjustments that come in which um increases the maximum then we might have um some discussions about that as well but um yeah I I think it is the the start of what fiscal year 27 revenue is and a significant portion of that uh formula for us. So um every little bit makes a difference. So if I I I do think if it is higher or lower that um everything takes a um reserves the right to have a pretty good hard look at it. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So you talked about debt debt service just now. So what is what's the reason that Visetta public schools does not have a an OPE debt debt service fund? It's not applicable to us. What's if it's very complicated? I don't want to know. If we see if we >> then then you don't want to know. >> Well, >> no. I I um history lesson. I think this goes back to about 2008 um when OPED became a thing. Um the legislature basically acknowledged saying districts are having a very difficult time paying the retirement benefits for all employees um that they have. Um so they are going to allow school boards the opportunity to levy um to make those payments. So, at at that time, um you were given the option to a do it or not. Um and if you did decide to do it, you could have done either a um I'm forgetting the terms, a revocable trust or irrevocable trust. Um so, if you if you did um decide to levy for it, um that is certainly a district's decision. Um, and then each year as those OPED retirement benefits came to be paid, you could use your trust proceeds to pay those. So, basically reimbursing yourself if you so choose. Um, my understanding is that um, Weisetta decided not to do the the debt service portion of it um, and just invest in themselves with the with the OPED trust. >> Okay, sounds good. That that was okay. That that was understandable. Thank you. >> Good. Um third question is why would a district approve a spending less than the maximum allowed under what circumstances? You you gave an example of a district that did that and then there was trouble. >> Yeah, I good question. I I'm I don't know. Um maybe one of the I'm just throwing examples out there, but if a district saw a significant increase in net tax capacity um so let's say they had a capital projects levy that was based on the net tax capacity and the net tax capacity of the district increased 30%. um which is going to be which is going to provide a a pretty good increase to each property owner and it's and we'll say it's a small district um where all of a sudden that gets to be pretty significant. Um maybe a district should come back and say that that's a pretty big jump for our taxpayers. We're going to underlevy in the capital projects levy. And again, that's just an example. Um some of the other ones might be based on where they're exempt. Um you might see this a little bit more with um with districts that have a lot of commercial property, a lot of seasonal wreck, a lot of qualifying agriculture. Um where if there is a inflationary so in the term of like an operating referendum if the inflationary factor is too large um and those are and the qualifying agriculture and and seasonal wreck are exempt from paying on the operating referendum and that puts a lot of uh more of the burden onto the uh residential homestead and commercial. Maybe that would be another opportunity for them to be like, "Let's let's cool off on this a little bit." But um again, those are just examples I can think of off the top of my head and not real examples. >> So, you knew you said you didn't know, but yeah, you knew. >> I not I don't know of those that happening. I'm just saying those are two examples. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. And then one last question. Uh about the property tax portion. So we have our general fund revenue split into state aid, property tax, a little bit of federal fund, federal aid and then some other revenue, right? State aid as far as I know is based on per pupil uh revenue, right? It's whatever 78,000 whatever it is. Property tax, am I correct in understanding that the property tax comes from the levy and if let's say the levy is 100 million, we get that irrespective of what the enrollment is. So it is not associated with per pupil. Is that correct? >> That is correct. The the c the funding categories are based on enrollment projections. >> Um but if I go back oh I lost my presentation now but um are you working on that? >> So I I'll just show this if because if you remember of our 100 million 78 million of it I or so was for the general fund. Um right now we will take that amount and that will be the revenue that we have for local local property taxes for fiscal year 27 will be that exact number. Okay. >> Whatever that turns out to be not tonight but after December. >> Um that will be the number. Um of course yes that is based on some enrollment projections and should those enrollment projections be off one way or the other um the levy amount will change in subsequent years not in this year. It will not change the revenue amount for fiscal year 27. It would change for fiscal year 28 then. >> Okay. Thank you. So um before we Oh, you have a question Heidi? Yeah, go ahead. >> Um you had mentioned that if pro the population changes, there's a certain point where you would bring it to us so that we can change our population. What's that point? >> Well, I would guess that would be any time that it increases. I would hope >> substantially or is there a you know like if it increases by two, you may >> Yeah. Well, let's just I mean our our district population this last time around is about 74 not about it's 74,15. >> Yep. >> So if it becomes 75,000 76,000 I guess that's up for different interpretation. But I would think that anytime it increases as long as the resolution is not a hard thing to do that that brings in more revenue for a community service fund that I would recommend that. But >> yeah. Yep. >> All right. Thank you. So I just before before we go back to the recommendation and the vote, I want to thank Trevor for a for a fantastic job not only of presenting but the way you answer the questions I think is is very good. Uh want to thank the finance committee director Johansson who's not here today with us uh director Bend and director Janestra and also the CFAC the input and I think the feedback from the community is just incredible. I think there are some members, if I'm not mistaken, I used to be on that committee a couple of years ago that have been on that committee for decades and and and we value that. We appreciate their their wisdom, their experience and their feedback. So, thank you, Trevor. All right, colleagues, uh the recommended action again is to approve the preliminary 2025 payable 2026 levy limitation and certification at the maximum amount allowed by the state. Okay, this is a roll call vote. >> Heidi Kedar, >> yes. >> Valentina Ays, >> yes. >> Dan Janestra, >> yes. >> Sarah Johansson is absent. Harris Bend, >> yes. >> Sheila Prior, yes. Milan Sahonyi, >> yes. The motion carries. Thank you, Sheila. >> Okay, this concludes the Visetta Public Schools special regular board meeting for tonight. The next regular school board meeting will be on Monday, October 13th. The time is now 6:53. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Oppose. Nay. The motion carries. The Visetta Public Schools Board of Education special regular meeting for Monday, September 22nd, 2025 is adjourned. Thank you, Jesus.