I call I now call this business meeting to order and it will be followed by a study session. Uh time 8:20 p.m. Uh all board members are present. Uh I would like to make a motion um to amend the agenda to remove item 7A as there is no plan to approve at this time. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Director France. All in favor? I >> opposed. >> That carries 70. Uh I will now uh entertain a motion and a second to approve the amended agenda. >> So made by director France. Second. >> Second >> by Director Smith. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. That passes 70. Uh first item on the agenda is uh our business items. Um uh letter B, purchase agreement for the district service center. Uh Dr. Thomas. >> Thank you, Chair Bullan. Members of the board, uh this evening we have Zack Cronin um who has been our attorney uh working through the details of the purchase agreement. And so he'll be here tonight to walk over um the high levels of the uh PA u very similar to what you've already seen in some of our initial conversations. But um I'll let I'll turn it over to Zach who will then walk us through that agenda item. >> Good evening. Um I'll try to be relatively brief. I know you've had a long evening already. Um so we're here tonight to discuss the um purchase agreement for the district office. Um this purchase agreement is consistent with the letter of intent that the board looked at last month. Um so after that meeting uh we've been working with the buyer roar is its name. Um and their attorneys and brokers to negotiate this purchase agreement. Um overall it's a pretty straightforward um kind of commercial purchase agreement. We'll walk through some of the high level terms. Feel free to ask questions at any point if you have question um if you have anything you want to talk through. Um, so just to kind of talk through again, obviously this is for the sale of this building, the district office. Uh, purchase price consistent with the letter of intent, $2.65 million. Um, that's in section 2.1. You know, one area that there was some back and forth on was the due diligence period. Um, so ultimately what was in the letter of intent is a 270day due diligence period followed by closing within 90 days of the expiration, the due diligence period. So ultimately during that due diligence period, the buyer has the right to do inspections, get zoning approvals. Obviously, there's going to be some um processes that they're going to want to follow with the city. So that's their period to do that. They'll get to look at title, do a title inspection. Um we'll be providing a number of documents to them to review regarding the condition of the building um and other matters relating to the property. Uh in 4.5, I'll just flag that um we negotiated in some kind of unique language which I think is beneficial to the district because this building is being used currently as the district office. We negotiated in language that said that acknowledges that and then confirms that we as the district have the right to sort of decide or control if they're doing inspections during the the business day or obviously during schoolboard meetings, things like that. So, they were totally receptive to that change, but just meant to protect the district to make sure there's not disruptions during the business day. Um, another piece too is 4.6 land use approval. So, again, they are going to um be following a process to get some approvals from the city. Uh, this is very common when um there's zoning changes or or other things that need to to take place. Uh so that the buyer often wants the seller to um work with them to go through that process. So we added language just to clarify that we'll cooperate with them and obviously help that process but the extent of our assistance going to be more or less just signing land use documents those sort of things with the city. Um one other piece to flag is this purchase is contingent on the purchase of the adjacent parcel. Um, so they have language in there saying that they can extend the closing by 60 days if they need to sort of time up the two closings together, which again is pretty standard. If you're a buyer, you want to make sure that that one closes at the same time as this one, so you're not left holding um one property without the other. Other than that, uh there's, you know, the standard title process that we'll go through. through. So, we'll get a title commitment. They have the right to object. You know, district uh administration and and my office will work through all those processes. Um so, tonight the board would be approving a resolution that approves the purchase agreement and then designates the board chair and clerk to sign and then Dr. Thomas is authorized by the board to sort of take any steps necessary to get to closing. Any questions regarding the agreement? open it up to questions or discussion points. Um I just have a question about the due diligence. I thought there was some talk about it saying um 27 days or before that. >> Correct. Yeah. Obviously if things go quickly, they get the approvals and you know we're humming along, we can always agree to close. So it's that's not a hard date. That's like the backend date. >> Okay. That's the farthest. Yep. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Yep. >> No questions. But would just like to say um thank you for the work on this and um you know partnership with the city I think is >> Yeah. >> All right. So uh if there's no further discussion we will I will entertain a motion and a second to approve the uh purchase agreement. So made by Director France >> by Director Johnson. All in favor? >> I a resolution. >> Oh is the roll call. Okay, >> just to clarify with the resolution, some title companies like to see a written document with who's been authorized to sign. Some don't want it, but I always recommend doing it just so we don't have to come back to the board two months from now and say, "Hey, can you reapprove what you already approved?" So, >> sure. Very good. >> Thank you. >> All right, we'll do roll call. Director Atinson, >> I Johnson, >> I. >> Director Mason, >> hi. >> Director Olad. >> Hi, >> Director France. Hi. >> Director Smith. >> Hi. And I'm I that passes 70. Uh I will now entertain a motion and a second to adjourn the business portion of the meeting and transition to a study session. >> Amen. >> By director Johnson. Second. Second >> by Director Olat. No. Mason. All in favor? >> I oppose. >> That carries 70. We will now adjourn. Um uh next item for the uh study session is public forum. Are there any speakers tonight, Martha? Okay. Um and turning it over to Dr. Thomas for purpose and agenda. >> Thank you, Chair Bully and members of the board. Um this evening uh we have several topics that uh we would like to engage the board on um for deeper discussion, better understanding and learning for the board. Um I will share with the board that uh unfortunately there are a couple of topics that I'm going to request that we postpone either to another date or that we bring it um to our February 9th uh meeting if we can't find a date in in advance. uh one of our team members has been out ill and so we are going to have to delay um the uh the data dashboard on the tenants and and discipline. Um, and then as some of you heard me share in our close session, we have a building uh flood uh I'll just say a sprinkler water issue going on right now at one of our campuses that um Dan Powers and probably many of our team members are addressing. Um, and his portion of uh of this evening is also going to have to get rescheduled because he's on site managing that. So, I apologize about that. Obviously, that was very unforeseen. Um, but we got to take care of the building to see what we can do for uh bringing it back up for school tomorrow. Um, so I would like to make a request, chair, to um postpone uh 12 I'll just go in order. I would like to postpone um 12 B, 12 C, and 12 D. until a later date um on or before our next business meeting. >> Very good. >> Outside of that, um our team stands ready to have other conversations. Um talk a little bit about some of our uh naming conversations that that we're engaging the board in for the first time today. Um something that we'll bring forward into March. And then we'll have um a couple of financial topics that we'll discuss with the board this evening. um looking at our debt schedule um that we talked about at our last board meeting. Um a long-term capital levy conversation and then um a five-year projections conversation along with um levy option slides um for updating from where we last left our conversation. and that at the end of the evening this evening, you will get the uh annual midyear link um uh with the goals uh for a qualitative checkpoint um for my midyear evaluation and that will be coming from Martha as well um after the conclusion of tonight. >> Thank you, Dr. Thomas. Um next up on the agenda is our proclamation for National School Counseling Week. Um, Director France, can you read that proclamation? >> Yes. Um, thank you. Um, school counseling week, February 2nd through 6th, 2026. Whereas the Prior Lake Savage Area Schools Board of Education recognizes and celebrates the essential role of school counselors in supporting the academic, social, emotional, and career development of all students. And whereas school counselors help students build confidence, develop problem solving and decision-making skills and plan for their future by connecting learning to life goals. And whereas school counselors provide individual and group support, collaborate with teachers and families, and advocate for equitable access to educational opportunities for every student. and whereas their expertise and compassion foster safe, inclusive, and supportive school environments that promote student well-being and success. Now, therefore, the PLSAS Board of Education proclaims February 2nd through the 6th, 2026 as National School Counseling Week in Prior Lake Savage Area Schools. >> Thank you very much. Director of Student Support Services, Chuka, do you have anything to add? If I might, >> on behalf of Director Chuka and our entire district, >> Madame Chair, uh, in honor of the National School Counseling Week, I'd like to take a moment to personally, uh, recognize the incredible counseling team that we have here in Prior Lake. We often talk about, and especially in my case, uh, the what of education. That might be curriculum, that might be standards. Uh, but our counselors are the heartbeat of the how and the who. They're the ones who ensure our students are emotionally ready to learn, socially connected to their peers, and prepared to dream about life after graduation. And so whether they're navigating a crisis with a student, helping a senior find the right career path, or fostering a safe environment in our hallways, their expertise and compassion are foundational. And so to our counselors, uh, thank you for your tireless advocacy and for being ready to stand, uh, and provide a steady hand that guides our students towards their goals. We're a better district because of their dedication. Thank you very much. >> I agreed. Thank you very much. >> All right. Um, next up, oversight of operations. Dr. Thomas. >> Okay. Thanks. So, the first topic that uh we'll get into is uh naming recommendations. So, as you all know um well, and we just took action on tonight with the purchase agreement of the sale of this building. Uh we'll start the process of moving this uh uh service center into um a co-located uh site that will house um some of our sped support along with our um community education. And part of uh what we need to do is develop um a name for that new site. And so I just wanted to walk through just kind of where we're at in that process. Policy 807 kind of drives that process and we're adhering to that. But just wanted to share with the board um kind of in in our community. So, um, the the district services center component, if you will, we're going to be engaging our community education advisory council, um, while supporting the naming process and recommendations for the district services center. Um, they will run kind of like a community, uh, center aspect of the DSC as well. So, we're going to engage um, them um, for that component of it. Lola similar to what we have it at Greenwood, will keep its core identity as Lola but now at Westwood. And so keeping that recognized brand in our community and just keeping the namesake of the current school that it will be housed in. Um we will be engaging um our special education advisory council as well on some concepts of um what our transitions program um could uh embody in terms of its identity and its brand branding name that would be co colllocated in some of those um spaces as well. Um and then we will be looking at bringing some of these recommendations and feedback that we're getting from various um aspects of our community um to our March meeting with the board um with some recommendations for you all to consider um in terms of what the new building of DSC and other shared services um could be named. So want to share that information with the board tonight. >> Very good. Any discussion or comments? All right. Well, we'll go on to uh the next agenda item, which is review of budget pro projections. Um, executive director of business services, writer Okay, I am going to move to the podium so that we can pull up a few of these um documents. And I guess given all the information that is going to be talked about at this moment, I'm wondering if I could ask that everything that's under 12E, if you don't mind me putting it in a little different order when I present it, so it kind of flows maybe um a little bit more um conducive to conversation. So I'm going to begin actually by updating you on the pay 26 operating referendum and CPL for the metro area. So just this last week if I can find that right one. Just this last week, they um provided us with an update based upon the most recent elections that took place this past November. And so I'm going to see if I can make this a little bit larger here on the screen down here. That did not do it. Okay. Let me just close this maybe. There we go. So, um, after the November 26 ele I'm sorry, November 2025 elections, there were a few districts that had some questions on their ballots. And so, this is reflective of those that may have then passed. Um, you will find when you compare this to that first page we had in on the 12th when we talked about this that things look fairly similar for us. Um, unfortunately the the reality is now Watertown Mayor is is um a little bit higher than we are and we are next to the last one listed here for the metro area. So, I point this out because um you know, the more I prepare this information for you and think about what we need to be considering um the investment that has been made by a number of these communities in their schools. um is what has helped them to maintain and continue forward um during this period of time in which our gened revenue formula just does not keep up with the the expenditure percentage increase. So if you have on average about a 4% increase in expenditures um you know the we have not seen that consistently in our in our increases for the gened formula. So, I'm I'm bringing this to your attention again. Um providing you with that updated document within the packet and that is listed under 12E2. Uh next, I'm going to go back over to >> I'm sorry. Can I ask a question about specific to this slide? I can wait certainly, but I didn't know if you want to go back. >> That's fine. Um when I when our levy was um voted and and approved on and approved in 2017 I believe it was the voters approved,97 I believe is the dollar amount somewhere in that right and we then were allowed via the legislature to move $300 or $400 to board approved. So is that the same case with all these other districts like the so basically that's going to be a consistent apples to apples comparison as well? Yes, it happened across the state. So, everybody had that same um local operational revenue, I think they call it Lor that was moved to consistently $300 across the board. >> So, basically, if we're looking at and I can't read this far, but if we're looking at say Columbia Heights and theirs says I can't read that far, but >> $67570 on that first orange line, they would have also had $1,000 approved. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, like I said, apples to apples comparison. So, >> okay. I just wanted to check on that. And Jordan doesn't have a levy. >> Nope. >> Interesting. Okay. >> I have a question or clarification also. So this includes operating and capital levies, but it does not include any bond levy or debt levies. >> Uh okay. So this this graph is solely around referendum and capital project levies. Correct. It is not inclusive of any bonded debt. But wouldn't a cap wouldn't a capital levy be the same as >> No, it isn't. It's um it is instead a tax rate that then is applied on an annual basis and is different from bonded debt where when you when you sell bonds, you're going to receive that cash upfront and then pay that principle and interest off over a period of time. >> Okay. Yeah. I was I'm grateful for what Director Ola told me. Bonds are for building, levies are for learning. So, >> yes, >> I remember. So the bonds are for building that we um voted to approve back in 17. 136ish million is not included in here. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. That is not correct. >> I think it would be helpful if others agreed to see some sort of graph with with all all levies >> coming tonight. >> All right. Anything else on this particular slide or conversation? Okay. We can always come back as needed. Um the next one I want to bring up is exactly in answer to your question there. Uh let me just see about getting that one up here now. And that is going to be this one here. So this particular slide is reflective of all of our debt um lease levy and existing debt. Okay. And um I'm just going to see if I can maybe keep messing this up. My apologies. Okay. So I think the point on this particular slide that we would like to point out is this this um these are based upon the payable the taxes payable year at the bottom. So what that means to us is our community is going to be taxed in that calendar year that you see listed below on this graph. We will receive the funds available then for the following fiscal year. So um payable 2026 is going to be for the school year 2627. Okay. Um so when you see this drop in payable 28 compared to payable 27 that tells you that from the school year of 2728 to 2829 is when we will experience that drop in our debt. Okay. This is not and has not been talked about in our conversations and is not reflected in our conversations around the general fund projections or forecast you've seen from me because that's not general fund that's debt service. Okay. So this is inclusive of your fund 7 your debt in total there. Um but what this means is it is included on the levy documents. it is included in your homeowners and businesses and their tax statements. Okay? So, if there is that significant of a drop, it equates to about $17 per month. And that drop would be experienced by our taxpayers just because we have debt rolling off that we no longer need to levy them for, okay, for principal and interest. given this information and comparing it or combining it I guess I should say with the other information we've been talking about around levy in general which would come also out of the levy right of that process um is what we want to really kind of pursue and have more dialogue around tonight. So, um, the next slide I want to bring up is a table that actually is right here. And this table, if you go back to our conversation on January 12th, um we talked about the fact that we if if I could re recall um help you recall, there was a slide that showed here's $364 in a column and the cost for an average home of $525,000 or so was $180 annually or approximately $15 per month, Right. The next column over showed like 7. I just want to get the right number. I believe it was 764. 762. And um so that shows you $180 for the $364. And that 364 was like how much more would we be asking for on our referendum than what we currently have. Okay. And the 762 was how much more would we be asking for in addition to what we currently had. Um, this table is intended to kind of take a step back for a moment and show then if we do a revoke and replace, what savings would there be to that same homeowner in the first column of numbers of revoked authority? And then what would be the proposed authority? And this is utilizing the concept of a $987.97 which is the $364 more. And what does that look like for a net change? So I want if we could just focus on that for just a moment. Um, and I'm going to scroll so you can see the average. So, for a $525,000 home, by revoking what we currently have in place, there'd be a $39 savings to that homeowner on an annual basis with an ask of $489 on an annual basis. Net difference $180 or $15 per month. Okay. Um, so that is kind of what I was trying to when looking at the previous slide that we had provided to you on January 12th, it really didn't show you like what's the current picture, right? So, this is just to kind of reaffirm this is kind of what that would look like with a revoke and replace. Now you could replace that 98797 with instead the um the figure that is uh 762 more instead of the 364 more. And um what's the the difference then would be that $377, right? Or almost $32 per month increase. Okay. But you'd still see the 309 reduction and that net change column would then instead of the 180 you'd see the 377. So as we get further into conversations and there's more discussion about what you'd like to see in those figures, I just want to give you an example of a table that could help us understand that better. Right now I do want to take a moment and we're going to come back to this one. But we're going to now go to um the slide that is talking about it kind of looks like what we were just on only this time it's looking at what happens if remember that drop we talked about just a moment ago. What if in pay 28 we saw um we saw some type of increase then that would be consistently equivalent to like say $3.8 million in capital project levy and or almost the equivalent of that 762. Okay. So my point being that you you could take that what would otherwise be a drop in tax levy for taxpayers and instead keep it level and have the room for approximately a $3.8 million capital project levy or equivalent referendum operating levy. Okay. So this is just to show that running that for 10 years what would that then look like? Okay. So given that now you'd have the potential capital project levy or operating levy oper operating referendum levy. You'd have your lease levy and your existing debt. Let's go back to the slide we were just on and talk about this for a moment. Let's say we were talking about that kind of scenario and we asked voters for a revoke and replace of $15 more per month, $180 annually. We would find ourselves receiving instead of the $5.7 million we currently see, we could see $9 million or $3.3 more a year. $3.3 million more a year. And with a one-year delay, you could have a capital projects levy of $3.8 million additional with no increase to taxpayers because the debt would be falling off and it would just continue forward. If that makes sense. So, it's a lot to think about. It's a lot to put out there. Um, the last thing I'd like to kind of share on this is what type of ballot language would this kind of look like potentially. And so we do have a couple of examples around that. Let's see this one here. And um so when you're doing one thing I do know we want to make sure we're doing is taking something to voters in November of 2026. Recall that there was a slide that showed that the board has authority to continue our existing referendum for another 10 years. no inflation, exactly the same amount we've been receiving, and do that by board action alone. That window of opportunity for the board uh began for you on July 1st of 2025, and that deadline for when that action would have to take place would be June 15th of 2027. So there's an opportunity between now and then for voters to weigh in on a question that could be brought before them or two, right? Whatever we do, we want to make sure that we work with our legal counsel to make ensure that the ballot language itself retains the right for the board to continue to have that authority to renew existing asis in the event something would not be voted positively by our taxpayers. Okay. So, know that that's kind of what we'd want to really make sure we're doing. Well, my understanding is that a revoke and replace will still allow that process to happen. Should you take a question out to voters that just renews, that would eliminate that possibility for you. So, we want to make sure we're wording that properly. So under this ballot format option one it talks about a revoke and replace revoking the 62397 per pupil replacing that authorization with a new authorization amount. This is an example of the 987.97. Should it be instead that 762 number, you'd have a higher figure there subject to an annual increase at the rate of inflation. Recall in our conversation in January 12th that for just $24 more in the 10th year, we could have potentially seen 12.6 million more throughout that 10-year period. Of course, now at the beginning, you never know what that's going to look like because you don't know CPI over the years. And that was estimating the last two years, right? But there were seven years that we knew for sure what the CPI has been. Right? So that isn't something we set. It's not something you control as a board. It is something that is determined on an annual basis by the state of Minnesota. Okay. So the proposed new referendum revenue or revenue authorization would be first levied and you're going to state the payable year with an applicable 10 years which is typical. And then by voting yes, um you are voting for a property tax increase. That's always going to be there. This would facilitate that first column of revoking and then the second column of putting in what it is you're asking to be replaced with that net difference. If you were to ask a second question, for example, of that $3.8 8 million. Here's an example of ballot language where instead of it being payable 2027, you would delay it payable 2028 in the language. And that would then allow for that drop in your debt to off be offset then with this and zero impact to taxpayers in any of those years. They would see an increase initially of course for the $15 per month or $180 per year based on that first questions language. Um, of course then when you're doing a capital projects levy authorization, this is where the rate has to be calculated at the time of the of the ballot being approved. And so you're really basically stating what does that equate to in dollars that you're asking for. that will change over the years simply based upon your community's valuation. So if your market uh valuation were to decline, that amount would decline because the rate is set. But if your valuation of your property in your district would increase, then that amount would increase because the rate is set. Okay? You would typically also list exactly what that authorization is providing funds for and how you word that is what you need to then live by for those 10 years. Um the second thing on the back side of this page is a a different option which I had never thought about um and didn't even know that there was there have been a a few districts who have gone this direction but it is a situation where you could also just um we're not talking now about a capital projects levy but instead you're talking about a a stepped approach and what that would mean is for example revoking the 62397 replacing it with authorization as listed below. Well, that looks like 987.97 per pupil for taxes payable in 2027, which is the $15 per month or $180. and then instead the 1385.97 for pupil per pupil for taxes payable in 2028 um subject to an annual increase at the rate of inflation starting with those taxes payable. So in this case that first year would be no inflation which first year there isn't right but the second year the amount would be stepped up to offset that reduction in your debt and um and then the inflation is applied from there forward. In this example you have one question. It is a little bit more confusing for people to understand but um but the concept is that it's it's just a stepped approach. So you the first year is one number the second year and every year beyond is is the second set of numbers and that is for a 10ear um 10 years in this language. So those are just ballot language examples um when talking with our financial adviserss about what options they could present for us. These were the four things they wanted us to make sure we shared with you. Um, happy to answer any questions around this that you might have. It's a lot of information to digest. Uh, no matter what we do, obviously the communication around this is going to be important. In my experience, um, anytime you bring ballot language forward, there are so many restrictions on what it is that it has to say. And we'll always need to say that you're this is um this is an increase in taxes and therefore it's like how do you help people understand? Well, not necessarily because you're going to see a drop in your debt that you're not going to be levied for. So that's the other communication that has to happen in order to help people understand the big picture, the full picture. And I think that's also where sometimes when talking in the past around inflationary clause, it's been very very common for districts to kind of steer away from that. Um, but I think given what's occurred in our economy over the past 10 years, for example, and what we can anticipate possibly moving forward, the the reality is that the amount that it would generate for a school district versus the amount that an individual homeowner or business owner might pay towards it. Um, it's something that's worth having further dialogue around in my opinion. um to really show that investment that actually would um be available for our students and at the same time not necessarily cost as much more um on an annual basis. So I will pause see what you have for questions. Um, do you have any insight into when the previous levy did pass why they did not go for an inflation factor? Um, do you have any knowledge into that? What I have understood is that it was in response to having a failed question prior and that it was thought to be we need to make sure that this passes and it's true. I mean inflationary language makes people second guess and especially if you're talking about someone at the polls who has not heard much about this. They don't know what that really means. And honestly, you can't stand before people and say, "What is this actually going to mean for you in the third or fourth year?" Because you don't know, right? And so that is something that seems very scary and um oftent times the decision is just made to we're not going to include it. Taxpayers will be feel more comfortable about that. But when you start seeing looking back the loss of opportunity then then you have to stop stop and question and maybe it's worth that extra dialogue. >> Sure. Um understanding what is what you've presented as far as the questions here. Can you put something in the question to say without the inflation this would be a change of $15 per month? >> Ballot language is um is very restrictive and that type of language wouldn't work necessarily because my home may not require that, right? >> And and my home might require a lot more than that. So, >> thank you. >> Um, >> so how many of and I've got a couple part question just so you know >> of the graph we're now second to last in the in the metro area of funding. Um, how many of those other districts currently have inflationary factors? And the reason why I ask is when when the board did decide not to include the inflationary factor, we were definitely in the minority then. >> Um I assume now we're really in the minority because I from what I understand from the ballot language that nearly all of them did include inflationary factors. >> Yeah, I will have to get that information. I believe that there's a means for us to do so. I just need to I don't have it off the top of my head. >> Okay. Um the the other thing is is that um regardless of the numbers that were put in here last time we did include what I would consider to be more of an amortization table um to show when the debt dropped off and that even at the average of 500 to 525 people would then experience lesser dollars. But that did not seem to resonate even with the grid that we put online with plug in your home value or your address and we'll show you an estimate of what it would be. Even though they showed that at $45 they would have dropped even lower uh than that. The majority of homes were never going to pay the amount anyways. So, how can we and and obviously with the $15 extra and stuff like that, we're still treading water. we're not going to be able to put in all the safety and security measures and other things that were on the last ballot that people had asked for. Um so, um I I'm just wondering if we can we show the amorization table on that rate to say, okay, here's what you'll pay year-over-year without the inflation because you can't say that in order to communicate to them and actually show the board what that'll look like because like I said, we did that last time. >> Yeah. And um and you're right, I'm not sure people understood it. Um but it did drop significantly when our when our last series of debt rolled off. Um it didn't really seem to phase anybody. Well, it phased a lot of people, but I mean I'm not quite sure the message got out. >> And I think that is our challenge, right? It it is going to be about communication and it is about trying to share and sometimes maybe looking back at something is a little bit more helpful for people to see. If you look back at the last 10 years, the amount that taxpayers actually paid for the same average valued home that was at 1.333,000 and now is um projected to be at 535 um,000. went from 371 and and right now you're only paying 289 on an annual basis. So it's like this is something we can tell you for sure. I'm not going to tell you it's going to be this because I could be wrong. Your valuation of your home is going to do what it's going to do based upon factors that I don't have any control over. The best we can do is be as transparent and as honest with our answers and responses and as open to what questions do you have? How can we help you better understand this? And um as frequent meetings as possible to gather as much information or get as much information out to people. I mean those are the tactics I've seen work really well. Um, I think I've been involved in probably I want to say five different elections and and always at those meetings and I'll be honest, um, many of those meetings there weren't very many people, right? And so it comes down to the support in your community to invest in schools and to feel comfortable with that process. And that's a challenge for us in every community to make sure that we're getting that message out. Um, we're at a point where our we are not alone. Every school district in the state is is managing the issue that their revenue is not keeping over their expenditures. I guarantee you. I don't know of a district that hasn't had to look at those expenditures and do something about it on an annual basis. However, it isn't it isn't just an expense problem. This is a revenue issue as well. And we're going to have to approach this from many different avenues. Um advocating at the state level for a a general education formula that actually keeps up with the average cost of our expenditures. And it's not it's not necessarily appropriate to expect that staff members who are working every day in the schools aren't going to see a you know standard of living increase that they can live on and so it's like how do you make this all happen? Um, I don't have the answers entirely, but this is one avenue that we have to explore and we have to communicate and be as open as possible with our taxpayers. Um, and hope for the best. >> Well, my next question is is obviously by putting these numbers in here, we're not going to be improving anything. We're going to be pretty much treading water. Um, so all the improvements we wanted to do as well as save the cuts that we've had to make, I I'd like to at least have that discussion because the first thing people when they go to the polls are going to ask is what am I getting for this? And what they're going to be getting for this is just to keep the schools open at this point to stay solvent. Um, and we've got a lot of needs and those needs and those new expenses and and also by the way of that list, I think there's only one other school district in the metro that has the leanest and cheapest schedule. >> Um, so on top of the money, we actually have cuts in other areas that they haven't even tried to experience yet or even want to go there. So, uh, and that hurts our kids. It hurts their opportunities. Uh it hurts obviously our teachers too and our test scores and god knows what else. So I mean we have to be really really clear that we're basically keep we're still going to be almost breathing out of a straw. So, I I I I just don't know how to manage that conversation with people when you say your taxes are going to increase, but oh, by the way, we're not giving you anything extra at all from the from the educational experience and the attractiveness of moving into this district or open enrollment, etc. So we that's the thing that concerns me about all this language is like you know um I heard your what your comments are. I I tend to agree with much of what you've said in the regard that $364 um increase per pupil unit or $762 increase per pupil unit. Um we have in the five-year projection um appendix one tables A, B, and C that show continuation of what we have as is. We have B with the $364 increase and 762 being C. And it is true when you look at those that no matter how I did the numbers, we were still having a need to make cuts every year based on the projections. Right? And now there are assumptions made in these projections that um the whole point of projections is to try and give you kind of a long range game plan. And um that game plan with all these options, you're right, doesn't get us anything more. Um can you change out something that you might have in place right now for something different that might be a different approach? Sure. But if you're going to add, then we're talking about more. Well, Director Ryder, I think that, you know, um, Director France brings up a really good point that part of our strap plan is to optimize resources. So, we still have work to do as a district to optimize resources so that when we do get to the ballot um question and after we listen to our community um we know that we work we live in a very tax adverse um community and based on past levies and um I think you know we do need to optimize our resources to make sure exactly what you said to make sure that the um our money is being spent um appropriately in our district. do have a few questions on these three slides too, but um okay so the what I was asking is this particular slide is it I maybe I missed it. Did we update this with the bond levy including just to see like our district what are we paying in total compared to others with the bond as well? >> Uh no I do not have everyone else's debt schedules and and um I don't that would that would take some work. >> Okay. Um, if there were a few that we wanted to compare against, I could work to get that. Um, but, um, I don't have that. >> Okay. I was just curious like the total tax burden >> compared to other >> Well, and and keep in mind that the tax burden is a whole another like there's what is the debt and then there's what does that actually cost your taxpayers? And so keep in mind that our our makeup is different from a neighboring district for example. And so it does come down to the property tax rates and how that gets applied to commercial versus homeowners versus apartment and residential. So it's like it it is a very complex conversation and one that um we know we are mostly residential and as a result then that is going to re um mean that it the burden falls upon our our residents who are homeowners. >> Yeah. Okay. I was just >> Yeah, that comparison um the comparisons from neighboring districts there there just really isn't a a district that compares to I mean we really our our our um business tax base just isn't there. So the compare I mean we could we >> I was more just curious generally speaking like do most of these districts have bond levies also or or no or are we unique in that? I would anticipate yes simply because um in order to maintain buildings it does typically require new something new and particularly like security advancements right too. So those things aren't covered under LTFM and so typically it does require some type of bonded debt to cover those those expenditures. >> Great. Okay, sorry. My second question was um the 623.97 that we have today, if we were to take that and just adjust for inflation only with nothing added, what is that amount like eight something? >> Well, so this is the thing. You would not know that because your tax impact in the new year wouldn't be any different than what it is currently. But the second year out then CPI would be applied and then that would be you know increased. However, keep in mind that every year, provided your community's valuation is growing, the burden is spread a little bit more. Right? Now, that might mean more for me if my valuation increased significantly than compared to some neighbor that it didn't. Right? Um, so that's hard to say, but on this is what gets really confusing because you can't explain that. Well, at the time of um the polls or prior to in those conversations because you can't speak to what that inflationary cost is going to be at this time. It's not that we don't want to or that you know we're trying to hide something. The fact of the matter is it's just you won't know that until the CPI is understood. You can make estimates certainly. I was just looking for an estimate because the 98797 the first proposed that number that you gave us is a little bit on top of that. I think we have 15ish on it. >> And if you look back at one of the slides we had in the previous meeting on the 12th, there was a calculation for and I think I went through that and it looked to be like a 2.3% you know was the um recent average or projected number for CPI. And so it's kind of like you could use something like that and come up with your numbers in that manner. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I was just looking for >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, my personal opinion on the ballot formats is I I like the first one um because it separates the two um and if you know, one may pass and one may not, right? Versus lumping them together, which I think maybe for us might be a little bit more dangerous. I don't know. That's my personal perspective. Um, but I don't know that I'm in favor of a capital le levy and and certainly not a tech levy, but um I realize that's just sample language. >> Okay. Um we'll have more when we get to the forecast, I guess. >> So, just some comments and then a question. Um, and thank you for putting all of this together. And um, I think there were some things that uh, I didn't understand from last time that I think I do now, especially when it comes to like revoking. There is a deduction and then there's adding that back into it. So, I think that's a really important thing to um, to note there. Um, and you know, I would I would challenge the the notion that we live in a very tax adverse community because I don't know if I'd be sitting in this seat if that was truly the case. Um, but we've heard from teachers at the last public forum um about class sizes. We I was at Red Tail Ridge today and and they were talking about interventionists and um and the significant need that we have there because we have significantly less than other districts do. Um Director France, you just talked about cuts that we've made and I know that we a couple years ago made um cuts from a seven period schedule to a six period schedule. Um there are things that we have done uh over the years to try and tread that water. And I guess my question is um one of the things uh Dr. Anderson that you've told me is what are we going to do? What are the conditions that we or what are we setting for the conditions if we want to be successful? Right? And I think it's not so much that we're tax adverse. It's just that we're just not realistic about what those conditions are. And what I'd really like to know, and this is my question, is I'm not interested in talking about what do we think we can pass because the last levy failed. I really just want to know for those things, class sizes, interventionists, cutting, returning to things that we have cut in the past. What is that number going to take? And that's the that's the conversation that I want to have because that is a lot more realistic to me and and figuring out in my brain what do we need and it I like to your point director France I don't think it's just to tread water or to be solvent like I do I do want to have a conversation about what do we need to actually move some of the stuff that forward that we want to. So, uh, just a quick clarification question to what you just said. Um, so in what I'm hearing you ask is what would that um annual increase of revenue be to the district to reinstate things such as a seven period day >> to get a robust MTSS interventionist. um address nuances of some of the class size conversations that we're hearing about and build up the fund balance to a a a level that's going to be 8% or higher. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I'm hearing what you're you're asking >> and I mean I I think that's a valid question to just again have a data point. Um, and and that's something that as we prepare for our February 5th finance town hall. Did I get that date right, Christie? >> You did. >> All right. February 5th. This is part of the dialogue that we actually want to have with community. Um, there'll be some of these slides that we'll share on the front side, but engaging similar to what we did at our strategic planning sessions, having these ideiation tables with folks to kind of explore where the priorities lie. So, I think the big thing for me is I don't think any anyone in this district questions the value of having academic excellence for all of our kids. I I don't think anybody questions that. Um, and I think your point rings true in terms of and then what would that cost to match the expectations around excellence and that's going to be a large number. I'll just be honest, that's going to be a scary number for folks. But I think it's important to at least have that out there so people understand. We're not talking about like a dream. Like this is what we believe it would take to get everything fully vetted. Dr. Anderson has vetted out kind of a a rough estimate of FTE for a robust MTSS model. Okay. Of what? And then take that times the average teaching cost. Um, our local historian Martha has just uh shared with me the other day um a document from 27 2007 when we changed this 2010 >> 2010 >> uh and I believe it was in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 1.6 million um at that time that we saved to reduce a period from the high school and the middle school. Um now roll that up to where we're at now. um with inflation and what that would truly cost us to reinstate that it's going to be a lot more than 1.5 or 1.6. We're probably talking somewhere in the two to three mil mill range. So I think those are the things that we can definitely flesh out in these community based conversations just so folks can temper what does that mean when we say that word because that word comes with a cost and what does it take to build towards that. So if it's if it's not all at once, okay, we understand that. Then how do we start chunking and building towards that? But Director France brought up a point earlier that to basically unlock the doors and turn on the lights, and we said this at our last campaign, to say we're going to increase your taxes and have nothing in return other than kind of keep things status quo, that's a hard sell. Um and I publicly stated that in all the sessions that I was in. That was a really tough message to have to say. Um so I think we can build out some of that um aspirations of academic excellence just to be some data points in this total mix too for the board and for for our community. >> Yeah. I sorry I just wanted to finish the thought. Um, yeah. And I think that's important just because we might not get everything, but I mean it gives us the ability to kind of look at that total in totality and say here's what it would take. Okay. Well, we can't really >> swing this. So, if we just take that out and then like I do think it it it just again talking about these as like >> what might be what might inflation be a couple years from now or like what are these what are these numbers? What are these forecasts? I think just talking about real actual numbers and costs of what it would take to do some of these things is just a more valuable conversation. >> Um, is it okay? Okay. Um, so one of the things that we also have to remember when we're going out and asking for money, and I'm not quite sure if we made this clear, that when people want to compare us to other districts, they have this system, they have this, they have these classes, you know, they offer this, they have smaller class sizes, for instance, or they offer, you know, curricular more curricular tech, they have that. you know, a lot of those there's a couple of them on here that have never ever failed a referendum. >> And so they've had a cushion that's built up um over time to establish this. And so, you know, their communities know and value what it would be like if they didn't continue that and then they actually revoked it because then as we heard when we actually had to follow through with what we knew we were going to have to cut and we still haven't cut absolutely everything we could that our community started to raise noise because they didn't want to cut those things, but we didn't have a choice. And so um you know those commu those other schools that not only have the seventh period day and smaller class sizes and see the results coming out in academic excellence um that we want to be like people have to realize that you've got to start building this foundation. So having a long-term plan of doing that and establishing and and proving we can do this and then going back and asking for more would be great. But, you know, even uh you know, we still hear about it all the time. We hear about um simple little things, not just class sizes and pools and things like that, but we also hear about the fact that, you know, we have families uh emailing us about certain things in the schools, you know, why can't you fix this? Why can't you add security on those lower doors? Well, they were in the last referendum. And even though we had those community meetings that said this is and people said this is what we want to see if we're going to spend this money. This is what we want to see. They said still didn't vote for it. So somehow or another we've got to get this long-term plan and message out and talk about the benefits and how we're going to measure those benefits like we did last time in a more constructive manner and a more proactive manner. Uh because you're always going to have community members that simply don't want to pay a dime. They're like, you know what, if I have to focus on schools and students or save a couple bucks, I'd rather save a couple bucks. So, they're clearly telling us what their priority is. But afterwards, as we heard from the community, they came back and they got mad that we actually had to cut things. So, we have to do something different to um to actually improve communication on that. And I I don't know what it is, but um I like what um what's been said here today. Um and um we just need to figure that out. Um it's funny because at the MSBA conference, they literally there were school districts in there and says, you just got to ask your your community, do you want to fund kids or do you want to save a couple bucks? You know, those are your priorities and if you tell us those are your priorities and you don't want to have good schools, then you don't want to have good schools. That's it. We can't do anything about that. Um, I think Director France, you bring up a really good point and I think we're moving in the right path forward. Um, this community engagement meeting that we're having on February 5th. Um, I'm I'm incredibly thrilled that we're having this. Um, when I've talked to districts who have passed levies, um, they listen to their community. Um, this is not something that we did on the last levy. We did. >> We did not. I was on this board and I'm not going to argue with you. We never had a community engagement session where we asked our community directly what they wanted on the levy. We did so in a survey as well as in multiple community engagement sessions. >> Okay. Then I didn't have access to those survey results. So I'm just saying as a board member who's been here for three years, I'm thrilled that we're having this because at the end of the day, our community votes and they they vote with their dollars. And so when we start to listen to our community and listen to what their priorities are, they will pass levies. I mean, we currently have 1,800 students who don't in our district who don't go to our district because we're not listening to them. And so I'm not trying to be critical, but I am just thrilled that we're looking at this levy different than we have done in the past. Um I'm hopeful. I'm Dr. Thomas, are we going to have more than just one? Um okay. I'm hopeful because I know like um for instance, Farmington, they did three sessions and so it allows people with scheduling conflicts and all that kind of stuff to be able to attend. Yeah. And I was also thrilled when you said you're doing this similar to the Strat plan because it's going to be able to allow different voices to come together and really um let let us know as a board what's important to our community. So I'm I'm grateful to hear that. So thank you Dr. Thomas for your leadership on that. If I could suggest, it's possible we could pull up and compare the results of our community engagement meetings and the survey which was in our board packets from last time and see if these new community engagement meetings for this year actually differ from the wants and needs of the community. I know that they were in the board packet um for a year prior to our starting a year prior. And so when we asked, let's see if that community message has actually changed. Uh and um and I don't know if we can afford to do a formal survey this time. Um but um if we if we could, it would be nice to compare those because if we're see if we're hearing the same thing, then maybe it's just the lexicon that we used. >> Are you referring to the Morris Leatherman survey, Director France? Is that what you're referring to when you say survey? Because we did do the survey and we didn't listen to our community in that survey. So, um I'm just curious which survey you're referring to. >> I think it was the was it Morris Lesman or was it somebody? Yeah, we had Morris Leatherman. That was one aspect that we did and we've done that >> before each referendum prior to this. We've always done some sort of survey. I just don't know. Morris Leatherman isn't cheap and I don't know if that's >> I wouldn't recommend doing it. Yeah, we can't do that. >> Okay. Yeah, >> I think you know on that same note and you bring up a a great point, Director Smith, on on like the interventionists, right? But, you know, I think like um where that feedback might be different is that you know, you might value an interventionist or we might think we need that as a district, but like maybe as a parent and the community doesn't understand the role and the impact of that role where I would say I don't want interventionists, I want to advance math class, right? So, you know, it's like that like finding the needs, right? And getting that feedback from the community is so so important because if we, you know, say we're going to, you know, add certain things but it's not in the right places, right? Um, we've missed the mark and and that's, you know, so key. So, and just little things like that, right? So, I mean, probably most parents don't even understand what an interventionist does. So, you know, what is it that that parents in our community want? >> Um, so I think good point. it should drive the amount that we're we're asking for, >> right? And, you know, I think everyone brings up valid valid points. Um, you know, the goal of the district is to serve serve the whole district. And, um, one of the things that I've noticed as, you know, serving on the board for three years, it's like the the imp the input that is received by community um, whether it be through my relationships or through engagement sessions that we have. Um it's being able to uh receive all receive the information and then um you know do what we can in the best way that we can that serves the whole um giving too much weight um to uh you know there's always two extreme sides and then there's everything in between. And so it's it's learning how to um balance that and giving commitment to the community that we are going to um listen to you to we're going to uh receive feedback and um uh give as much communication to our situation. I feel like uh we've been communicating the same type of message um at least since I've been on the board. You know, the projections have have come come to fruition. And so, um, it's going to take us, uh, as a board. It's going to take the district staff and teachers and all of the families to come together, um, uh, in this in this and and it it will be how the how the community votes. Is there any other other dialogue or questions for director writer? >> Um, not not nec um not necessarily um for Dr. Ryder and I appreciate all of this. I I the I think the only thing I I I really want to encourage people is to come to these meetings. >> Please come to these meetings. First of all, they're a lot of work for staff to put together to um you know, have a presentation ready and and have FAQs ready and things like that. And and I and I really don't mean this lightly. Like this is these are your hard-earned tax dollars. And I don't think a single person in this room disputes that in any way. Um yes, you should know what you're going to get or not get. Um we want your feedback. We want to hear from you. And you know, it's sometimes I feel like it's I'm just going to say the quiet part out loud. Sometimes I feel like we hear from the same 15 people. Um, and I I love those 15 people. I want to hear from those 15 people, but 15 people does not a district make. Sorry. Um, and I just I really encourage people to come to these meetings or if you can't come to the meeting because God knows we understand maybe that night doesn't work for you that night or that week, tell us, write us, have conversations, um, talk at the basketball game, um, you know, whatever it takes because I I really feel like the more conversations we have and the more feedback we get, it just helps us. Um, so it's it's a plea to be honest with you for I think all of us sitting up at this table um and for administration to just I encourage everybody to really get involved. >> Yeah. >> Can I can I second that motion? Yeah. Um if I just make one more um and just to echo off that point um director said I think and to the point Director Mason that you made if if people don't know what interventionists do then please come to these meetings because if if we're talking about interventionists if we're talking about what is going to be the most beneficial to a child statistically speaking if you have interventionists from K through three >> to make sure that they are on track and you can get those kids while they're there. Um, they are going to be far more successful as they go throughout their education than if you wait. So, when we're talking about interventionists or advanced math, I'm going to pick an interventionist every single time. So, >> um, and I think that's a really fair point that that you made too, Director Mason. It's just like, you know, well, I don't know what an invent interventionist is because my kid doesn't, you know, you use one or see one. completely fair, right? Like completely fair. Well, I don't necessarily care about advanced math because my kid's not in advanced math and he he or she isn't on that track and which is fine. Um but everybody every family has something different, right? Every family has different priorities that are just as important as the next families. Um and not to say we want to be all things for all, right? But that's really hard and that costs money. And so I think that's a really fair point is, you know, almost like plain language like, okay, interventionist, what the heck does that mean, you know, and this person does this and this is why it's important. And I think um I think that would be really beneficial because I I really see your point there. Um um and and yours as well. Um this is why they're important. Um, and yeah, >> can I make one one adjustment to that? Um, >> I don't think this meeting is the way people learn about intervention, I would really encourage them to actually call the district and get it from a teacher simply because here's the thing. when when the when the educators are in the classroom and you do have kids in the same class, some advance and some that need help with that interventionist, the thing that the I think that the administration, and I I'm not going to speak for Dr. Anderson, can do is actually allow the educator to also help the kids that need advanced math by having the interventionists help with the kids that need the extra help. So I mean there's a shuitous effect here and hearing from the educators and hearing from somebody like Dr. Anderson explain how all this all works together how a benefit to one benefits all that sort of thing because that's the way the education system works and the MTSS and all that kind of stuff. Um we're not experts. We're not subject matter experts and some of the questions we ask here are not going to bring out that subject matter expertise either because that's not where we're coming from. So I would encourage people to actually go to the administration and ask those questions. >> Good point. >> And and you I'll just say ditto and the only thing I was because that's what I was trying to hit my button for. Um, so that so it's us here and all our families have relationships with their schools and I think you'll be able to get a better context of what that what does that mean for your school because that might look different. That same role might be received differently based upon how it might be utilized given the needs of each individual school. So yes, talk with us at the district services center and reach out to your building administrator. They could help you better understand whatever the role might be, you know, and and I think director said, you bring up a very fair point that every family approaches these titles differently based upon what their unique student need is or what they perceive that title to mean, etc. So the source is at the school and and and with us and we'll be more than happy to contextualize that as best we can. Thank you. >> All right. Anything else on on that? We'll move on to the superintendent evaluation. >> We're missing one. We need to go through the 5-year forecast. >> Oh, sorry. >> I'm so sorry. I didn't even look up. I know it's been a long evening. So, you tell me how much time you would like to discuss the 5-year forecast. This is one that um we can hit like the high points and have further conversations in our next meeting if you choose. Um happy to do however you like want to do this. Um format of this is very similar to the October memo. However, significant adjustments have been made since then and I want to make sure you're knowing what those are. So, maybe I run through those highlights. >> Sounds good. >> As a starting point. Yep. Sounds good. Okay. All right. So, this is a memo um dated January 26th for today. Um with regard to our 5-year financial projections, you'll note um I have shifted things a little bit in that we are now trying to focus on table A, which is assuming the current voter approved operating levy is renewed by school board according to statute, meaning no additional inflation and such. Um, appendix one, table B, is going to assume a new voter approved revoke and replace operating levy approved November 2026 for 988 per um adjusted pupil unit with inflationary factor. And uh table C, assuming a new voter approved, revoke and replace operating levy is approved November 26 for 1386 per APU with inflationary factor. When you just rule forward numbers, I consider that a forecast. When you begin now to start applying different scenarios, then we're really kind of talking more now about projections. Like how does that change that projection and what does that now look like? So these of course are not there's no and in between these. This is like one or the other type thing, right? Um in this process since October a couple things have happened. You have approved a revised 2026 fiscal year budget. That is the basis for this. I know when we talked in October, I had made some assumptions in that process, but now those final numbers that were approved for the um revised 26 budget um are what you're going to see in the 26 column. The numbers didn't change from when you approved the 26 revised budget for that year. Um but what I have tried to do is address some question of enrollment, right? And so when we revised the budget for the current year, the enrollment was something we looked at and um that was taken into consideration in that process. That enrollment projection forward has shifted since October. So one thing that I noted when we went back to work on numbers after you had asked that we bring forward a revised budget that was balanced and at 8% you start with revenue. and where is revenue generated but by enrollment. So you review that, you review your projections and our model used in October was showing a significant decline in year one compared to what we've seen in the past. And I'm like something's not feeling right about that. So I inquired of the um elders who the model came from and he's like well you can't just roll that forward. You need to get the newest model. So we did that and then in addition I learned that MDE on November 30th put out a new revenue projection model. So one thing is the enrollment shifted a little bit in the fact that the new model now takes into consideration more accurate numbers. You won't see as significant of a decline in year one as what we were showing before which is why the numbers increased slightly. And then when you apply the revenue projection model, you're going to find that the new model from the state is now referring to what is currently being paid out on the idea system based on current year information, not based upon what happened last year and what are they anticipating might it look like this year. Right? So the the models that I'm working with kind of refer back to like when is it updated in November 30th is when they updated and shifted from last year's numbers for categorical aids to what what is it currently looking like right now off your ideas system. Okay. So what did that mean for us? Well enrollment slightly increased and then in addition our state categorical aids increased. Okay. Those are the tone two mo main reasons, excuse me, that our revenues increased compared to what you saw in October. Okay. Additionally, um just a note that on the enrollment projections, previously we were using a three-year weighted average uh rated weighted ratio. We are now using a four-year weighted ratio. And my reason for doing that was because of the impact of our PSO that has seemingly increased each year. And that means then our end ofear ADM numbers may not be quite as high as they have been in the past. And by doing the four-year weighted ratio that took that kind of into consideration for future years. It may be too conservative we might find, but at this point it was slight and it was just something, right? So there's that. And then um page two of the memo you'll find table one that shows the um ADMs. The changes aren't really that significant compared to what you saw previously in October, but you will find that there is a a more significant decline in this in the fourth and fifth year. um still using the 2% assumption on the gened formula for each future year. Um did not change any significant assumptions with regard to E or um American Indian Aid that all stayed the same. Referendum as we talked about we have table A, B and C each with different scenarios current being extended. Um, table B being that which is 9.88 per adjusted pupil unit and 1,386 being used in table C. Cross subsidy attributable to special education. As you know, our revised budget for the current year increased our special education aid. A large part of that is the cross subsidy um for the current year. That number was kept at that figure moving forward. That may be a conservative estimate if funding were to continue as it has been and anticipating that our cost for special special education would increase. But it also might be too high of a number if the $250 million, for example, that the state's looking for and maybe doesn't find. And so in order to get it, they then, you know, reduce the amount of of special ed aid that we otherwise were anticipating in the future. None of that's known at this point in time. Task force is still working on that. So that's that's a question that's up in the air. I would say that's the most volatile number on the revenue side is that special education estimate moving forward. So keep that in mind. Uh let's see. Federal funds basically went back to make sure that moving ahead for 27 and beyond, we were using essentially what did we receive this year as an allocation, not the carryover from the previous years. So trying to just use that base allocation and use that moving ahead. Moving on to page three for expenses did not change the assumptions that we've talked about before where we're assuming a 2.5% increase in wage skills during the collective um bargaining cycles and moving from 26 through 31. However, keep in mind that there are some contractual obligations that include steps or longevity or things of that nature that change that percentage for some groups. And so um that is possibly a shift from past um projections you've seen in past years in the fact that I am using what I anticipate we're going to have to spend based on those contracts. Um let's see the most significant adjustment that has been made actually last Tuesday. um had this all done ready for you and then had a meeting on health insurance. And unfortunately um that picture is just trending a little bit a whole lot faster than people want to hear and think about. So remember we had I believe it was 6% in um that assumption is nowhere going to be covering what we anticipate we will see um for next year nor what we would see beyond that. So the fact of the matter is um trend in medical is moving from um it's moving from 10 to 16% with regard to just trend alone. And so the question you have to ask yourself is are you utilizing the plan more and your claims are higher because of more utilization or is the cost for each claim that much higher? And it's usually yes and yes, right? Um correct me if I'm saying anything. Okay. So unfortunately that changed our assumptions and I considered you know how much do we have to make this adjustment but when I have to when I sat down with HR and determined what is it that our actual premium in total is that we're build in total right and then applied that increase percentage and came up with what is our anticipated cost from a district perspective given our contract languages. um and realized that we were talking about a one to$ 1.3 million annually. It had to be made. I had to put that in there because I was looking at a $3 million reduction for this next year and now we're not. We're looking at something different. So, um that was significant and needed to be in there. The numbers that you see in the second paragraph on page three um did shift. >> Can I ask I'm sorry. >> No, please go ahead. That's fine. ask a clarifying question on that. I just want to make sure. >> So on the healthcare part you you had originally budgeted 6%. Correct. >> Yes. >> And >> yeah, that's what I was going to make sure. Um historical six now it's 16. Right. It's 16 by my numbers because because we don't cover for some we don't cover that increase fully, but we cover most of that increase. Yes. >> Mhm. >> Um and that's going to cost the the 1.2 to 1.3 million >> annually. >> Annually. Got it. Okay. I just want to >> want to make sure that it was okay. And that's why we're seeing >> that's why you're seeing the shift in my figures. Yep. >> Significantly on the expense side. >> Very well. >> Okay. >> All right. I appreciate it. >> Yes. Um in this second paragraph on page three, then we had some assumptions for what those costs were for utilities, transportation, maintenance, and capital. Those numbers from October were just updated based upon the revised fiscal year 26 budgets. Um and that is now about 12% of our district expenses. Let's see what is next projection. enrollment slight decline continuing um although you know like I say that first year wasn't as big of a hit so we actually saw an increase for 27 all right so we are committed to fair labor contracts and appropriately appropriate school resource levels and as such we spend approximately 83% of our total expense in salaries and benefits So that is true for a lot of schools. Um I will then move on down to this graph which you've seen before. You know this is something we need to have conversations around because since 2021 this graph has significantly taken a different you know trajectory and needs to be considered at the state level. We're not alone, I would say. What else to point out here? Just more discussion about some of the details for people who may not know much about school finance. Um, happy to have answers for questions people may have. Certainly, just let me know. In conclusion, um the fact is that we want to stay out of statutory operating debt. And in order to do that, there are certain things that are going to need to take place. Any five-year plan that I try to put together shows us having to reduce at this point in time. And so that's that's a fact. I'm going to skip down to the examples here. I did point I want to point out what I changed about this compared to before. So previously we were showing like the breakdown of the revenues. I did break down a separate line for referendum property taxes compared to ref remaining property taxes trying to separate out that referendum line since that's what tables A, B, and C have different. Okay. Um, in addition, I um would say that on the you'll notice on the state sources, well, I'm sorry, the other line the question was where are the proceeds for the sale of this building projected and so you'll see that under column 2627 school year as if there is a 270day and then plus 45 you won't see that cash here in this fiscal year. Right? So that is shown under the other column um for 2627. That's where it goes up to the 5 million 5.1 mil and then it drops back down because that's a onetime money. Um expenditures by department. You're going to find that I did not include on these lines presumed reductions because I can't tell you right now where those reductions are going to show exactly. That's yet to be determined. This is intending to give you like some rough numbers. And what was the purpose of these was for me to try and tell you how much of a reduction would be necessary on expenditures on an annual basis and still maintain 8% of unassigned fund balance. Okay. So that was the goal of these um these projections was to kind of give us a sense of that. So, as you take a look at the prior year adjustments line that's in red before the total expenditures, there's nothing there for 27 because 26 we're projecting um I we're in that year, right? So 27 doesn't have any prior year adjustments there. But beginning in 28, you're seeing the amount of projected expenditures that otherwise is showing in the prior year under the net permanent adjustments to expenditures red line. Okay. So, and it is cumulative under the prior year adjustments. So, you can see under each scenario how much cumulative amount amount that is. The idea being that whatever reductions you're making for that 4.15 million in fiscal year 27's budget adjustments that that is going to be continuing into the FY28 year as well. So, that's the presumption. And then in the next year, if we're having to make $7.7 million in reductions, now you've got a cumulative effect in 29 of 11.85. Okay. So after the total expenditures, you've got a beginning fund balance. What's the net change in revenue compared to expenses? And then what does it take to keep that unassigned fund balance at 8%. And that's where those numbers were derived. I just kept plugging in numbers to try and get as close to eight as I could. Um, you have your unassigned fund balance that we have we've calculated for the current year. We're using some assumptions then for like whatever is remaining then for 27 and then trying to think that that's going to stay pretty stable moving forward. Um, that is the amount that's necessary for the total fund balance to be at 8% or the unassigned fund balance to be at 8%. Um down below in the gray you see the same number of expenditures that are under total expenditures just shown in a different breakdown by salaries and benefits purchase services versus it being by department. Okay, I've gone through this one in detail. The others are very similar in nature especially when you're looking at the expenditure side of things. What's different on B and C compared to A would be on the revenue side. Okay, but the layout's very similar. And so if we skip on down in this document to the end where there is a page where now you have A, B, and C. This is in summary form. Same information but in summary form. So you have a one pager to kind of work off from. And then lastly, we have the um straight from the model, the four-year weighted average um projections for enrollment by grade level. Keep in mind, I'm referring to K12 in many of my conversations and in my discussion of those numbers. Okay, so that's a summary of what we have here before you. Thank you. discussion questions just a couple like very detailed questions and I um so you had mentioned the DSSE sale and I see if you go look on the other line um our revenue I'm sorry our revenue in 25 this year is 3.4 million and you have it forecasted at 5 million which is a difference of 1.6 6 million y but the building sale we just approved a purchase agreement for $2.6 million. So where is that extra million? It's a reduction in other revenues. I I'd have to look back to see exactly what's in the other column. I think it has to do with the fact that um your 26 is going to be utilizing that which is current. And so you have some revenues that are um your budget doesn't always your actuals can sometimes come in higher in the in the year it is right for other revenue because that's like what kinds of donations did you get? What kinds of miscellaneous revenue did you see? Um but when it comes to 2627 we bring that back to the budget amount and it isn't impacted by like carryovers or other things happening right so I believe that that number is reduced and I also believe that part of that reduction is some of the assumptions with regard to fees and things of that nature. >> So a million dollars is a lot of money so I would I would like to know more about what is made up of. Yep. And then why did federal funds go down by um almost a half a million dollars? >> Because of carryovers not being included moving forward. So that's just going back to the initial allocation that we receive on an annual basis. >> Okay. >> When you don't spend it the previous years >> I understand with grants and stuff. Yeah. I'm well aware. >> I think the the revenue um estimation is very conservative. I think when you look at um the compound annual growth rate of um what we've experienced for revenue um in the past I'd say 10 years it's it's like 4.4% and it looks like we're forecasting more like 1.5%. So I would just I mean I know it's we want to be conservative but I think when it comes to our revenues I think we're almost being too conservative about what considering we got an additional $3 million of special ed this year. Um, so I would just maybe challenge you to go back and take a look at that. Um, and then, um, as far as expenditures, that's where I almost feel like they're we're not necess like they might be a little bit too inflated. And I think, you know, I understand forecasting is tricky. Um but I think one thing that when you when you go back to like they said the 2627 um referendum conversation and one thing that we got criticized for and why we're in the position we are is that the forecasts for enrollment um were too aggressive. And so I think it's really important as we go forward with this levy conversation to make sure that our forecasts are as accurate as possible. Um, and I'm not saying they're not, but I think just really dialing in into looking at the revenue, like I said, it's trended in the past higher or you know, if you look at that um compound annual growth rate and then the expenditures have trended um I think are trending too aggressively as well. So, that's just a little bit of feedback um that I have on on that. Anyone else? Um, first of all, um, I want to thank you for making the, um, adjustments to expenditures, compounding, because when you do it yearbyear, it makes it look like it's just a one-time shot and then it just comes back and obviously you cut, you can't bring it back unless you actually fund it again. Um, the other thing I'd like to say is obviously our revenue is based upon enrollment and our enrollment's declining. Um and um if I may make a plug, obviously the formula needs to be redone. Um I would not like to see the legislature redo the formula. I would like to see superintendent, AMSD, all that actually come together to do that and do that fairly quickly because the whole state seems to be in this issue of declining revenue. Um, the other thing that I want to challenge is that obviously we have a cross subsidy. So, as our special ed needs grow, we're never being funded at 100% of that. We're always taking a hit out of the general fund in that cross subsidy. And um I and and with regards to um estimates, my fear is that we're even though the state increased that because the fed never actually funded it as the largest unfunded mandate we've ever seen in education. >> I am worried that the state is going to reduce that in the next bianium. And we're assuming they're not. And that worries me cuz I think that's going to further decrease increase our expenditures compared to and decrease our revenue which is something that obviously we cannot afford. Um so um I would like to stay as conservative as possible in that area. uh given their state funding right now, I don't see how they can actually increase that or even maintain that >> at that level because they are making up for a federal mandate instead of just state. >> Um so um hopefully that is some of the formulas that you are looking at as we go into this uh not this year obviously but next year's bianium. Thank you. Yeah, I mean uh I have several thoughts and and just based on community feedback and and the finance committee meeting also, you know, I I really still feel like the expenses um on here are are still um I would urge us that we've made over the last 14 months. Um I think that um I just looked at 26 27 because if you don't matter um you know I look at this number and we're up 4.34 million more than we were 14 months ago. Yet we've made $4.1 million worth of cuts adding back of um selling a building and that savings range was 5.7 million. All that added up, we should have seen, you know, a 12 to 14 million reduction in expenses and higher. Um so very difficult and I but um I don't feel like this reflects the cuts that we've made and specifically in head count. Um, I know that that might be hard to show, but showing this as a separate line item doesn't compound because we're taking the same, for example, elementary, secondary, regular instruction bucket, we're adding the percent on it year-over-year and not taking that number down. Um, so, you know, I just I struggle with some of that. Um I think you know when we talk about the levy numbers should drive our levy ask and um you know it is a hard cell with $136 million worth of bond debt outstanding um to ask our community to keep that cost when when we built buildings and additions and things that you know we don't currently need. Um even though it tax neutral. So, we do need to keep that in mind. Um, I think in regard to staffing, I, you know, I hear the community, the parents, the teachers, staff, everyone talk about class sizes and all of the needs that they have. And what I have a really hard time reconciling that with is that if you look at our financial statement from 2018 to 2025, very similar enrollment counts. we have 60 more full-time employees than we did in 201. Um, so it's it's hard to reconcile that and maybe we just don't have people in the right places, but I think this is a and ask. So, yes, we can ask for more money and we should be looking at, you know, our staffing and and restructuring and what do we need to do? Um, you know, maybe special ed is explainable. We have higher enrollment counts, but we have 21 addition admin and student support staff that consisted of six admin assistants, seven supervisory coordinators, three counselors, two and a half more social workers and psychologists for the same number of students. That's really hard to understand um as a community member um what what are we doing wrong, right? Um so and and I agree we do live in a tax averse you know very financially conservative district and the the burden lies on our residents and um I think you know we should go out and ask our community because it's up to them. I'm not in favor of word renewal, but um I think we need to optimize as well as asking for additional money. And I think that this forecast should reflect the cuts that we have made in those buckets. um even if they're estimates and we can denote that because it's really hard to swallow this when it's um we've already taken so many measures um that I don't feel like are reflective um so you know that's my perspective I think you know a few questions thank you for answering all of them that I sent via email um the one thing I think there were a couple things that I still maybe had unanswered um regard to that. So I had asked about assumption around decreasing enrollment and like do we have any assumption built in for like one FTE per X students or something like that. Um I know that we don't know that number for the building closure specifically yet. Um I think it would be helpful to understand an estimate but just generally over the next five years is there any assumption we can make in our forecast to say you know if we lose that's x headcount like that need to be reflected in here >> if I may. >> Yeah. Um so the um the process being used for example in reviewing for 27 is to particularly with the boundary changes. Every single elementary student was identified by which school are they going to be attending based on boundaries. Right? Every single um every every so we knew what every building was going to have for total enrollment. From there, we went through with our principles and we how many sections does that necessarily mean? How did we determine that based on our targets, right? First, I I asked, let's start with discussion caps and they're like, no, that's too deep. I'm like, okay, we'll back off and do target, right? So, that was how we determined like what's the FTE? Well, when you compare that to what we currently have, for example, that's kind of our starting point. Then as you look at the number that is 4.15 million, that's going to be part of that number. So those types of conversations around 27 are going to be reflected in that number down below. I can't tell you exactly for sure that they're all going to land in the elementary and secondary redu regular instruction or if it's going to be there's some that might be under special ed. There might be some that are under pupil support services. So therefore, I can't move that 4.15 to the above numbers until we know that information, right? >> Yeah. No, I understand that. I think some sort of assumptions in there would be helpful because again, right now, none of it's reflected, >> but but it is in the totals. So, >> but from the bottom, but again, now you're compounding percentages on these staffing every year and you haven't taken it off the top of that. In addition, we have declining enrollment. we're not reflecting. So, I just think it's building on on a higher number that you know out of gate and it's really not reflective. And we saw this before we asked the same question. We made one $4.1 million worth of cuts and it was like our forecast is higher, our budget's higher. Where did the money go? Where did the cuts go? Um so I I just am really struggling with that. It's not clear um what we've reduced and where um to That's my feedback. >> Um that um and then even like utilities for example. So you took that out of the 2526 was the increase did you say or the 26 >> the current year's revised budget >> is adjusted. >> Yes. And so as we talked about in revising that budget, we were adding the revenue from like special education, but we also noticed that the budget that had been in existence or the adopted 26 wasn't high enough to re be reflective in certain areas that needed some adjustments. So those those numbers may have shifted between transportation, utilities, utilities wasn't much, but there was a slight adjustment. And I think the previous board meeting on the 12th had that list in detail, the same the same period that you approved the budget. >> So like even we closed a building now. Where where's the utility savings in here? You know, just I don't know. I I just don't see any any of these cuts projected at all. >> They're in the 4.15 million yet to be determined exactly how that gets allocated. >> Um and then sorry, my last question and again this I was just reviewing the um caught my eye, but the debt structure in 2025 um I it looks like we paid 1.5 million of principal. >> I'm not sure where you're coming from with that one. >> Okay, I can send that as a follow. >> Yeah, I'll look at that a little more detailed. >> Okay, perfect. >> Yep. You're welcome. >> Anything else? I just um would like to add something that director Mason um said um recently um you know I've also been thinking a lot about budget challenges and so I attended a workshop and I wanted to share just a little bit of information with that about that with the board and one of the topics was optimizing studentto staff ratios and since optimizing resources is part of our strategic plan and an expectation from our community I thought it was relevant um and when you looked at when you look at optimizing studentto staff ratios. Um again over time our enrollment continues to decline. So if we lose 80 kids, is it fair to assume we need that extra bus? We need that extra um administrative staff support. Um at some point we have to look at those um items as we lose students and determine do we need this do we need staff or do we need to readjust our staff to optimize our resources. And so I did a quick analysis of our district and since 2014 we have seen a 14% change in student enrollment but a 37% increase in staff FTE. And I think this go back goes back to what director Mason was saying about the FTE the 60 extra FTE. And so as we re we continue to review our 5-year forecast um keeping in mind what actions we've already taken to reduce expenses and optimize optimizing resource by consolidating schools moving minaps back to the high school and we increased our classroom cap. It appears to me that there is still more work to be done to optimize our staffing models to align with our forecasted student enrollment. In this workshop that I attended, the recommendation was given to review all central office and administrative roles. Keeping cuts as far away from the classroom as possible. This is something that I've been advocating for using a zerobased budgeting model. Funding classrooms first is how we need to build our budget. Based on our studentto staff ratios and this five-year forecast, it's clear to me that we have more work to do to optimize our staffing models. It frustrates me to hear that we are at bare bones when our staffing to student ratios is so out of line. Bare bones to me would mean we've already adjusted our staffing models to align with the forecasted enrollment and our total FTE would be closer to where we were in 2017 and 18 with that 60 reduction in FTE. I fully understand students need to have their needs have changed, which is why we need to optimize our staff and make sure our staffing models align with our student needs in classrooms. A balanced budget this year was a great start, but now we really need to do more work to optimize our staffing models to account for declining enrollment, which means less central office staff and administrative staff are needed. I feel this is incredibly important to gain our community's vote as we get closer to determining the amount and the purpose of a future levy. So I just wanted to add that >> I have a question a 37% increase in staff FT. Where did you get that number? >> It's a year I can send you the the the chart I use. There's a staffing model that I in this workshop that I attended. It has a staffing model. So you put in you basically put in the >> our finance director or director Kern >> there. I took all the numbers off of our annual report and I did share them. Actually >> I think that it's important for us to um make sure that information shared from the board table is actually from our district. >> It was actually from our district and and and so I took it from our annual reports >> but it's not information that all board members have here right now. So um I'm happy to share it. So with our >> I'd like to have it delivered from our administration. >> I sent it because and I'm happy to have them sharp. >> No, not from you, not from your graphs, but from our administration to back up those numbers. >> That's fine. I'm happy to send it. >> We've approved cuts every year >> since our is still higher. If >> we can get back to um what was on our agenda, >> we're talking about the five-year forecast. Yep. >> Okay. Uh we heard your points. Thank you. And um I will ask is there any other um discussion or points to be made on the budget projections? Hearing none, we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the superintendent evaluation and midyear check-in. Dr. Thomas, >> sorry. Uh, chair Bullian, like I shared earlier, um, at the close of this meeting, um, every year Martha will send out the link with the goals, um, that were approved from last June and then that window will be open for a week's period of time and Dr. Bush will coalate the qualitative responses and then the chair has historically summarized those into some talking points um for uh midyear to the end of the year of some look fors and areas for strengths and areas for for opportunity. >> Thank you. Uh we have no policies at this time. >> Question. So when the leak link link goes out um what is our time frame to to reply? Oh, sorry. It'll be a week. >> Okay. One week. Okay, good. Thank you. Share that. Okay. And probably she's going to send it out um tonight or tomorrow. >> We'll we'll effectively have it for um tonight. >> Okay. Okay. So, the week starts tonight. I just want to make sure. >> We'll we'll start the week uh tomorrow. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I don't think any of you are doing anything tonight. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments on that item? All right, we have no policies at this time. And so with that, I move to adjourn at 10:18. >> Did you have something else? Okay.