School board meeting for Force Lake Area Schools, Thursday, July 17th to order. Please join us while we recite the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, member clerk, will you please take a roll call of attendance? >> Yes. All right. Member Christensen >> here. Member Antenson is here. Member Castle >> here. >> Member Rebeline >> here. >> Member Hagglund >> here. >> Member Tyson is absent. And member Corkran >> here. >> All right. >> All right. We have a quorum present. I would entertain a motion to approve tonight's agenda. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> A motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the agenda? >> All right. I would like to uh move to add item 7.1 to address disruptive behavior by members of the public. Second. We a motion in a second. Is there any discussion? >> Um can I ask I mean can we ask questions of what >> absolutely >> what that's about? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um I'll actually set that up a little bit. Uh okay. Uh during our last board meeting and a couple of other >> previous board meetings, we've had a number of disruptions. >> Uh so I felt it would be uh smart to uh propose a a motion to the board to handle disruptions and computer interaction. uh sooner rather than later. We do have a policy coming up on this uh in September uh for the policy committee to review, but uh prior to that, I think it's better to act sooner rather than later. >> So, is this going to be about green card behavior kind of what's expectations things you had talked about in the past? >> Um, right. Or just kind of guidelines for >> Yeah. So, the the proposed motion I have in association with this is more how we handle disruptive behavior if we have to throw somebody out. um like re reactions to that. I'd mentioned adding something to the agenda to Dr. Massie about a week or so ago and and he mentioned it would be more appropriate just to bring it to the board uh in the form of the amendment. So that's what I'm doing this even amendment. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Any other discussion on the amendment? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed? >> Opposed. >> All right. Um motion carries. That brings us back to the uh approving the agenda as amended. Any additional discussion? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> Those opposed. >> All right. Motion is adopted. Brings us to scheduled and unscheduled visitors. I have no green cards. Um so we can move on from that. U brings us to the consent agenda. Is there any items 5.1 through 5.3 that any member would like pulled from the consent agenda? >> Member H. 5.1, please. >> 5.1. All right. 5.2 or 5.3. All right. Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve 5.1 and 5.3. >> Two and three. >> Yes. >> Two and three. >> Yes. Five. Oh, sorry. 5.2 and 5.3. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second to approve items 5.2 and 5.3. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed. >> All right. Motion carries. Brings us to 5.1. entertain a motion to approve item one. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Member Heagen. >> Uh I just want to talk a little bit about some of the vendors that are on the board bills. We've had several people in the community that have spoken up recently quite loudly um about things that have been going on in the district and those same people are vendors that we do business with. So, we might want to look at um doing business with vendors who are earning money on the district that they're also voicing some very harsh disruptions to. So, I just want to make that as as a suggestion to the board and to administration that maybe we >> maybe on an annual basis we go through and look at the approved vendors list and make modifications to that. And then also I wanted to discuss um looks like there's some large payments for travel reimbursement and wanted to talk more about if that's something that we should look at having it more reimburseed more timely like within the month that or 30 days maybe after that travel occurs instead of letting it accumulate until the end of the year. >> All right. Member Christensen. >> Um I maybe um member Hegland could just um explain a little bit more. I haven't been contacted by anybody with concerns about vendors. I'm just wondering who who are we referring to or what is it specific vendors or for what reasons or >> there are several vendors that are on the bill board bills periodically throughout the year that you know some of those business owners have come and spoken you know as and stated that they are business owners and they're still doing business with the district. So maybe we need to look into that more clearly. Do do people have first amendment rights though if they want to come and speak? I guess I'm not I'm not understanding. >> But they're coming in here, you know, not as a community member, but stating themselves as a business owner. And some of those are same business owners that we do business with as a district. So >> adding to the disruptions that we've had over the last few few months, maybe we just need to look at that is all I'm saying. >> Okay. >> Could you explain just a little bit more? I'd be interested to know like who who specifically or I guess I'm not I'm not tracking. I don't have the four bills in front of me right now. So, I just know that there's been quite a few on there. So, >> so, so just to be clear, so if someone comes up and they state, I'm a I'm a business owner, maybe as a way of explaining themselves or who they are. If if that person is saying something negative or disruptive, if they're a business owner, then perhaps the district shouldn't do business with them. Is that is that >> maybe they should just address themselves as an individual, not the business? Then >> that's all I'm saying. All right. Any other discussion? Member Anton, >> I had looked at the board bills as well and just had questions as far as some very large sums for travel or >> what's the other reimbursement? >> Mileage. Yes. Um reimbursements. And I I I have the same question is all I'm saying is is that you know is that prudent to fiscal management? Is that helpful? or is there a bit is does it matter, you know? So, I have a a question to that, too. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I can address the the question on that. Um, >> we reimburse employees for travel um using their own vehicle. Uh well, we certainly don't reimburse mileage from home to work, >> but work uh travel that's part of their their job. um whether it's going to supervise events or itinerate teachers working between two different schools during the school day, we're making those reimbursements. Uh we do set um kind of a benchmark to reimburse in January, halfway through the fiscal year and again by the by June 30th. So that's why you're seeing a large number of them at this time because it's the end of the fiscal year, June 30th. There's a difference between I'd have to pull it up. The language travel u mileage reimbursement that's where we're reimbursing staff mileage. Travel reimbursement is paying families or students who attend elsewhere but are residents of the district and we're obligated to cover mileage outside the district. So from the district to their new their their attending school. So that is state law and that's what all those reimbursements are for. Should they ask for reimbursement? >> Yeah. I mean I guess further the question for me was is it is it happen like these larger sums is that because it's all year or half the year and is that helpful to financial planning for the district to have it done that way or should it be more regularly or quarterly or something? I would say from a a budget standpoint, if it's a a large sum, you know, it's it's still the same budget. We anticipate that. >> Okay. >> Whether that's in June or monthly, it's still the same impact to the budget, and we anticipate that and plan for that. >> On a grand scale, it's not all that large. >> Um, we could certainly encourage more regular reimbursement, but I don't think it has that. It's not a disruptive element to the budget planning and budget process. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Member Corkin, did you have something? >> No, I I was just going to say that if it's in the fiscal year budget, it's not going to impact any trouble and maybe it's not invoiced as often and that's why it's not paid as often. So, those things are tricky and they take a while to get processed. So, I know that. >> Um, yeah, I going back to the about the vendors about the u business owners. Yeah, I'm the That makes me a little upset I mean because the people that are coming here are representing as business owners because they're care about our district and they're here representing their feelings about it um because they must have an issue and they just want to be heard. So I just don't want them to be penalized for coming and speaking speaking their truth in front of us and and wanting to us to hear what they have issues with. So I just I understand but I mean looking at all vendors but I and local vendors are as a district that is what we represent. That is that's our community. I can't imagine not doing business with our local community. So um that I I have more questions about if that's something we're going to be looking at in the future. >> Sure. Member Castle. >> Uh so what is the mileage reimbursement currently? >> Mileage rate I think is 70 cents a mile. I'm IRS. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, there's one for $7,500 and some dollars. That's a lot of miles. >> Yeah. I believe that's going to be our activities director. And our activities director is at almost every >> event, away event, whether it's in the cities or south of the cities or up in Duth or state tournaments. Uh it is a lot. Um, and if anything, he should be encouraged to be home more than he's at events, quite honestly. But, >> um, we are well represented with his presence at events. And it does add up. I I acknowledge that. >> Well, that's a couple times across the country. >> That seems excessive. >> It's nearly 11,000 miles. Y >> So, um, was there I'm trying to think of when we approved new contracts and there were some that went retroactive and I'm wondering if some of those if the mileage was one of those items. And so that's why there's a whole bunch that look like they're all relatively the same. They're like $2,000 or so. There's a whole bunch of them all in a row. Yeah, I I believe if it's the mileage reimbursement, those are going to be or the travel reimbursement, that's going to be student. >> They're mileage ones. >> The mileage ones are staff. Those are all independent submissions and vouchers by individual staff members. So, that's not a contractual payment. >> Yeah, for some some clarity there, uh, member Castle, I can add to this. Policy 302 is the travel expense reimbursement policy. There aren't any um any clear directives about how this is handled. It just says that the um travel shall be reimbursed by the IRS standard business mileage rate. Um there is no maximum there's no directive on it should be expensed within a certain period of time. Um if I'm understanding this correctly, we encourage staff to submit the the requests on kind of a semester by semester basis. Um, my major concern when I look at that is is it how does this work from an accounting standpoint? I'm kind of looking back at director on, you know, is it is it easy to track monthto monthth or is it okay to do it every six months? Uh, if it's something that we account for. >> So, the forms that we use are monthly um reimbursements and that's what's encouraged. Uh, fiscally, you do have all fiscal year to submit that. And again, it is budgeted in that way and therefore it does not matter when they submit it. That's our obligation to pay whenever they do and again they're encouraged to do it. >> And is that driven by statute >> the >> that they have the an the full year >> or is that just been our practice? >> Uh it I would imagine it would be statute because it's within the school year. So then you have expenses that are incurred, you have that time frame to Okay. Yeah. Yeah, and I I agree that I think it's great that uh our staff members make it to all these events and that they're willing to drive those miles because uh getting reimbursed for mileage is not like getting paid for your time. It's a lot of wear and tear on the vehicle. It's a lot of wear and tear on your bodies. >> You will see our nonpubliclix on there. So, there was probably about 100 checks that went out for our non-public families um within those board bills. And again, those um are from their homes to the border, the closest border. Um so, it doesn't matter where the school is, it's just to the border. And that's per state statute. That's done once a year because we need their attendance. So we it's based on the number of days that they attend. We get that information from the nonpublic school and only reimburse the date that they attend. So that's why that's done on an annual basis and not done throughout the year. >> Thank you for that clarification. Um no, I I think this is a great discussion to have because uh you know it does look a little unusual when you look at the board bills and if you've been on the board for a while, you kind of understand why and how the practice works. But uh um this discussion doesn't happen in front of the public a whole lot. So I think it's good to get out there. Um one other item I'd like to add on the the approved vendors and member Corkran said it really well. I like the fact that we do a lot of business with local business that we keep we keep money in the community that we work in. >> Uh but one of the things I've spoken about a lot uh both during my campaign and since being elected is trying to avoid conflicts of interest. So, I do think it would be important that if a business owner is speaking and they are here and they are benefiting financially from an interaction they have with the district, at a minimum, we could ask that they disclose that conflict of interest before they make their comments. But, uh, um, I do like member Hegeland's idea of looking back and and seeing the vendors, making sure that, uh, we have a process to vet them, making sure that they're, uh, um, representing the community well, representing our district well, and that they're a business we we want to interact with. I I think that's definitely a good suggestion and something that should happen on a regular basis, and I know it's something that administration is doing anyway, so um, it wouldn't be that much more of a burden. Uh, is there any more discussion on item uh 5.1? All right, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> Those opposed. >> All right, motion carries. 5.1 is approved. Brings us to um item 6.1, permission to bid serving lines. Director member Gay. >> So, uh, as always with our bid lock, we need to go out and look at our serving lines at the high school. the middle school last year and the high school this year. Uh elementaryaries, they don't necessarily meet the thresholds to get to the bin level, but these bigger buildings do. So, in order to comply with bidlock, we would like to ask permission to bid with serving lines at the high school. Most of the units there are from 2000, so uh good good life that they've lived there. Uh there is some 2018 models also within their serving lines and those will be repurposed on our elementary buildings. Um and so we can have matching sets. We're also adding a pizza at the high school next year. So, that will be very exciting. Out of the concessions area, which is a different part of the cafeteria, and if you've ever been at the high school during lunch, you know it's a bit chaotic and crowded. So, to uh sip some of those kids off to the side and in a different line will be really positive uh for our food service programs. So, with that, we will publish uh in the times on July 24th and 31st the bid and then bid opening will be August 8th. We will ask on the 21st uh for you guys to award that bid. That's done. With that, administration will recommend approval. >> All right, I'll kick off some questions here. That the first one being at um lunchtime is limited at the high school. It sounds like we're going to have a new line. Will that help speed things up as we anticipate? >> Yes. So, part of that is about the flow. So, whenever you get to have new lines, you can look at exactly that. As you said, when you get to the high school, you see that you have these two lines that come into the road and you have to go to the other areas. So, the lines to hopefully help that flow quicker. >> Okay, >> that that will be a wonderful addition. I'm actually when I visit the high school, I try to do it over lunchtime so I can kind of observe that because uh >> as you can imagine and in our chairs here, that's one of the things we hear about as board members is >> god we don't get enough time for lunch and we need more time for lunch and it's nice to go observe it and and really um see that. Any other questions for director member Castle? Um, so the elementarymentaries don't meet the threshold for having to have bids. >> That doesn't prevent us from having bids. >> We always have to get quotes anyways because it's over $25,000. So, we send them to the exact same vendors. We just don't necessarily need to publish it. >> Sure. >> No. >> All right. Seeing no additional questions, I'd entertain a motion to approve. >> So, second. >> Okay. We have a motion to second. Any discussion? All right. Uh, seeing none, member clerk, will you please take a roll call? >> Sure. Member Anton votes I. Member Tyson is absent. Member Christensen. >> I. >> Member Castle. >> I. >> Member Rebeline. >> I. >> Member Corkran. >> I. >> And member Haggland. >> I. >> The eyes have it. >> All right. Motion carries. It brings us to item 7.1. And Joy, I will apologize. The uh printed copy of this motion is sitting on my printer at home. So I will email you a copy of this after the the meeting here. But uh the motion is quite long and this is on the uh the topic of uh addressing disruptive behavior by members of the public. And the motion is as follows. Uh concerning individuals who have been directed to leave schoolboard meetings or other district events due to disruptive behavior. I move to direct administration to respond as follows. One, the individual shall be suspended from all district related committees, advisory councils, or similar activities for a period of no less than one year. Two, should a second disruption that results in removal occur, administration will work with all relevant law enforcement agencies to file official trespass notice against the individual to include all district properties. Three, consequences of this directive are subject to appeal. A request for appeal shall be provided to the school board in writing detailing the individual extenduating circumstances and justification of the review. There is no obligation that the school board take the appeal under official consideration. And item four, this directive is retroactive dating back to June 1st, 2025. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion or would anybody like me to read that over again? Member Christensen, >> I would like you to this is not my two comments, but please read it again. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Like I said, I I had this printed off and I left it sitting on my printer at home. Okay. So, from the top, concerning individuals who have been directed to leave schoolboard meetings or other district events due to disruptive behavior, I move to direct administration to respond as follows. One, the individual shall be suspended from all district related committees, advisory councils, or similar activities for a period of no less than one year. Two, should a second disruption that results in removal occur, administration will work with all relevant law enforcement agencies to file an official trespass notice against the individual to include all district properties. Three, consequences of this directive are subject to appeal. A request for appeal shall be provided to the school board in writing detailing the individual extenduating circumstances in justification of the review. There is no obligation that the board take the appeal under official consideration. And four, this directive is retroactive dating back to June 1st, 2025. To summarize, basically what this is saying is if you have been removed from a schoolboard meeting or a event um such as a basketball game or a football game due to disruptive behavior that you are no longer eligible to participate on committees or advisory councils or any type of similar um activity for a period of one year from that removal. should you do something that results in a removal again, you will then receive an official trespass notification from law enforcement and that uh um should this occur against an individual, they do have the right to appeal the entire board. Um so if uh for example, you're you're thrown out of a football game and and you you fall under subject to this, you you can appeal to the board and the board can say, "Well, that was a misunderstanding that really shouldn't have occurred that way. this doesn't apply. Um, this is some something I was going to propose for the green card policy that is waiting for policy committee and that won't happen until uh September at the very earliest, but due to the the frequent disruptions that we've had in recent meetings, I felt it was imperative to get this out sooner rather than later. >> Yes, member Christensen. >> I have um several concerns with this. Number one, um this is the first I'm hearing about this at all. This is seems to be a major policy um major policy change. Um who gave input on this? Who I was not um consulted at all about this and I'm not yielding my time yet. So that is my number one concern. Um who gave input on this? I have um this is a major policy change. Um, I also would like to um say that I had an earlier conversation um about adding something onto the agenda and I was told that I should not add anything onto the agenda if it was already past the Monday deadline. So, I respected that and I did not add what I wanted to add onto the agenda. And now this very large policy change has been added to the agenda since the Monday deadline which I was told I was not allowed to do and I respected that. Now a major policy change is put on the agenda which the public is not here to see or have any information on. Um I have not had any time to review or research this policy. Uh I believe that this is uh a free speech issue which we would need to look into a little bit more. How will this be handled equally? I mean I was not on the board during COVID, but I've heard a lot of things about that. I can imagine that there were a lot of disruptions during COVID. That was a very stressful time to be on the board. Again, I wasn't here, but something as major as this was not suggested during that time when people were very upset. I heard there was almost some sort of a fist fight or something and this policy was not suggested at all during that time. Um I also have a major concern that this is retroactive. People don't know that. People need to know that. Um I don't think it I think if we are going to implement something like this I I certainly don't think that we can make it retroactive. People had people had no idea. So now you're being punished for something that you didn't know in the past you would have been able to do that and now you're going to be punished uh and you didn't know that. So I have a major concern about it being retroactive. And uh thirdly, I'm sure I have more, but thirdly, um I believe that we are targeting individuals who spoke negatively uh at the board meeting, which is their free speech right to do. And I'm also that also concerns again with um what me member Hegeland was saying about vendors. I'm thinking about people like uh Forest Lake Floral which is owned by Mayor Roberts. I assume the school district does business with them. We do the school district does business with the Forest Lake Times um you know other groups like that. So I'm I'm really concerned in the direction that the board is going um with this this kind of talk about almost uh sort of I don't know some sort of retribution or something. I do not believe that we can retaliate against individuals or businesses for, you know, for exercising their constitutional right to free speech even if the speech is critical. Um, so yeah, major concerns, but number one concern is who who gave input. This is the first I've ever seen that. So >> that's my motion. So I can I can try to address your questions. I I should have written them down here as we went, but uh um I brought this to the attention of Dr. Massie last week and mentioned that I wanted to have it be part of the agenda proposal. Um he felt it was more appropriate to have it be an amendment here which is always in order. We can always amend the agenda when we we come to the boardroom. So if our discussion earlier if I suggested that that wasn't in order. I I apologize for that. You could have brought the other issue that you wanted to as an amendment to the agenda. You always can. Um I have not really discussed the details of this um specific motion uh with anybody. This is this is something that I was thinking of because of the challenges that I had maintaining quorum um in the meeting and recognizing that it just keeps continually getting worse. Um there's some very vocal, very hyperbolic groups that um are aiming to create disruption. We spent in our last uh board meeting over an hour taking public input and some of those same individuals who gave public input felt it was important enough to disrupt our work uh to to interrupt us during the um during our meeting. Um I think it's critically important that we try to maintain quorum. This is our meeting. We need to be able to have it. taking public input is extremely valuable, but there's a time for that and there's a time for us to be able to do our work and and this clearly delineates that. Um, I'm trying to remember that all the points that you went through as as far as prior notice to community members. I think it can be a very safe assumption that if you disrupt a government meeting that there are consequences for doing that. Um, I have not studied state law on that specific point, but I do know that there are federal laws in place that if you disrupt official government proceedings, it's a felony. I don't know if that's applicable here, but I don't see why it wouldn't be. Um, it just happened to uh a House representative. I believe he pulled a fire alarm to disrupt House proceedings. Uh, I don't know that that was ever prosecuted, but it is a violation of law and it should be taken seriously. So, what what points of inquiry that you had there may have I missed. I want to make sure I cover them all. >> Uh yes, who gave input? You answered that. Uh it being retroactive. Um again, just like targeting individuals. Um I mean, I think it's fair to say that one of the people that got asked to leave the meeting is Karen Morehead. I mean, are we asking >> is this applying to Karen Morhead, that for in the next year, she will not be able to be on any committees? I mean, is that I I I agree with you, member Rebline, that people should not be able to disrupt our meeting. I agree wholeheartedly with that. If someone pulled a fire alarm or someone, you know, yelled fire or or did something really super disruptive, I I agree completely. But um there I mean disruption is sort of in the eye of the beholder. I mean I agree that those folks were passionate and I don't even know if I'd use the word disrupted the meeting. I mean they uh were out of order and they shouldn't have spoken. I I'll but to to claim that what Karen Morhead said is enough to have her you know effectively banned for a year. Um that is a bridge too far. I mean I can get on board maybe with a little bit of this but um I have some major you know major concerns >> that that does remind me too that that was uh the big reason that I wrote in the appeal process here. Um, if you know, like like I said, if somebody uh is removed from a football game and we find that that the infraction wasn't that great or there wasn't reason for it or during a board meeting the infraction wasn't that great, that the board always has the ability to reverse a decision like that if the request is made. So, that that was the intent of the the uh appeal process there. >> Well, I would also kind of say maybe let's like not kid ourselves. I mean, if someone that that we don't like or you the majority doesn't like that said something that the majority doesn't like, they're going to appeal and you're not going to pass. I mean, I I think we can say that there's an appeal process. I mean, I I don't I'd be surprised, I guess, if anyone's appeal was actually um turned over. But yeah, >> member >> um I agree with member Christensen on a lot of the points. I guess it's really hard to reprimand people after the fact. I mean if you don't know what's going to happen when you are speaking and then you come back and say by the way. So I agree like there has to be guidelines. There has to be rules to keep order and I totally understand that and maybe going forward we have a more of a like I know you read you know what you expect out of the people but people were very upset they were compassionate. they were, you know, maybe they were a little, you know, cuz these topics that we're talking about are very true and and dear to people's hearts. I mean, they're very compassionate about the way they're feeling. So things were emotions were high and and as we all know, when you care about something, you might go a little over the top because you're so upset. But to come back later and to tell them like I said about Karen, I you know I get going forward we can have a more you know definitely a more you know rules and things that we have to follow but I don't believe in going retroactic to people. I just don't think that they should pay do the brunt and when they haven't even been told the full ramifications of what their actions were. that's very excessive and I think that's just going to come back and be worse as our board people are going to be very upset and it just it's not going to go well. So I think like I say I'm on board with having some rules and guidelines and I think that's important but I I really don't agree with that >> with the retroactive >> retroactive I I don't believe that that is and like I say people were very heated and very upset because it was very it was an emotional meeting. It was very emotional and people got, you know, because maybe they they just wanted to be heard. So, I don't want to take that away, but having guidelines in place and maybe have them printed where we leave them by the door, have people have clarity for their what their actions will be, I agree with that, but not to go backward. I I don't think that's fair. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Member Castle. >> Um, so it's not about speech, it's about the disruption. Yeah, >> that's what it's about. If people get carried away so bad that they must be removed, it's the removal part. It has nothing to do with free speech, just like symbols have nothing to do with free speech. If you're triggered by that, perhaps you need some education. But I would like to know if there's a difference between so if somebody's at a football game and they're disrupt so much that the police haul them away. >> Is there going to be a difference between that and if they're asked to leave and they leave on their own vition? >> Dr. Massie, I'll let you address that because I believe that's when we would file a trespass notification immediately. Yeah, it's fortunately not all that frequently that we're in those situations at athletic events. Um, usually it's a matter of asking somebody to leave and they comply. Um, I think it's pretty rare that we have to get police involved to remove somebody from an event. Mr. Caldwell, I don't know, member chair, if there's anything you want Mr. Caldwell to add, but >> maybe once a year >> very less, not very often. And then would that also apply to future games that they would have wanted to attend as opposed to committees and things. >> We don't have a a um explicit guideline or policy on that, but that's a case by case situation. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other discussion? Member Hegel. Um I I don't think it's really a fair excuse to say it. They were they were passionate. They didn't know because especially member former board members should know better what the what the the quorum should be. Uh they were warned several times by the chair um asked politely to not be disruptive, but we are doing our work. I mean, I go back and forth on the retroactive portion of it and uh because that last meeting was disrupted so heavily, I lean towards doing the retroactive punishment because of how out of hand it got at times. Normally, I probably wouldn't be in favor of that. I'm torn on that piece. Um, but to say that they didn't know better, they were they've been warned. They've been they were asked nicely. This is a a professional meeting. they should know better. And you know, a lot of the a lot of the disruption is coming from the pe the same people who say your words matter are coming from the anti-bullying group. Yet those people in those groups are the same ones that have been sending threatening messages, harassing um and getting upset because of our words. Well, don't our words matter? They they keeps claiming free speech rights and everything else, but their free your free speech rights are only good as long as you agree with them. So, as soon as you have a differing opinion, then they start screaming the loudest and start making noise. And when you try to say, "No, this has got to be a professional meeting." Then they get upset. So, I I like the amendment. I I'm back torn on the the retroactive piece of it, but I I do think we need to put some structure in there and maybe this could have waited until the policy committee got it, but due to the extreme disruptiveness of the last couple meetings, I do agree with the chair that we probably shouldn't wait because it could just continue to snowball. >> Member Oh, member Antonson. >> She can go ahead. >> Okay. Member Christensen. Well, I was just going to say I mean um I appreciate what you're saying, Member Hegel, but it sounds to me that you're um that you're kind of familiar with this um amendment or policy. It makes me feel like the way you're talking about it that you've seen it before. Um I mean, >> order seems like I'm being accused of something there, member chair. >> Yeah. Um short of >> because I have not seen or heard this prior to this. So that seems like an an inappropriate accusation by another board member. >> Yeah, please please keep your comments Germaine and direct. >> I was just going to say it it it seems like a lot to take in when we've just heard this and I'm not you just were were saying the points quickly and maybe you un you know you understand things a lot. >> I took notes. >> Yeah, I did too. I did too. So I'm just saying >> member Anton. >> Okay. So I agree we need to get something because last week or the last meeting was highly contentious and there were a lot of disruptions and I wholly believe in first amendment rights but I don't believe that gives somebody the right to get up there and start calling board members names. Uh that is not okay. And I agree with what you said. Uh, you know, the person in question that you're referring to, Miss Morehead, I mean, I have a lot of respect for her and the work she's done in the community, and she she does know better. And she stood up and said, "Well, I know you're going to kick me out." Like, it's some sort of joke. Like, this whole thing is a joke because we there's certain people up here that don't agree with what she's saying or how the way she thinks it should be. And that's just not what it's about. I mean, it isn't about we're somebody's wrong because we don't agree with you. That's the whole big picture that we need to come around to a way to figure out how to work within this space of we have differences of opinion. How can we be functional and work together to make things better? And it's not going to happen with people getting up there and starting to call half the board racist, homophobic, and expect to be able to sit there and rant things off like that. And it's not going to happen when we have former board members who are involved in many different community things talking about how horrible we are because we don't agree. So, something needs to be put in place. I agree. I think the retroactive thing is tough. Um, and I don't know what I think about that either. >> I I can speak more to the retroactive piece to it because I I think we're all struggling with that and I struggled with it myself. And uh my breaking point on the retroactive was the the number of direct threats that I've received, the threats I've received against my family, the threats that I know other board members have received against their families, the threats of violence, the deliberate and pointed specific attacks towards specific board members. And when I when I take put that into context with the violent nature of of these hate groups that are coming after elected officials these days um up to and including murdering them just in the past few weeks and I received death threats that day too. A state representative was murdered and I I got phone calls later that day threat threatening me. um we have to draw a line somewhere and that's where I I I cited on uh adding the language to make it retroactive. >> Is there any other discussion? >> Well, I just have a question. Yes. >> Okay. So, I know and I'm incredibly sorry you're getting those. I I I'm That's not okay. It's not okay in any world. No. >> But I feel like the emails you're receiving and the green cards that people I mean they're separate. You're kind of lumping them together >> because they are kind of interrelated, but I feel like you're taking extra retribution on the people that came and spoke and not I mean the emails are separate. So I just feel like I just think that that should be not treated the same and not looped together. I I understand. Yeah. Yeah. And >> yeah, I mean, like I say, >> like member Antinson was saying, I >> I don't know. >> I'm I'm not concerned about disagreement. >> I like disagreement. I Well, not I don't like disagreement, but I I like being able to talk through disagreement because a lot of times disagreement brings you to a better a better end goal or better better solution in the end. We had a contentious meeting a few weeks ago, but we came up with a solution at the end and and seven of us found a way to support um something as a group. >> Six, >> well, six voted for it, but but the seven of us, >> we we made that decision in the end. And it happened through discussion. And from from my point of view, what I want is I want good discussion. I want I want good back and forth. I want constructive discussion which is why I think uh the public comment is so important. But once we once we have moved beyond public comment, we need to have order in the room and we need to have be able to to maintain quorum. And the last thing I wanted to do that night a couple of weeks ago was to clear the room. And we got very close several times where we had to clear the room. And I I hate throwing people out, but uh my fear is is that if we are not aggressive in establishing clear parameters that we will maintain order that it's going to continue to snowball out of control. >> Any other discussion on this? I would I would like to make a um a motion that we table this because it seems like such a very big policy major policy issue and I would like more time to think about it and review it and see if there's any policy procedures, state laws, anything that we need um to be following. I'm just not familiar enough with um what we're talking about to feel comfortable. >> Okay. Did Did you want to table it or do you want to postpone it to a specific date and time? I would like to make a motion to um table it. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second on tableling it. Any discussion on tableabling it? Uh >> member Antonson, >> like I said, I think we need to get something in place. That's clear. Perhaps it doesn't have to be all of this. Um if it's I mean can we just possibly amend the original thing or >> you know get dispose of uh the motion on the table right now to table it? >> I mean >> yes amendment would be in order. >> I can >> yeah member Christian >> I just I just feel like um like what's what's the rush I guess you know I'm just wondering um whether we table it or maybe I have the wrong word but we could we could bring this up the next meeting. I mean member Tyson isn't here. Um, we could bring it up the next meeting. People, you you you know, you didn't and maybe you meant to have a copy for us here. I'm not sure, but you said you've left it on your printer, which happens. That's no big deal. But >> I just feel like something this major, we need to get it right and we need to talk about it. And I agree that that yes, we cannot keep having meetings where people are standing up. I I agree with that wholeheartedly. I just I just can we can we just come together, you know, and and kind of try to agree on on something. I just I it makes me really nervous that this was kind of just um you know, sprung on us for lack of a better word. I mean, there's, you know, it um I would really um like to table it or whatever the word is, postpone it to even the next meeting. just give us, >> you know, two weeks to review or or think about this or come up with our own ideas or whatever. >> Um, >> yeah, >> and I think uh member Tyson too, I mean, this is a really very important thing to put in place. I'd like to get her input, too. I think that's she's a very senior board member, and I think it'd be nice to get her her opinion about this policy. So, I mean, I think postponing to the next meeting, I think, is I think it's a very good compromise for us and gives us more time to kind of look into this. And like I said, it's not impacting this meeting. So, if we get in place for next meeting, that'd be good. >> Any other discussion on the motion to table? >> All right. My my only concern at the motion at the table is kind of like I addressed this earlier is uh we had the green card policy uh well it's not officially the green card policies but there's two policies that kind of tie together to to take care of our our green card procedure. Um that was something that we presented to the committee in May. The committee did not have adequate time to really address those uh policies. So we uh decided to punt that work until September >> and then of course over the summer it became a problem which is >> my biggest concern about tableabling this. My preference would be to pass this understanding that it's >> probably not perfect and arguably it might even be a little aggressive but that's something that we can sort out in September and codify into policy relatively quickly after that. Um, so that would be my preference on the the motion to table. Any other discussion on the motion to table? All right, seeing none, all those in favor of tableabling the item signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed. >> No. >> Okay. The motion to table fails. That brings the original question back. Going back to member Anderson's first question. We it would be appropriate to amend it. Um, we have run into to limitations on discussions. So, if uh if it pleases the board, we will suspend the rules on discussion for the remainder of this motion. >> Second, >> we don't need a second. If there's no objection, okay, we will we'll go ahead and suspend the rule on discussion uh for the remainder of this discussion. Uh member antinson. >> Okay. Um we're talking about the pos potential amendment here to your >> um Yeah. Yeah. So, we're back to the main motion. um which I'm happy to repeat or if people have notes >> I have the basics here. Um >> it sounds to me like the most contentious thing about it is that it's just new here tonight and that it would be retroactive. I mean there is the within your motion or your proposal here to suspend someone from district committees and advisories. Um any subsequent any subsequent disruptive behavior would involve then law enforcement and then they could also appeal the board. >> Yeah. What if we just took out the retroactive and just make it known that if someone is suspend like the other three points that you made suspension from or being removed from the boardroom would mean a suspension of you're talking about school board committees. I mean obviously those are the only things we can >> board committee hall of fame committee finance uh discussions we're going to we're having a discuss finance tonight so we may have a levy committee at some point really any involvement >> like like that. Yeah. >> What if we just took off the retroactive piece? >> Is that a a motion to strike item four? >> Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second to strike the directive that it is retroactive dating back to June 1st. Any discussion on the amendment? All right. Before moving to a vote, I'll I'll say again I I struggled with that one myself. So that's why I wanted to bring it to the board and say this is a possibility. Um if there's no other discussion on that, >> can I just go over it one more time before so I have more clarity about the motion? Um, so this would be in for all green cards going forward. And I mean, we would have clear information for them, the rules. So if this happens, this is what we'll So you'll read it. You can probably have it printed and you can it'll be really out there for people to know. If they do anything, they'll be the one year and the appeal. And I mean, I believe I mean, I don't believe that people will even get a second. I mean, if they're truly going to be, you know, be suspended, then they'll be suspended. So, um, yeah, as long as I think it's going to have to, you just have to be really clear with people so they know what the expectations are and what will happen if they >> break the rules. So, yeah, this is because it's I mean, a year is a long time. So, um, I wish it wasn't a year. That seems excessive, but um I don't know. I Is that up to negotiations or is that >> Everything's up to negotiations. >> Up to six. I mean, I don't know. I I mean, I understand people like can be over the top and be very upset about things and >> maybe not, you know, as long, but if you get a warning and then they still I get it. You give them a warning. Usually you're very good about giving warnings and they then they should know that what would happen if they get a warning and they're not listening. But a year, I mean, I don't know, a year seems excessive, but >> I'm going to interrupt you there because it's not germanine to the current amendment. The amendment that we have on the table right now is to strike the retroactive portion. So, if we pass this tonight, it would be effective >> July 17th moving forward. >> Okay. >> So, all past behavior would essentially be given a pass. >> Okay. >> Um, if you're interested in another amendment, we can we can handle that once we settle this. Okay, >> if there's any um more discussion on striking the retroactive nature, >> I agree with that. >> All right, seeing none, all those in favor of striking the retroactive nature, making this effective on July 17th, signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed. >> Okay, that motion carries. So item four would be stricken. So that brings us back to the main motion. Um and just for clarity, um >> I will reread it now as it is amended. Um, concerning individuals who have been directed to leave schoolboard meetings or other district events due to disruptive behavior. Um, I move to direct administration to respond as follows. One, the individual shall be suspended from all district related committees, advisory councils, or similar activities for a period of no less than one year. Two, should a second disruption that results in removal occur, administration will work with all relevant law enforcement agencies to file an official trespass notice against the individual to include all district properties. And just for clarity, a legal trespass notice is um subject to one year. That does last a full year. Um and three, consequences of this directive are subject to appeal. A request for appeal shall be provided to the school board in writing detailing the individual extenduating circumstances in justification of the review. There is no obligation that the board take the appeal under official consideration. That is now the motion on the table. As stated earlier, we have suspended the rule for limitations of discussion for the remainder of this motion. Is there any additional discussion? Member Hegeland, >> just kind of maybe more of a point of clarification. So if we adopt this as it is amended now, would this potentially be going into the policy committee's changes then? So I mean if if when this policy goes to the committee and they do their work, this might change in that policy. So really what we're doing is we're bridging from now until the committee gets this work done. Correct. >> Yes. Yeah. or until we adopt whatever policies the committee returns. >> Okay. So may maybe that piece of information is helpful as well is that this isn't a long-term policy. We're basically building a bridge until this policy. So that's going to go to the policy committee anyway. That work's going to get done. They might take whatever we decide to do here tonight and maybe they decide to make changes to it, adopt it, whatever. But at least then we have something in place from now until that new policy is adopted. So we have some structure in place and some some rules of order for the members who attend the meeting so we don't have the disruptions like we've been seeing in the past. So and I think with that clarification to me it seems even more reasonable. >> Member Christianson. >> Um no you go ahead. Um I just um just um let me gather my thoughts for a second. So um member Corkin I think was maybe going to make a motion about the one year. >> I was I was thinking about it. >> Um and um and we can talk about let's just discuss that I guess but for me um one year does seem excessive. Um, you know, let's just look back this last year. You know, we did the um redistricting committees, we did the re-imagine committees, we did um you know, I mean, does this include, you know, like the PTO's or you know what I mean? That that seems a little vague to me. Committees, >> the Hall of Fame committee. I mean, that's that's kind of a big deal. People enjoy being on that. So, I'd like to think about the one year being a little excessive and the overarching all the committees. I mean, that could have some unintended consequences. I think there could be a lot of committees in there that we're maybe not thinking about. But, but another thing that kind of jumps out at me is you're saying that this would include um sports as well, and I have some thoughts about that. But I do think that even though we're saying that sports were included in this, I think this really is still just focusing on the board because somebody who goes to a football game and gets mad and gets kicked out, they're probably not on, you know, the policy committee or the levy committee or the I mean, maybe they are, but but maybe they're not. And I do think um you know, as far as sports go, um and maybe Mr. Caldwell could speak to that a little bit. But I get I just not sure how much the school board wants to get involved with maybe things that happen at a sporting event cuz like here we know what happened. I feel like we could agree on what happened and there's cameras and and we know what happened but I feel like I don't know if there's a dispute at a football game or a lacrosse game. I mean none of us are maybe there. There's maybe not any cameras. Maybe somebody saw it. Maybe you So, I'm a little concerned about I mean, I'm concerned about a lot of things, but I'm concerned that this covers sports because I feel like it it doesn't really cover sports. I feel like this if if if what happened at the last board meeting wouldn't have happened, I don't think we would be talking about this. So, I feel like this is a a a school board policy, not necessarily like a sport policy. And I don't know if Mr. Caldwell has any um thoughts on that or not. Um but um I think that's all I had at this time. >> Member. >> Well, I agree with member Christensen's point there because that was one of the questions I had too was we're not going to be able to keep straight from sports and other you know venues outside of this arena and the committees that are related to the board or >> school committees per se. I yeah I think that's a good point of how do you delineate? So hearing that seeing some nods around the room um I could propose an amendment to strike or other district events just to remove that ambiguity and and just make this for schoolboard meetings. As member Hagglin mentioned, >> this will be going if if all the the scheduling works, this would go to the policy committee as early as September. Um I I have to remember back I don't remember specifically what other policies we've sent to committee for September, but I I know we're as we work through the MSBA model conversion, there's going to be policy committee is going to be very busy this year, but if that goes well in September, it would be back to us for a first reading. and uh approval as early as November. So, we we don't we're not covering a wide gap here. So, I I think it's okay if we're a little bit more descriptive and some of the the language we have or like your um >> your suggestion about one year being too long. I think that's a good discussion point, too. Um, so I I would entertain a a motion to strike or other district events and uh have this read instead concerning individuals who have been directed to leave schoolboard meetings due to disruptive behavior. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second on that amendment. Member He >> the only because I agree with member Christensen's uh assessment that this seems very much related to recent events at schoolboard meetings, not necessarily games or a concert or something else. So I agree that it should be contained to our business here because that's really what the disruption seems to have been is us getting our work done. Um, I would also just ask that it's not just the board meetings, but maybe the committee meetings as well. Um, not that we've had any disruptions at all that I'm aware of, but if something were to come up where a policy committee or a uh member uh member's hot uh finance meetings get pretty heated sometimes. Um, if somebody were to get disruptive there, I think it should also cover those. I fully would be 100% floored if that ever happened, but I think you get what I'm saying. >> The the policy committee does get a little heated. So, I'll I'll move to amend the amendment to read um directed to leave school board meetings or committee meetings due to disruptive behavior. >> Second. >> Okay. So, we have an amendment to the amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment to the amendment to add >> committee meetings? Okay. >> Member. So, I just wanted to bring back up the >> Is this on adding the committee piece? >> Is it on adding? Yeah. >> If not, let's dispose of that really quick. >> Okay. I don't think it actually is. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Those opposed. >> Okay. So, we have now we're back to the amendment, which is now to leave schoolboard meetings or committee meetings. Okay. >> Or board committee meetings. >> Sorry. Member Antinson, please go. Please proceed. >> Well, when we're talking about disruptive behavior, one other place that we have received this kind of thing is through email. >> You know what I'm saying? >> If these are people in our community, I think >> I don't know who gets to decide whether it's threatening or or you know, whatever. Um, but I think that should be included in here as well. Like that you you you can't do that. You can't threaten and hope people die in a puddle or whatever they have said. Um, >> I like where your discussion is going, but I'm going to pull it back because we we do have an amendment on the table now to strike >> or other district events. >> So, let let's settle that. Come back to the main motion. >> Does that make sense? >> Yep. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I those opposed. >> Okay, that carries. So now we're back to the main motion, which is now concerning individuals who have been directed to leave schoolboard meetings or board committee meetings due to disruptive behavior. We moved to direct administration and we kept one, two, and three. One being that you're off any related committees, advisory councils, etc. for no less than a year. Two being an official law enforcement trespass notice. And three, uh the right to appeal. Member Christensen, >> I have a question. Um, and I appreciate, you know, um, Member Hegel's thoughts on adding it to a committee, but I guess, uh, my question, and maybe we've already voted on this, but my question is, um, who gets to determine if it's disruptive in a committee? Because if it's in disruptive in here, I mean, I guess, you know, we have cameras or something like that. And I'm not saying this is going to happen, but what if, you know, we're in policy committee or I don't know. and and maybe someone says something that someone thinks is disruptive. Not like getting out of your chair or or you know something obvious, but I don't I'm just I'm just envisioning in I don't know some of these committees someone could >> say something, do something that someone else could find disruptive. How are we going to how what do we do there? >> I I think I can address that with basically the the process we use in our board meetings. um is it takes either well it it it takes a request from me to leave as the board chair because it's my responsibility to maintain quorum in the room. Um every one of our committees has an assigned uh chair member or chairperson. >> So in the case of policy committee um be director Freriedman would be the one that would make that choice on whether or not somebody needed to be removed. Um, I don't see this really applying like a like I saw a law enforcement official at the meeting here tonight. Like say we were doing our work and they came in and they decided some law enforcement decided somebody needed to be removed for a reason that wasn't causing a disruption. That that wouldn't apply. This would really only apply if uh you know somebody was causing a disruption in the audience and and I was forced to stop the meeting or another member called a point of order and and pointed out that hey this is being disruptive in the work that we're doing. We need to have that person removed and then we had to direct that person to leave. So I see the same process following out or following through for committees only going through the committee chair rather than >> well and to be clear I excuse me to be clear I don't foresee something like that happening in the committees but since you added committees I just I or since we added committees I just wanted to >> and I sure hope not >> like I I hope we never see this again. I um >> I looked I actually looked back at the the video of the last board meeting and and every person that I had to ask to leave to to kind of review that, make sure it was appropriate. That that was actually why I threw the uh u the appeal process in here because it's very easy in the heat of the moment. Um especially when you're sitting here with the gavl that uh you get a little bit emotional and maybe you overreact and um maybe in hindsight uh well that person didn't need to be removed and it gives the board an opportunity to fix that and it makes it very clear. So um that that was my thought on that process. But does that answer your inquiry there? >> All right. Any other discussion member Castle? So the overarching theory is that it has to be severe enough for them to be removed. It's not just any disruption. >> It's it's a severe enough disruption for them to be removed. And I also noticed that it doesn't prevent them from attending the meetings. It just prevents them from being in in the advisory position or on the committee. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Because disruptions can occur in you know any number of ways. Somebody can start coughing and that that is a disruption to the meeting but uh not one that we would typically remove somebody for. Member Por >> my other of course I the one year I know we talked about that. Um, I know I've been in a different things and and I, you know, I don't know if anyone's ever been, you know, been to asked to leave, but normally there's punitive like three meetings or, you know, there's some number or you're out for as long even like in sports. I mean, there's there's different things for different events and and different ways. Um, but think a year is a long time, especially if like I say, people are upset. I mean, they go over the top and they're not normally liked. I mean, we don't know what the circumstances are. It seems like that's a very severe way to keep them out, especially if they're active members of our community that are involved in a bunch of things and all of a sudden now they can't do any of that and there might be valuable assets to some of these committees. So, >> I don't know. I think a year is a long time. Maybe I I would like to have some I know we have the appeal process, but there might be another way >> to look at that. Okay. Um, I I don't know what that would be, but I I think a year is a long time. So, maybe it's three months, maybe it's six months. I don't know what the act magic number is, but I think that could be adjusted. Maybe that's more of a policy committee thing. I don't know. But, um, fiscal year is, you know, it depends on I mean, there's a lot of ways we can look at it. So, Tesla has an idea. >> Well, you were saying earlier that it's going to go to the committee here in September, October come first reading and know basically we're not going to even be >> having whatever this ends up being finalized until Novemberish. Maybe we just say through 2025 for now and be done with it. It's less than 6 months, right? At this point, it would be less than six months. Everybody's being very hospitable this evening. I don't think we're going to keep having problems. I hope we don't, but >> No, I don't think I >> Well, I would move to change it from 1 year to 6 months or move to amend, I should say, one year to six months. >> I will I will second that. I I think that makes a lot of sense. So, >> my my reasoning behind that is 6 months gets us to November. >> Policy committee will have a chance they can make their >> changes, recommendations to it and bring it back to us again. So I think six months is a a workable compromise to get us to that point. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second on six months. Any more discussion around that? >> All right, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed. >> Okay, now we we've got this very amended. Do you want me to to to read it from the top again or do you want to >> I just have a or however you want. I have a procedural question because so so what >> so just back this up a little bit. So so you guys or we keep saying that we're going to send it to the policy committee. So this >> so what is this is a a directive to administration. What are you calling this is my question and then it does go to the policy committee which I think is is really great. the policy committee can review it. But I also feel like there has been some times recently where the board has not um taken the um the recommendations of the policy committee. So I do feel like just because we keep saying we're going to send it back to policy which which is great. We should do that. I'm not confident that if the policy committee comes up with different suggestions or whatever that it that it would um change. I I can address that. Member Christensen. Um we actually sent policy number 1103 which is complaints um students, employees, parents and other persons. Um and then policy number 1206 which is public participation in schoolboard meetings, complaints about persons at schoolboard meetings and data privacy considerations. Um I see these directives falling into one or both of those policies. and I've kind of dubbed them the green card policies because they deal with interaction uh between the public and the board. Um the primary premise behind those two policies right now as a uh supplied by MSBA is primarily to keep public comment from a bridging into like private data concerns or um getting into staffing concerns or that type of thing. So, this would be an add-on to this. The language that we're discussing here tonight was not part of that original proposal in May. Um, it wasn't the scenario of having multiple people stand up during board meetings and scream at the board wasn't something that I had anticipated occurring. So, it wasn't something that I I felt was necessary to be in the policy. But after h happening multiple meetings in a row and um having the audience respond in a very dismissive manner when we we've asked for order um it's it's obvious that there are some community members that cannot handle being respectful at a meeting. So it's something I think we should address. So those are the two policies where I would um suggest we make the changes. They are already slated to go back to policy committee in September. So, that brings us back to the main motion. I'm I'm going to start from the very top here on where we are now because we've had a couple of amendments. Um, so it reads as follows. Concerning individuals who have been directed to leave schoolboard meetings or board committee meetings due to disruptive behavior move to direct administration to respond as follows. One, the individuals shall be suspended from all district related committees, advisory councils, or similar activities for a period of no less than six months. Two, should a second disruption that results in removal occur, administration will work with all relevant law enforcement agencies to file an official trespass notice against the individual to include all district properties. Three, consequences of this directive are subject to appeal. A request for appeal shall be provided to the school board in writing detailing the individual extenduating circumstances in justification of the review. There is no obligation that the board take the appeal under official consideration. Uh, with that, is there any other discussion on the motion? All right, seeing none, uh, member clerk, will you please take a roll call? >> I will. Okay. Member Corkran, >> I. >> Member Tyson is absent. Member Christensen, >> no. >> Member Rebeline, >> I. >> Member Anton votes I. Member Castle, >> I. >> Member Hagglin, >> I. >> The eyes have it. >> All right, the motion carries. That brings us to um item 8.1 uh school board work session financial review levy planning. Dr. Massie. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh we're actually um excited tonight to spend some time uh working through the district's financial picture and um doing a a fairly highlevel overview. Some of this will be redundant for for many of you from previous conversations that we've had along the training sessions for the board as well as other conversations with respect to finance committees, audit reviews, but it's an opportunity for us to kind of benchmark and put on the table the current state of the district finances. uh by design the presentation is somewhat high level not at the granular level. So it'll be an opportunity for the board to see the bigger picture with respect to district finances. And at the end of the presentation, you will see uh what administration considers opportunities, constraints as we look to move forward, as we model out current our current budget parameters and variables into the future. Uh we are we are not here tonight to make any decisions. administration is clearly uh making a recommendation to the board that this not be an opportunity to make any recommendations or um any decisions with respect to uh future actions with respect to the district finances. At the very least, it'll be an opportunity to ask administration to bring additional information to the board should you need or want additional information. uh we then can look to additional resources, lean on our AERS consultants to assist with that and we've got um the opportunity in August, September to do that. All of this to bring the board to um well prepared I should say to really analyze where we're at and what does the future look like and what opportunities does the district have to address the the district finances as we move forward. There are a number of levers that the district has and the board has. Uh but again, tonight we're not looking to make any decisions with respect to future decisions or actions for the district. So with that, we've got a presentation. Thank you, Director Idy, uh Renbergy for the all the work preparing this. >> That's really nice. >> We'll work through it and certainly answer questions along the way. >> I believe being that it's a work session, we're more in the mode of just not presentation style but just more chatting about it. So we have our slides up there but I will not be in between the big presentation. >> Not to interrupt but you have this presentation in your email if you want to follow along electronically. You also have a paper copy in front of you as well. So for tonight um starting out the first thing that um Dr. Massie addressed starting a little bit is we'll start to go over uh the general fund is where we're going to spend the majority of time because that's really all of our operating costs and where we need to talk about um some of the challenges that we're facing. the enrollment drives that. So, we're going to dig into that a little. Uh where does our revenue come from? And then where is our money spent? And we're going to spend some time on fund balance. The other funds, although listed there and very important, uh again, don't necessarily play into some of our biggest challenges in the operation of the school district um and what we're seeing in the future in the next five years. Uh I also want to take a moment to talk about school finance in general. So we know that we have a letter report uh that's 40ome pages of math three columns wide uh little print you know 10point font and all that good stuff. Our what if calculation for general education resources is 13 pages worth of calculations on all the different areas. So we know that school finance has its challenges in how it's um you know processes understood and the constraints that that go along with that. So tonight we'll be doing high level stuff. We'll be talking about um a lot of the areas. We're not talking about all the areas either. So if there's a point that you're saying, wait a minute, what about this or why wasn't it in the presentation? Genuinely, we could be here all night, right? So we're, you know, again doing that highlevel point to all of this. So um with the complexities of it, please let me know if there's questions. Um but just acknowledging that um the way that it's set up just does um create some problems around that. So looking at enrollment starting with that uh it's the largest driver um of revenue uh state aid and then local levy. So it's really important that we look at the declining enrollment that we've seen. We know the number of resident uh school age children has declined uh in the past decade in for area schools and that's a problem. So again, districts that see that increased enrollment on an annual basis are not only being able to get those increases that we have in per pupil allocation, they're able to realize that full amount, but they're also able to realize more because they have more students. Um so declining enrollment matters in those two ways. We don't see when we get two and a half% that's not what we're seeing in our books. And we're going to get into that a little bit. Um we do see the projected housing uh the decrease in students to slow over the next several years which is really great. Um this is the slide that you saw during our reimagine work uh and showing that again we can see the past decade and how the enrollment K12 has declined. You can also see that green line there um being the basis moving forward. you don't get the housing development. We have a blue line and we kind of get the middle area of housing development and growth and we have the yellow line and we have accelerated um housing and growth. So this is the teamwork study. What I want to say about that is we've also worked several years with Hazel Reinhardt um who has numbers that are a little bit lower than this. So when we look at that green line, her numbers would be a little bit below that. When we have enrollment too, I'm going to say that we have to be conservative in that enrollment. We say we see the white eyes and that is the enrollment that we count. And that matters to us because we have a low fund balance. If we're wrong on enrollment and our revenue doesn't work, then what we need to do is go ahead and we don't have the fund balance in order to stop that to get that gap that we created in the budget. So projecting enrollment conservatively is a very big deal for the school district with a low fund balance. We also look at the housing market and where it's gone and how fast it's going to accelerate. You know, you you talk about driving by a development and seeing houses that also slows at some point in time as inflation comes in and interest rates and other other factors. So, we have to be monitoring and watching that and making good decisions in those areas. So, it is really important. Um again, another factor that we have in enrollment in the school district is charter schools. So, having charter schools in the district does matter. people do have choices with district transportation available to them. So again um in that enrollment and being conservative you will hear me uh you will hear me um just talk a lot about that and also even during budget time you'll you'll hear me say about conservative enrollment and again largest driver in revenue if you get that wrong you don't have the fund balance to make up for that. So it is really important that we make sure that we're right on enrollment. >> And if what we appreciate about this chart is the green line is a line that if if you if you notice from the previous 15 years on the left side of the vertical line that's that charts our declining enrollment. So there's the evidence of declining enrollment. Right of the line is a model. It's future. It's based on birth rates and projected birth rates by teamworks and by Hazel Reinhardt, but this is Teamworks estimate. The blue line, as uh Chrissy indicated, is development that is currently accounted for at the county and city levels. And the yellow would be housing development that is um kind of in in the the the planning stages or considered by cities of land that could be developed but that is very futuristic. The difference between the green line and the blue line 10 years out is 500 students. The difference between the green line and the yellow line 10 years out is close to a thousand students. That's the magnitude of potential growth. >> Can I just ask one because I can't read this and I can't see that. So I'm just curious what for sure are the what year is this projected out to that line down the middle is that that's we're on the right side of that right now in 2526. >> Yep. So 20 the first numbers right after the line are 25 26 3435 is where this one >> appreciate that no problem. >> Moving on to the general fund. Um just looking again at the assumptions that we use. We have uh based on the data and based on the numbers that we've seen, we've modified um we for several years since three first three years in my position always did um a negative 100 students per year. We modified that this year to negative 70 uh which again pull me in the right direction. Very positive um for enrollment. We increase per pupil funding again looking at the next five years in that um of about 2.4% 4% depending on the year. That's an average. Um we know it's between two and three because based on legislation, we have that inflationary factor in there that they um let us know in February what that number is going to be. Um with that though, when we put those two together and we say with the loss of 70 students, our 2.4% equals only about an additional 500,000 in our per pupil revenue in the general fund. So that matters a lot to say you would be at about 1.2 million if you didn't have that planning moment. So it matters in how we're able to move forward and face some of the challenges that we're going to talk about later in the presentation. Uh annual increases in the um operating costs, cost of living, inflation increases. So that's on both wages, benefits and supplies is probably around about 2.5 million. So again, you see the discrepancy of how we don't have the revenue coming in that we need to sustain the program that we have. Anticipated changes in categorical funding. Again, we're always watching the legislation and what they're doing. Um compensatory, we know that currently they're off direct certifications attached to Medicaid. Um so we, you know, see a future where what does that look like? Summer unemployment, we know it's funded through this year. After that, it could become a district responsibility. were unable to levy for those dollars unlike our other unemployment. So that's a really important part. We did get again readact dollars, literacy aid, school support finance that also dries up onetime money to be able to get our staff through it. But until college programs get those requirements within their um coursework, then we still have a gap that we're going to need to fill. And is that going to be timely enough or not? Or do we have to spend district dollars on that? The last point in our general fund that I want to make is that our grant opportunities. We are a district that significantly goes out um huge shout out to the high school. Um they do so much with uh grant opportunities through the state uh ME on different programs. We saw standards course work in the teaching last year. So several grants there. We've done grants with buses um camera systems. We have our positive community norms grants. So when we think about um we always say that you can't just you know make up your revenue the widgets. It's not a business, it's a school, right? So but these are ways we can make money and we do. So we are out for grants. We wrote another one for the cop security grant um for 400,000 that we just submitted here um back in June. And so we're constantly doing what we can to go above and beyond to find dollars um to be able to do the things that we need to do as a district. We're going to dig into revenue first. Um, so what I have next is about 15 slides worth of the major components of revenue. For the most part, you're going to see that it's going to be in that 71 and that 22%. So again, state sources are about 71% of the general fund revenue. Of that, about 65% of that 71 is that per pupil aid. So there is additional revenue within state aid. that's just above um that categorical funding that comes in. Property taxes are about 22%. Uh federal sources are 3% and then our other revenue is about 4%. So again, we're going to just spend some time on what makes up that state, the two largest categories, state sources, and then the property taxes. As we've just been talking about that per pupil allocation, $7,481 for FY26. uh we get that again per student it is weighted. So on the chart you see prior back in 20134 they had a whole system of waiting they've simplified that down to today where again we only have all day kindergartens. So we're 1.0 K through 6 and then 1.2 7 through 12. Some of the good parts about that especially 712 is we do notice that we get the uptick in our secondary schools from charters and on publiclix uh home schools coming in for those secondary. So to get that higher rate is a really good bonus for forest lake um in the 1.2 again talking that's the largest source of our general fund revenue and percentage wise and that is um mostly state aid comes from. I always take the moment to uh talk about the slide and talk about the general fund and keeping the per pupil allocation keeping up with inflation. I think it's really important to note that again it's about $1,400 uh under what the amount would have been if it would have kept up with inflation. Um which for the school district would mean probably about $9 million. So when we think about that, that's a big number of what it was if it had been indexed with inflation. Would that group? >> So I have a I have a quick question on that one. And this is a question people ask me all the time, so I apologize if I'm putting you on the spot here. Is there a reason we selected 2003 for that starting point instead of say 1990 or 2010 or >> Yeah, I know that um that's a great question. I don't have the exact answer for it. um different charts will have different starting points in it. We've used AERS for a very long time in this school district and that's been their starting point. So I think for consistency reasons that's what >> Okay. So it's just the source of the data that and what they choose to provide. Okay. >> Okay. I I get that question quite a bit. So >> I thought it was worth asking. >> So the next part of revenue again uh extended time. So, we know that we have great programming um in our after school during the school year and also in our summer school program. So, that's uh at a rate of just over $5,000. They can generate an additional 0.2 um membership for that. And a revenue is again used for the extended day or week or year programs. The district uh really does not we do not make money on this program. In fact, we're probably really close every year and looking at those numbers um to just have the programming and then pay for it. So, um pretty costly drove in that respect. It is 100% state um that comes in. So, again, we get about $360,000 for that gifted and talented revenue. Uh I put this up there although only $80,000, right? But I put it up there. It's $13 per pupil. It must be used to gifted and talented students, provide programming, provide professional staff development, and it is 100% state aid. But when we think about an organization and the needs of our students, we know that that's a very inadequate number for um what we need to do to make sure that we're looking at all of our students. Um but just that concept of think about all that we do for our gifted and talented students and the programming that we have and we know that we have to use general fund dollars for that that people in order to do that. Basic skills is a big area that we spent a lot of time on u specifically over the past three years. Again it's based upon the number of um students that qualify for educational benefits for free or reduced meals. It must be used to meet the educational needs of people who are pupils who are underprepared to learn or with progress towards meeting the state or local content performance standards are behind. And so we have been watching the legislation on this because again we went from total paper applications to more direct certifications through uh Medicaid. And so our revenue um in my time in the district since 2019 as controller uh has gone up significantly. So, we were about 800,000 at that time and now we're up to um 2.4 million. We also know that it can go back if they drop some of that. So, we really need to be watching this one and making sure that we're um having lobbying behind keeping the direct certifications because that's English learner portion of this. So, that's also part of the 2.4 million. It's based on the number of students with limited English proficiency. It's also only good for six years. So, it doesn't matter how they're scoring in their um ability to speak English, it does limit it to six years in that peril amount. So, $1,228 um again used for students with English as a second language. Um again, challenges around that and needing additional resources just like our gifted and talented. We know that it's really hard when you have um you know six buildings in a very geographically large area and might have small populations in each building. So you think about 20 students um generating about $25,000 based on that aid and how are you going to have a teacher for those 20 students going through four different five different buildings to be able to serve them with that down. So again, needing to use that per people to help make sure that we have our students being able to succeed with English as a second. Transportation sparity um about a half million. I do bring this up because we talk about transportation all the time and we talk about the needs there and the legislature did do something right and it always has been in place the sparcity part of it, but we know that's not enough. So what we've been lobbying for is even after scarcity even at the beginning decade ago when we started lobbying we still have a big deficit because of our 213 square mile square square miles um in the transportation. So we've been lobbying to say we need that deficit made up. It shouldn't matter how much you need to transport your students. That's a basic educational need and it should be covered fully funded. So again, state aid that comes in, we get the state aid that comes per student. We also get the excuse me, yeah, per student, we also get the sparity, but beyond that, we still have the deficit. And so making sure that we're aware that that's a challenge when we look at our budgets. Special education uh revenue about 15,ou additional cost for running required services. Again, when we think of special education, we need to remember that all of these areas, every single expense has to be tested against an individual education plan. We have it has to be required. So, we're not making these decisions to spend money in this area. That's not required. It it has to be within the parameters in order to get the revenue for it. And so, that is um we're there was previously a growth cap on it. So that's been something that we've worked through in the district. So again, even if you have to spend, you have a hiding student that moves in and you're spending um additional dollars. In the past, there was the growth cap that you couldn't even get the revenue for because there was a certain percentage that you got 105% or whatever that may be. There was also when they redid the uh formula um they put in a hold harmless, which you've heard us talk a lot about that hold harmless. We finally through, you know, working on coding, making sure all of our teachers and their pupil minutes um aligned up, we were able to get above that hold harmless um back in 23 uh which is really important because again um that aid jumped up at that point when we were able to do that. So again, 100% state aid in this one. We do also get about a million dollars worth of federal dollars that come in for special education and that is again more around we use that for tuition billing and then professional development. So it is not on classroom teachers that uh u comp or alternative um teacher compensation about 1.5 million on that. It's 260 per pupil. Um districts have to apply for this funding. So, you have to apply to become a district. And again, when I talked about grants um on a previous slide, this is another area in the next couple slides that we're going to talk about how Forest Lake has really gone out to get every dollar that we can in order to put that into the system and benefit our students and our staff. And so, again, this is a great area, an example of that where we put in the application. It provides great professional development for teachers and also has them create goals in which they're able to get compensation for if they reach those goals. Um, which is really great for our teaching staff. It is a split um between state aid um and local levy. And so we work through that. But again about 1.5 million on that. >> Real quick, is that something that they were talking about >> taking away from us? >> Yes. So thank you for the question. Yes, this legis legislative session it was on. Yes, as they look to balance the budget, it was talked about. Uh districts definitely did a huge lobbying in this area again as we look at salary schedules and the ability to compensate teachers. Um this is a huge part of that and so losing that would be very detrimental um to what we would have for for that. >> But we still have it. >> Yeah. >> Yep. It's not >> did not we did not lose. >> We have it for at least one more school year. >> That's good. >> Right. Well, yeah. And usually the bianium. So >> yeah, two years. Two more years. Okay. Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. Good. That's my question. >> You never know. They can always come back and change. >> Yes. >> Achievement and integration. Again, about $845,000 um targeted at reducing disparities uh in student achievement based on racial or economic backgrounds. Um plan submitted and approved by MPE on the uh three-year basis. You all are aware of that. We resubmitted our budget um just this year. So you were all part of that board that did that state and local levy split again on this >> question. >> Yep. >> So state and local levy split is the 844 split between state or >> 70% aid and 30% le. >> Oh okay. >> Career in tech. This is an area that I love to brag about and talk about. Um, so again, this is revenue that comes in. 45% of our expenses are able to be reimbursed through this. Um, and so it must be spent on education, high school courses in agriculture, family and consumer science, backs, formerly known as neck. Uh, business technology, industrial technology, and health occupations. Uh, this is really the, you know, career wheel. So, we talk about what we see in the district and uh what we pride ourselves on in Forest Lake area schools and this is it. Um so, our ability to um get students into career pathways that are able to explore. We started the middle school program again where they're able to hit all of those core areas so that they can really dig into them when they get to the high school level. Um so, great. This is only for high school. I will say that. um the reimbursement, but again, we've grown that program. It is a state aid and local levy split and about 428,000. >> So, correct me if I'm wrong here. For the high school though, with 35% of expenses, that means essentially we're spending 65 cents on the dollar out of our general fund because we get reimbursement for that 35%. >> So, it it continues to behoove us to enrich those programs. It does as long as so again local um state and levy split. So that is something though that we're always looking at is you can't just increase it immensely because it will play into the levy and we always are watching for our taxpayers. >> That was my next question. What what is the balance on this one? Is it always 7030 or is it >> uh no this one um it is not. So it is um based on the calculation. So I don't >> okay >> I can give you the line 68 * line 63 * 73 but we can show it to you but it is >> no that's perfectly clear yeah >> I get your way of thinking and >> Christie I would add that this is also the state's recognition that these programs are expensive >> they are >> when you have auto shops with lifts and >> welding equipment and the equipment that are required for these programs it's the state recognizing that they're expensive >> so the ability to not only reimburse the staff but also equipment allows us to sustain these programs. >> Yeah, they drive such value back into the community immediately with our for our graduates and for the businesses in the area >> and the workforce. Great. >> Yeah. And huge shout out Mike Mir um at the high school. If you ever get the opportunity, please stop and see him and thank him for all the work that he has done, the alignment. In my time here, we've been able to grow the program within the levy restraints and been able to again we have started um even supplies. So um cooking supplies are eligible. So not the pots and the pans. So not that supply stuff, but the actual consumable stuff is reimburseable through the levy. That's something we've started. If you have the project that in the industrial tech class, if you take a class project and you don't choose to um do a higher level project that you pay for that class project, the materials in that is reimburseable through the levy. So all of that work Mike has really spearheaded to say let's get every dollar that we can um again within those limitations of the levy but to help the program and and and the district in our overall budget. uh capital uh revenue again about 1.4 million based on an average age of facilities and pupil counts. Uh revenue is used to purchase uh capital items and improvements and it is a again a split between state aid and uh local long-term facility maintenance. Uh this one we talk a lot about that was probably I was thinking back to Tessa you and the acronyms and everything and this is one of the first ones and you were like I got it. So long-term facility maintenance or LTFM. Um the formula again just like capitals based on average age of facility and pupil counts. Uh Forest Lake became a 1A district or all facilities district um four years ago now I think and again that allows us to go above the cap. Um, so the cap is at 380 per student and we're able to levy above that uh to keep our buildings uh up to date and um make sure they're not deteriorating. And so it's really important this area again, it's only funding that can be used on that building maintenance for repair. So we can't go and build a new facility with the dollars. It has to be replacement of what is there too. So there's a little bit of it can be a little nicer, but it can't be completely different. >> So, um, and that when we go through, there's also opportunities like we just did, um, within LTFM, we did that big indoor air quality project at the high school. You'll see all the roofers over there as you're pulling in. Um, and all the HVAC units going there. And so again, um, that's more of a pay as you go versus bonds. you know, we've issued bonds in the past um as part of our long-term facility maintenance plan. And so um in the general fund area, state aid and local levy split what we do there. Um we also do in the construction fund have those bonds. So if we sell bonds for long-term facility maintenance, that goes over into fund six, not fun one. Awesome. again working on the one thing I would say about that is we passed our 2015 bond project and at that time we talked a lot about trying to upkeep the buildings versus having to do the one big $143 million project and time frame. So that's really the goal that we're working through is trying through these dollars and the levy ability to do as much as we can with that year. Safe schools levy um about $300,000 but a really important component. Uh our police is on officers. So again $36 per pupil unit. Um we do also include our intermediate district. So uh that flows through the school district in that revenue. So um not all the 307 comes to us. some of that goes to the intermediate. Um also on that it is a 100% levy and again school liaison officers uh are what we use the dollars for but it can be used for um several other um positions also getting into big pots of money again uh again the referendum. So now we're kind of shifting more over. So we've gone through some state aids. We're shifting over into that levy. So that 22% side of the pie. Uh again, referendum. Um just about $6 million must be voter approved. Um the revenue can be used for any general education purposes. So that's really important to note. Um that again that operating referendum is really to help out that overall operations of the school district and not categorical um areas. On November of 2018, the operating referendum was passed. This is a really interesting one that we've worked through quite a bit, but it was passed and approved for $1,286.87. New legislation in 2019 converted $300 of that amount into local optional revenue, which is what the school board gets to elect for referendum dollars. And so that's how we get the 987. So often when we talk about the public, we do get questions to say, "Wait a minute, you always say 987, but on the ballot or we remember in the committee other stuff it was 1287. What's the disconnect?" So that's the reason in 2019 the legislation changed and that $300 over to the local uh optional revenue. It was renewed uh back in January. So, for the additional uh 8-year term and again uh local levy and it does have state aid in there. Again, we're not a district that comes into play when districts have a lot of agricultural land, they have a lot of recreational property. So, when their tax makeup is different than state aid may kick into some of those areas. We're not a district that gets that split um in our favor. We got good industrial uh property within our district boundaries. residential, you know, a good mix. So, we really don't >> Sorry. I'm sorry. Can you go back to that new legislation in 2019? What does that mean? What is that? Converted $300. What does that mean? >> Yeah. So, on the next slide, so uh local optional get no, you're totally totally fine. Uh local optional revenue is the ability for the school board. So the the state realized that um sometimes the school board would need to have uh dollars available to the school district through the levy and that's local optional revenue. That was capped at $424 prior to 2019 and they increased that cap. When they increased that cap to 724, what they did is they took that off of what all the voter approved numbers were. So they didn't add it. You couldn't go and have people have more, right? You could just have what you had and it shifted just in a different bucket. >> So just a different or excuse me ahead. >> I'm sorry. Just a different way to use the money. >> Exactly. >> Different Well or >> different way the revenue came in through the levy. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. >> And part of the effort from the state was to address districts that did not have a voter approved referendum. So this gave those boards le a le leverage or an opportunity to create that levy and that general revenue stream. >> You might be thinking Chrissy back to the other slide um previous slide if you go back one >> uh you might be thinking if we're at 1286 or technically 98687 >> is there a state cap? The answer is yes. There is a state maximum and I don't have that direct number in front of me but there's about $1,000 a thou or $1,000 per student margin between where we're at and the state cap >> $1,000 per student. So, just a point of reference that there's >> um an additional opportunity um for this board and for districts that want to move beyond where they're currently at >> with the max. >> I can grab that, Chrissy, too, while you're presenting. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um it is Yeah. about um I think I think it was closer to 14 or 1700. That's why I was just >> additional >> additional. Yeah. So, yeah. Oh, >> just want to make sure that Yeah, we have >> there's quite a bit of room there. >> A lot of room. How about that? I just want to make sure that you >> um and so we'll go ahead and um so and and this this actually uh don't worry, we do not expect you to read the numbers. >> But what it what we do but what it shows is that so highlighted there in the yellow, you do see Forest Lake uh you know the school. So this is all the schools in the 7ount metro area. You do see uh Forest Lake uh in the bottom there. And so at our um 987 you can see um that also orange lines are voter approved um operating referendums and then the blue lines are capital project levies. Um, so that's part of at the end of the presentation, we'll talk about opportunities and maybe next steps. And that would be one of the next steps that I would recommend is that we get alers in here to talk about school finance and and funding mechanisms that are available to school districts because you can see that there's an opportunity out there that we're not taking advantage of. And we should know what is the opportunity, how does it impact the community, how does it impact the budget and the availability of resources. and then again make a decision on that. So that would be one of the recommendations for the end of the presentation. All right. Uh I'm going to go on to expenditures. Okay. Uh general fund expenditures. So I was working on this chart today and I will fully say that I still I'm going to make some modifications because I do want to note and I put it in there. But we see here uh again we look at salary and wages right now listed at the 52% 21% employee benefits. Uh we do have purchase services at 14%. Uh again the um supplies and materials at 3% and we do have capital expenditures in this year's budget at 10%. And that's really driven by our LTFM. So we know that we have a big year this year. were coming in this LTM adjustment process. And so in FY26, we have 7.7 million. So I went back 10 years, I obviously the highest number we've ever had. We often talk about the fact that we're 80% people and we knew that that purchase services was coming in. And when I look at that number, I'm like, oh, 73. But I just want to make it very clear that it's not that we're reducing people. It's not that we're reducing benefits. it's that that LTFM number this year is significantly different than it's been in the past. And when we look at that, but we were to take that out. Um, again, we are still 80% people in what we have. The LTFM funding is only available, it's not available for operating expenses. So, we're not taking anything away in that area. Um, and so I just need to be very clear about that that although when you see those numbers, we're not seeing that 80%. We are there. And again, it's a big year for long-term facility maintenance, which was allowed through this adjustment process. Uh, going into expenditures. So, um, we get a great binder of 600 pages that tells us how to create code. And I know some of you have code sheets, so you can, you know, decode it on the on your own. There you go. So, um, but in this area, so they create categories. So there are the numbers, the program areas. And so um for this presentation, we normally in the first slide, you saw the salary, the wages, the benefits, the you know, different categories. And that's what we report on all the time. That's the way that we do it. For this presentation, I really wanted to talk to and kind of do a different way to talk about it by program. And so the programs, um we're just going to go through each one of those according to the UFRs manual. Um and again that's the way school finance is reported. So regular instruction so our 200 program series uh that's going to be all of our activities dealing with teaching of students. So elementary secondary level kindergarten has its own code. Uh but again what's happening in the classroom and also our co-curricular activities. So those are all 200s. And so on our expenditure side, we have about $30.5 million that we spend uh in the actual physical solely classroom teachers in that vocational instruction also classroom teachers teaching in our vocational areas. Again, that has to do with levy dollars. So it's divided out into the 300 program series so that we can understand what that looks like. Special education instruction, uh that's our 400 series. And so that's going to be everything surrounding special education. So again, um $17.6 million. That number also does not include transportation, any part of transportation for special education. That's going to be coming up um later. But again, $17 million that we spend in our uh special education area, >> instructional support services. Um so our 600th activities um for assisting instructional staff um with the process of providing learning experiences. So technology support, staff development, all of our assistant principles, our deans, our media, all of that, paraprofessionals are in that area. So um that's going to be about $6.7 million. Pupil support services uh that is the majority of that. Transportation is the main part of that. Also in that area is all of our guidance services, health service, social worker, all of those areas. So again, looking at those um more auxiliary areas, but again, transportation is the thing in our seven area, district and school administration. So our superintendents, our uh principles, all of our directors of instructional areas, that's about $3.8 8 million that we spend in that category. District support services. So again, business office, human resources, so the people that make the district run um and go through all those processes, census, all of our enrollment people, um all of our um community relations, communications, uh 3.5 million. So again, paying 1,200 employees every two weeks. sites and buildings and equipment. So again, this is going to include those launch facility maintenance dollars that we're talking about. Um again, activities related to the operation, all of our custodial staff, all of that. $10.4 million. Fiscal and other fixed costs about $834. There's that one um is kind of the catchall um for what doesn't get coded in the other areas. A lot of that has to do with some of the funding that we do um around our certificates of participation also around capital leases and those that makes up $88 million that we have in last year's project. So uh I don't have specific slides. nutrition services and community service are two special revenue funds. Uh I don't have descriptive slides. We've worked all year and done a lot of things around those. Understanding that again siloed funds. Uh there's a fund balance of about 1.2 million in food service, excuse me, nutrition services and then about 1.7 in community service. So again, their programs are um being able to uh have their expenses covered and then also carry a fund balance. Food service, nutrition services does have uh a cap. So they've waved it the last couple years, but they're typically in statute is a three-month operating cap. So you can only have a fund balance that is three months operating expenses. Community Ed does not have that. So if you have a surplus in nutrition services, can you transfer that back to the general fund or what happens? >> You cannot. The state takes it away if you get that. So you don't want to do that. >> What's our current window? >> Also, nope, we're good. 1.2. So we're well within um also it is also about our capital. So we talk about serving lines from two 25year-old serving lines. um combi ovens um has allowed us I don't know if you've looked at our Facebook page lately but the food pictures on that are pretty amazing from the end of the school year. So it's allowing us to do a lot um better different meals and and more um things for students. Um so again they they're reinvesting that within their program um for the better betterment of the students and the program. So >> uh again service same thing we've tried to a little bit spend down that fund balance. Corey will say that on an annual basis he projects deficit spending but then his revenue just you know kids sign up for stuff and so he's able to continue to have that fund balance but great programming um yeah very very thriving areas of the district. >> Just a question just getting back to nutrition services. I mean, I think there is a a concern that um you know, the legislature has paid for um the lunches now, you know, when things are good financially, but um I think that could be a concern. That could be another unfunded mandate um at some point going forward. So, >> that's a concern. >> Yep. I would definitely say it could be an unfunded mandate could go away, right? And so then, yeah, I would say that um we have worked in both areas, right, where we've had the students pay and where we haven't. So, we're equipped to do either one. Um if the legislature chooses to stop that um paying for that, then we would just go back to pay lunches. >> Okay. >> Um the you did mention chargebacks. Um so, and that's on a future site. And the answer is so um well, you mentioned could it go over there? can't go over there. But we do charge backs and so um I'll I'll address it now. But there are certain things that are available to charge back for. So for instance um the lunchroom again the utilities used by the lunchroom or um our stack program. They do use our principal's times in our elementary building right. So if there's an issue in our school is childcare the principal has to deal with it. So we do charge back a little bit if there's always backtoback program in community education. So it's a well-defined process to do those chargebacks and we do what we can in those areas to make sure Corey uh community service and Paige and um nutrition services will both say we never would have our program be a burden on the district, right? If it's generated because we are in the building and because we are in need of it, we need to pay for it. And so that's where again those chargebacks come in or also um community advised the lawnmower because they have you know use all of our fields. So as part of the buildings and grounds they you know purchase some of those items for the use um of their maintaining the fields that they use. So great great um you know partnerships and ability to do some of that stuff. So we're constantly looking to see what we could do in the contract area. other funds that we have. The construction fund we talked about, as you know, we sold the $10 million worth of bonds back in May. Um, and so again, that's deposited in there, used for the construction. Uh, we again have the high school going on right now. We also have the education center, so that has been um underway for the boilers. We were on the roof of Wyoming. That was fun. All the sack kids love to wave at us when we were up there the other day. Um and so looking at that project, so just starting um on that further project for next summer. So constantly moving through that construction debt service fund. Again, paying for all of those bonds comes through the debt service fund and the levy funds. That um the bonds that we sold in 2015 also um goes through that. Internal service fund is actually our medical and our dental fund. And so that's fun 20 and we do know that that's Nick and we know that we got an amazingly competitive bid and I do want to just take a moment huge shout out to everyone on the implementation team um Leon Martinson and Maria um and Angie on that healthy Z. So we had that great bid that's going to hopefully cut that deficit in half in one year which is very impressive. Um transition went very well. July one we went live with Health Easy. We've worked with a handful of employees compared to uh double digits when we went with UMR. So the transition has gone very well for our staff which is the most important to us. It is about saving money but at the same time we need that for our staff. We need to make sure that they're taking care of them. So um huge shout out to the staff there that has been working on that project. uh oped uh is the postmployment obligations and small fund able to sell bonds several years ago and then pay some of those obligations as we go. We know again that retirees retired they remain on our health plan. We know that retirees have higher costs that are associated with them and that money helps us make up for some of those budget balancing. So, at the beginning of the presentation, I talked a lot about that concept of, okay, we get an additional $500,000 in um when we have that $2.4% um but then we have $2.5 million worth of expenditures. So, you have to budget rightsize on an annual basis. And so there's a lot of work that's been done and it's every year and it's creative, it's innovative. It is just a great process to watch our administration team, the principles and every one of the buildings, our teaching and learning coordinators, everyone trying to figure out how can we get this to work and have the littlest impact in that actual classroom, class size, the instruction of students. And so that is so critical and important. Uh, school consolidation, again, great work on that. So, $500,000 went in um on that. The reboundary work, again, just balancing class size and budget. We talk about enrollment. It is so hard. You lose 70 students in a school year. They're not one class of 25 or 35, whatever it is. They're all over the district. So you get to those super hard numbers like 31 for 32 where you can't split the class in half. That's a very small class but you also 32 in a class is a large size for you know fourth grade and so you know just kind of working through that and and those challenges. So the reboundary work also helps distribute students again um kind of helping that um area also the shift over um immersion program all of that um solar panels and solar gardens we have worked on that um and we'll continue to work on that in the future um so again we have our own solar panels on some of our build our lease we work with solar ranger on that and we also participate solar gardens where we purchase into them through excel energy adds this funing And I know I did not we did this through the acronym without the description. Um but again it is funding for um students that are just in that gap where they have behind um but they have not met any thresholds for special education. So it's a gap area. It's funding um that we just became available for. So once we got postold harmless on special education actually runs through that department. uh once we got postold harmless then it was advantageous for the school district to do this and to go for that funding and so that's something that we'll be able to realized in budget right sizing next year the funding becomes a year behind so it'll actually be two years out we'll be able to FY27 budget will be able to realize the funding that comes with that but again great work in the opportunity for staff to find a a funding available that takes our staff staff that we currently have in place around um interventions for students and pay for it in a different way that provides more state. And so that's going to allow us to be able to again rightsize it and say, okay, we have this savings from the general fund because we're no longer we're getting again close to 60 70 cents on the dollar similar to career and tech. So we're going to be able to get that in and have that savings in the district. So, that's a big thing that's coming up in the next two years. Rightize it annually. Again, I just talked about those classrooms and the ability to um see what classes we can get down in size as we move from, you know, kindergarten at a lower class size to first grade, as we move from third grade to fourth grade, kind of that primary to intermediate, making sure that we're watching those classrooms and doing that. Um, also creativity and providing positions um, you know, in in all of our areas, including in this building. Chargebacks when available, I've already addressed um, with the community service and also the food service area, nutrition services area. Uh, grant opportunities, I had mentioned those earlier, too. Again, just bringing in additional dollars uh in those areas and and trying again, we have quite a bit that we get to bring in that helps us. But again, the one thing that I'll say about grant dollars is it's always time out. So, it always is for one to two um positive community norms was our longest at five years. And so, again, once that money's gone, we need to make sure how are we sustaining or how are we setting this up to be able to either let go of what it was or district. So, um, but a lot of times what we're able to do is bolster something to the point that it can self sustain. So, with enrollment that intro to teaching grants, a perfect example of that. Um, again, we get the students in and then the students talk about it, they want to be in that class, we're able to fill it and have it be a section that's self- sustaining. So, grant money helps us do that. Uh I did also want to um talk about the um uh future budget challenges. So um kind of shifting more to the future. Um and this is something that really it's a board discussion that I think is going to be a hot topic this year. Um as we go through this is the fund balance. What do we envision? what what does a good fund balance number look like? Do we want a fund balance policy generally? Um and so I think that that's a great conversation that we're going to have this year and much needed conversation um to do salary disparities. We know that we're behind in all areas of the district. We talk about that every time we go into close session for parameters on negotiations. And so we are at a point um you know a lot of districts did a lot of things with the legend 2023 legislative session. There was a lot of funding that came with that. A lot of categorical funding, a lot of big packages that came through in a lot of districts. And so we need to look at that and see our salary comparisons and what that is and and where districts are going. I do foresee that a lot of districts will be trying needing to go out for operating referendum dollars. um to sustain those packages that they carry. So we need to talk about that and also about how we as a district compare and how we can make heavy big big part of it. Unfunded mandates again we've touched on it a little but I'll just kind of summarize them in the last slide. Um fund balance wise why is it important? We've talked about two things already about it. um why it's important to keep a fund balance. But again, we spend over $7 million a month. And so when our fund balance is um you know that number once we get out of that LTFM adjustment for around four that four million mark, that's not even a month's worth of expenditures. That's it's tough when you're there in that way. Um again, sound financial management has long-term positive impact on success as students. You're not you're more nimble when you have that fund balance. you're able to to do things and make decisions about what you're doing. Sometimes we just have to make that decision because we don't have dollars available, but maybe we could phase something out versus just doing something if we had a fund. It's different conversations. Uh various um validates the fiscal credibility for reporting. You know, um we look at the state map and where the world's fund balance is. Um so a lot of reporting around that uh and good credit rating. So, we talked about the Moody's credit. We were very excited that we got that little footnote of a little bit of a hey, you're gonna instead of a flat or negative, you're going to be, you know, instead of negative, you're going to be flat out on intent to look forward. So, that was huge. But again, that concept of that is um something that helps us in our bond sales fund balance also uh unknown situations. Again, um the state has prorated their payments to school districts in the past. And so if you don't have a fund balance, that creates a cash flow borrowing system um and need where you're paying to b to borrow the dollars and that really hurts districts that are already in financial difficulties. Um so and metering of payments, tax shifts, it's all happened in the past. So we just have to be prepared. Um mandated but not funded programs. We're going to have that on another slide. Highly um higher utility costs. We remember I think your first um year on the buildings and grounds committee talking a lot about snow removal that year and how significant that was different. So um utility costs too. Um all of it goes goes to play with that if we have a super cold winter um or again those really hot springs. uh greater uh than expected inflation. Again, just being able to be more nimble in that changes in enrollment or state funding. At the beginning of this presentation, I just started by saying we have to be conservative enrollment because we have a low fun. And so all of that plays into how we're able to get packages for salary benefits for our employees. Uh history of fund balance going back to 2019. Uh again, we've hovered total fund balance wise 2.5 um 2.6% then 2.9 almost we went down to 1.8 and then we went to $362,000. So again, we've always carried a low fund balance. I came from Roseville area schools and I always loved when our my former superintendent would say we're using the money on the kids, which is accurate, too. And so I don't believe that we need 15% fund balance. Genuinely, I don't believe in um having money in the bank just to have money in the bank. We do need to serve our students, our staff. We need to make sure that we're in that good position. We do need some. And so, that's the the you know, kind of general discussion projections looking forward. Again, um we went the I have yellow on here. We have that long-term facility maintenance adjustment. Um it's really hard to have that adjustment. I don't like it. Please know that uh it's unique in the state. Again, as we became that all facilities district, our fund balance uh in long-term facility maintenance was negative. And so the there's only 26 27 now uh 1A districts. So this doesn't happen and most people are not negative when they become it. So very unique situation in in how that came to be and the timing of that created this need to create this three or fouryear adjustment that happens. And again, we've taken our long-term facility maintenance dollars. We are not spending them in the general fund. We're holding them in our coffers until the levy catches up. And the levy is going to catch up in 2027. So 2627, it's going to catch up with us and they're going to take that money out of our bank account. And we need to make sure that it's there. So again, fund balance wise, just under 3 million um we were able to do last year um to get there. uh FY25 looking to improve that a little and then by FY26 um we'll be at that four million um and then more that balance budget. So again all of that plays into uh enrollment you know how we do on enrollment and other things but that's just a projection looking forward going out after that though again so once we get rid of the yellow the long-term maintenance noise we're just holding steady we're not this is a balanced budget and so what I want to show Before we jump to the next slide, I don't want to lose this point that we have gone from under a million dollars in reserves and fund balance to 4 million. You hear us say it's still not enough, but that is dramatic improvement in just two years. Um, through the commitment with state dollars, we had those conversations at the board table, conservative budgeting, we've been able to shore up the fund balance. So that gives us that level of assurance that we need. We think it needs to be greater. Um but we're really pleased where we're at today. >> Does the increase up to four? >> All right. Is that the closing of the one school is that the saving of the money from doing that? Is that >> all right? So can I think I think this will help. >> Great. I think we got you. So, so when we talk about that, this is the genuine thing that is is to hit home is the fact that when we say yes, we have savings, so $500,000, we anticipate between $500,000 and 3/4 of a million dollars in annual savings. What that does is we know as a district our revenue is not enough. First line said expenses go up by 2.5. general education revenue just goes up by 500,000. So what that does is there's a gap there that needs to be filled and it varies per year which is what this chart shows. But what that does is fill that gap. It doesn't give us any more. It fills the gap and makes us not cut lets us not cut classrooms increase increase class size, you know, really get into that cut programming, right? So it it doesn't add to the pot. It makes us cut less. Does that answer the question? >> Yes. Yeah, I get it. Thank you. >> No problem. And great great question. So this um again the increased expenditures are not covered by increased enrollment and that's a declining enrollment problem. It's also um geographically again we're spending additional dollars on transportation other things. We're not keeping up our revenue is not keeping up with that. And so budget right sizing and adjustments are needed on an annual basis. So big numbers and and estimates increased wages, benefits, inflation again throughout the years. I went back a couple years on what that did. Um packages that we've had and others and back to 2324 this school year and then moving forward again we're looking at that between um 2.6 and 3.1 million depending on what we kind of want to do. And again those salary packages are average of maybe 3%. So somewhere in that zone and so we have to be able to think about when we're already behind and then what we're able to offer, right? And so then that creates the budget adjustments that we need to do. So we do get some additional revenue. There are, you know, some abilities to do that, but these are the cuts. So when we look, luckily, you know, the 1.25 25 rate enrollment that we had last year allowed us to cut less. That number always starts at 2 million and then we figure out you know what we're able to do and how we're able to get to that. But again, the school closure made up 500,000. If you look at the um you know for this coming school year 2526, that 500,000 made a part of that 1.25. Okay. And so again, all those cuts coming through, we are also at a point that we don't h we have done a lot of work around those cuts and programming and really getting down to what does teaching and learning look like? What is the minimum there? You know, what do we have? What does our interventionist look like? What you know, all these areas, what is it? And so these we don't have areas like a school closure like these big again ads is great resource to be able to bring more revenue in more aid 60 cents on the dollar right be able to bring that into the district and help with that cut but other than that we're looking at classrooms we're to the point that we don't have areas to look at to where we do it when we think about a 3 million cut in 2728 again, you cut every single principal and the superintendent of the district and you've just made that cut. Like it's not a big the scope is real in what that number is and what you would need to do with that. So the district struggles again to make strides and I think this is one of something that I really want to hit home on is we know our employees amazing amazing employees that we have at Forest Lake schools. We know that around this table every close session we talk about the fact that we have salary and benefit disparities and how are we going to remedy that and that's where we really get into the um I did have the unfunded mandates >> before we member Christensen did you have a question? >> Oh that's fine. It was more just like a comment. Um, one when I was new to the board, I was just think, you know, one of the I think one of the best things that you said and I don't have it exactly right, but like when we're declining enrollment district like that, we cut what is we cut like a million dollars just or whatever the number is just off the top automatically every year. So I think that was really important for me to understand that that how the declining enrollment is is, you know, a huge deal and we don't have control over that, you know, really. But but so to to think about it like that that like if everything is status quo, I mean, we're basically cutting a million dollars every year and you start with that and then, you know, um work your way down from that. So I mean that's just a a a good um starting point. I think >> obviously very encouraged about the housing data and the ability to cut from 100 down to 70. It's not going to get us there. >> Yeah, that's in a in a timely man. It's not. So So that that is really important. The unfunded mandates, we kind of talked about all of them, but again, uh to special education right now, uh our special ed aid form on our Minnesota uh MD website, uh is at 95%. So they're already looking potential proration. It has been there. That number's been there before um and it's shifted up to 100 when the payments came. But again, we'll see where that lands um in that area. Again, compensatory revenue really looking at that one. Um could be, you know, the million-doll bar ones. Um summer unemployment again can be an unfunded mandate that again they covered through this year, but if it continues for our classified staff, that would become a district responsibility. And coming on the horizon, the Minnesota um family paid family leave um is also an area that again right now is um a amount that's going to go through payroll. It's going to be split between the district and the employee, but is that genuinely going to be enough to cover what the program offers and then will there be additional burdens put on the school district? Um so again, it's the presentation tonight. I know it was a lot of information. And I hope it was helpful and good. Um, it is really hard, as I was saying, with our employee groups especially, um, to know the disparities and to really think about what that future looks like. Again, cutting year after year those dollar amounts that you have to come up with. Um, because if you add them up over the three years, you're already at, you know, the $7 million mark. And as I said, you can take out everything and all administration, all businesses, everything. and you still that and then you have it right but that doesn't work right so how do we work as a system and what do we need >> so and just quick summary if if we model this out with the revenues we are expecting to get from the state which we're grateful for the the index to inflation it allows us to predict what we might get as we build budgets we're also really grateful for the operating levy that we currently have in place at 986 six. Uh that is more than some communities. It's less than many others, but we're grateful for that commitment the community gives us. With declining enrollment of 70 students a year, and the increases, the index increase from the state, our current levy in place, that still creates a $2 million hole in our budget every year. And that assumes that we're giving salary increases and inflationary increases to the budget at about between 2 and 3%. >> We will lose ground to other districts in terms of wages and salaries and we're already at the lower end of the metro area and broad with wages across the district. So, if we do nothing, uh, we're making a $2 million adjustment every year, giving wages that barely allow us to keep pace, which is already behind other districts. So, I think those are some of the challenges that we face as a district. And, uh, I think the the opportunity is for administration to work with the board on what that might look like moving forward. What opportunities do we have? What do we value as a district? What kind of a district do we want to be? And what levers does the board have to address those issues? So, we go through this presentation to bring the good news as well as the challenges that we face as a district and to arm the board with the information that you need to make decisions moving forward. They're big decisions. They're challenging decisions. Um, but there's opportunity there as well. >> Yeah. And I would say that you're you nailed it with the question of what do you want to be, right? What what does the future look like? Where do we want the district to be in that fiveyear period um that we have? We do also know that it's not about as we said no decisions tonight and the conversation. We also want to say that like next steps wise again the ability AERS is an amazing organization that helps school districts identify these areas and what they have to offer. So the ability to bring them in at a future meeting um to have those conversations about what options are available. They also um do a benchmarking survey um on an annual basis with the districts that they work with. And so they have the ability to um you know kind of let us know how do we compare in different areas to the other school districts. So one of those areas that we've identified in the past through dealers is transportation, right? And so we know that we have a higher spend in transportation. We know we have geographical challenges. We also know that we were able to go through a CISO two years ago and work with them and look at how can we combine routes and the concept of again yes we're large but we can run through a rural area and pick up 20 kids at a apartment building and then head to school instead of having a bus go to the four apartment buildings and grab the kids and eliminate that route, right? And so that has definitely um been part of the process and again instrumental in all of that. So they have a lot of really good information that I would encourage you to um seek out and potentially invite them to that future meeting. Um the other thing we've been working um you know kind of on that review of salary and benefits as we gear up um for the next round of negotiations. What does that look like in comparison districts? Um so again just that data and working through that. So when we look at this workshop concept that's something that I would highly encourage um as potential resources for next steps is being the next um part of this journey with also Thank you. Any member castle? >> Uh, so some of these items say state aid, local levy split, 100% state aid. The only one I see that says bond is the pay as you go versus bond for the long-term facility maintenance. >> What about the outflow of the bond when people cash them? I haven't heard anything about that. Okay. So, you were saying Oh, so when we sell >> So, when you sell bonds, people are going to cash them in and we'll have to pay them. >> Yep. So, we have payments through the debt service fund and that's fund seven. >> That's the debt service fund. >> Because that wasn't mentioned during that discussion that I recall. Maybe I missed it. >> Yep. So, we sell the bonds. There's a schedule of anywhere um from some of our bonds are 15 years long, some of them are 30 year long. And so twice a year typically around um August and then again in February we make payments on those bonds. So they >> service fund >> they they mature in those 10 20 years but people might cash them in early which would be >> there when they buy the bonds there's a set payment scheduled >> oh so they're paid off in that amount of time >> similar to a mortgage right >> yeah so when you um like when we did the 10.7 million this in May in that packet there is um you'll see the the August and February typically payments. So twice a year we're just paying that bond. And again, as I said, the terms of the bond vary depending on if it's long-term facility maintenance. Again, the 143 million. Uh those were a couple separate bonds, but they again have those schedules that go out up to 30 years. Um so often a question that I get from the public um that comes across my desk is when is that going to be paid off, right? Or what is it exactly? And so then I'm able to, you know, give them information about, okay, our 2015 A bonds, you know, will be paid off at this time or when they'll drop off. That's also something that AERS will walk through. Um, they have a great graph that talks about when things will drop off and show when that is. And again, that ability to keep the levy as stable as possible. So, we're going to create those terms based on how we can keep taxpayers taxes as stable as possible. And what are the interest rates looking like with all the bonds that we have? >> They um >> very >> you you sold that last one at the right time. >> We did. I know. Yes. That but again we have great advisor. That's what you know again we we do a lot of stuff >> because that saved us a lot of money from what you were projecting it was going to be at. Yes. >> Yep. It's significant. So So yeah, I think it's a great um the interest rates. Yes. very again it I would say that right now we're probably carrying 11ish different bonds and the interest rates are all different so I I don't have those figures right off the top of my head but again yes we we've done very well we've got premiums on a lot of our our bonds so I feel like we yes definitely um and again save the taxers on that >> I think the expense side of the bond issuance has been pleasingly low considering where it could have been. And >> so we're getting relatively cheap money. >> We are. And it also helps with again when we think about this um delaying projects, we think about the cost of construction inflation. So again, you want to do them in the time because again we're lower interest rates and then we're also able to not have that inflationary construction cost. >> So with fund balance you don't need to pay interest. You just buy it. So, I'm a big believer in fund balance where you can do what you need to do without borrowing because borrowing is just throwing your money away. >> Christensson, >> um we're just asking you. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um I just had a I like uh under the next steps. I would really like to see um a review of the salary and benefit information comparing to other districts. And I was just wondering when have we done like did we do that? When's the last time we did that? Or >> we we do it at as at each negotiation cycle um does we do I'm going to say this though and I will say that there are also we also know our parameters, right? We we know what the budget looks like and so when we're thinking about this projection um we know we're behind. if we know that we struggle in that area. And we also maybe want to go down this path to say, okay, if we see some ability to change that through maybe additional operating dollars, maybe a capital levy to pay for some technology that we're currently paying out of the general fund, you know, then what does that look like, you know, and then how does this comparison, what do we need to get us to where we want to be? We don't have that ability right now because again, as a school district, we don't get to make new revenue. we don't get to, you know, go go get kids from somewhere else and put them here. So, you know, we got to do this. So, you know, this is also we've done it, but I would say that we need a much more if we have the ability to have these questions and have a potential. I think we could do a lot more. >> I think that would help us to get back to your point. I mean, where do we want to be in five years? You know, I've heard Dr. Massie say, do we I don't know how you say it, but do we like north of us? We're do we're say you say that but when you say like north of us are we're doing okay south of >> it gets back to the central question of you know who do we aspire what kind of a district do we aspire to be and >> you know that is >> largely carried by the staff that we have and that of course directly ties >> to wages. >> Districts to the north we compare fairly well to districts to the south we don't compare very well to. So it becomes a question of who are we in force like and what do we aspire to be? >> Well said it is huge. >> It is unfortunately the driveability to >> Oh yeah great bias. >> Yeah and that ties into housing and marketability on the housing side as well. So >> so I'm curious. Okay. Um in addition to what Jill brought up, I'm very looking forward to see that as well. Also, is there a way to incorporate into that kind of a report something about turnover that we have and and and exiting this our system here and and your sort of exit interviews with people as what their reason, you know, >> not that I need to know everyone and who they I just want to know generally when people exit. Is it they've retired? Because I know that we've had a lot that have been here a long time. I also have heard that this is sort of people's whether it's busing or teaching training ground and then they go elsewhere because they make a lot more money. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. A lot of that will be anecdotal and Donna has done a great job um analyzing wages that teachers are getting elsewhere when they leave uh from our district to another district so we can provide some of that data and that information. >> We do informal exit interviews when we can. uh depending upon when people leave and how they leave, but we we do have some of that anecdotal information as well. I think that'll be very relevant >> to the ongoing conversation. >> You will definitely bring that into specific over the years. >> Great. >> I have another question for you. >> In in those areas where they say state, you know, we were split. Um I'm just curious more on some of those what they are when you you the one you said it was like a formula you have to use to figure out what the split is is >> again most of those the main ones um like Q comp again is um looking more at about a third um of levy and then 2/3 um paid and so but and several of them our calculations based on again what kind of property are in your school district. So I list it simply because I don't want there is a little bit of aid that comes in on some of those um or a little bit of levy but for the most part again it's levy um based we are going to have it as part of our levy because that's the the you know tax that we're >> Oh okay. >> Okay. And again, pretty minimal. Well, usually the split isn't the bigger ones. I mentioned more the 7030s and stuff with Q comp and achievement and integration. You know, those ones are more plans that you um have to apply for and kind of do. Those ones are more where you get that 60 to 70 cents on the dollar. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Member Castle. Um, it's pretty impossible to do donations that are physical hardware and stuff, but where do the dollar amount donations fall >> um under revenue? So, >> like as far as what what kind of percent are we looking at for that >> donations overall in the district as part of revenue? >> Yeah. Um, so I would say overall, yeah, I I would say that usually around $400,000 worth of donations. Um, but it could be I know you guys hear the totals all the time, so that can be a low number. Um, I'd probably have to get back to you on that, but I would say overall in percentage. So, um, I did there was that um, part. So, additional beyond the two we focused on aid and levy. There's federal funds that brings in about 2.7 million which includes our title programs and special education. The last one that's about 3.4 million is other funding. And so that's where gifts would come in and that's again about 3.4 million total. Majority of that is your admissions, your participation fees for all your sports teams, the interest that we earn um on that and then again gifts are in that category. So, I don't I don't have an exact number, but as I said, my estimate would be around half million. >> So, if people were to donate specifically to long-term facility maintenance, that would be in that bucket >> because that's where they donated it to. >> It would all go into the general um Yes. The the bucket would be the miscellaneous record. >> Okay. Any other question, Member Corker? Well, I think the most the slide that shows that we're, you know, due to inflation and all the many years, it's over 9 million that we are down. So, I mean that's I mean there's only so much we can do. I think as a district, we do amazing with solar panels and I mean every opportunity, every grant, everything we do ab above and beyond to try to get revenue in our district. There's only so much you can do. I mean, bottom line, it's, you know, when you lose students, you lose revenue. So, we've been dealing with this for since I've been on the board in many years before me. So, I mean, to cut continue to cut is, it just gets old. It's it's cuts programs, cuts staff. I mean, we just have to see how much money we really need, what's a good number, and look for the future so we can, you know, as hopefully as housing developments grow, our students will grow and we'll be able to, you know, keep to that number. So I guess for me it's we need to figure out the most important is staffing and and how and not to keep losing staff which we keep losing. And I know that that is probably 99% or 95 will be due to the fact that they're offered more money in other districts. I mean if not almost 100%. There could be other reasons but but we lose good people every single year. So, if we could try to that's part of our strategic plan, too, is to keep our our employees and if we can continue to do that. So, I think as a as a um group, we just need to really sit down and look at numbers and figure out what's going to make us be a more healthy district to be able to do all the things we need to do so we're not battling that loss every year. >> So, I don't know what the magic number is. I don't know. the mass last time I mean the committee work that was done which I you were part of that um the committee work was was really the integral part of that to say you know let's lay it out and then let's see what that number is we know that we failed the 2017 question came back and passed the 2018 question at a higher level that higher level was um a recommendation of that committee so again as we work through this process it's really important and it was so um critical for us especially I don't know newer board members to make sure that like we're we're grounding here we need to build up with you know okay what does our picture look like what are opportunities and then where do we need to be and again that committee work in February Marchish if we're planning to go out for a question >> would be critical in that process >> and any type of question >> two years ago would have been premature >> oh >> we've done some hard work in the last couple of years with the school consolidation, >> um other rights sizing pieces, reboundering, we've done some really hard work >> to restructure the district uh to maximize operations and revenue resources >> and that brings us to the reality that we face today. Um I don't know what the answer is. There are levers again that the board would have to work with, but it's important that we do the hard work first. We've done a lot of that >> and now we have to understand the reality that we face today and where do we see ourselves going into the future. >> Any other discussion? >> I just want to say thank you. I I think you take a very, you know, complex uh subject matter and you've put it out nicely even though it's small. Still can't read it with my glasses, but maybe it'll >> You've got the digital version in your file. >> You need a magnifying glass. >> I'm I'm looking at I'm looking at my print out reading waiting looking for that uh Steve Jobs one more thing slide that says, "Oh, here's 20 million in revenue we forgot to account for in all these slides previous." That would make things really easy. >> We're looking for that. But >> that be nice. The magic money. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's not going to happen. I I think in listening to to the board and I listening to discussion and seeing this I I think the uh >> Iser's presentation is a really good next step. >> I see lots of nods here. So >> I would say let's do that. Um, knowing how schedules slip, I forgot to mention during the agenda this uh earlier, but our plan was to talk uh um finances and strategic plan tonight just because of uh uh you know, staff members and vacations and just how that works. That slipped into the next meeting. So, I don't want to be so directed to say, you know, come back in September, but I think we come back as soon as we can with that. You know, work internally, work with eers, see what makes sense. Um, I would rather wait an extra two weeks and get a more comprehensive view or you for you guys to have a better understanding so we can answer more questions >> than to try to rush it. I think this is one of those topics we'll look at very methodically. Um, so unless somebody objects to that idea, I think we tell an administration, come back to us when you're ready and and come back to us and and you know, be be thorough and have some have some data for us because we're going to want to probably dig into it pretty deep. Um, like to echo the the comments by member antinson here about really appreciating the format. was was easy to follow. It was easy to understand and I think you hit probably about 95% of what we wanted to see in a in an initial discussion like this. We covered the rest questions. So unless anybody else has anything to add, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move to move to second. >> Motion to second. Any discussion? >> All right. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed we are journed.