All right, we'll call the June 20 July 29th, 2026 meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] >> Now, please take a roll call. >> Yes. Jamie, >> present. >> Randy, >> present. >> Jayla, >> present. >> Myself present. Jason >> pres. >> Alicia
>> present. >> We're all here. Thank the agenda. Please note there is two additions to the agenda, items B and C. Uh, do I have a motion to approve the agenda? >> Motion by Jamie. Do you have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Alicia. To approve the agenda.
All in favor, please indicate by saying I. >> I. Post. Same sign. Motion carries. Any public input relating to the agenda. First call. Second call for public in input related to the agenda. And third call hearing.
None. Approve the consent agenda. Please note the additions to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion? So move >> motion by Jamie. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Randy to approve the consent agenda. All in favor of this, please indicate by saying I.
>> Post sign. >> Thank you. Uh first item up is new business. Item A, resolution relating to revoking the existing referendum revenue authorization of the school district approving a new authorization and calling a special election
there on action. 9 action and close enclosure number two. The school board of independent school district number two 859 really have to read this discussing. Okay, I'll read it.
The [clears throat] school board of independent school district 2859 has proposed to revoke the school district's existing referendum revenue authorization of $61.98 per pupil and to replace that authorization with the new authorization number per pupil. The proposed
referendum revenue authorization would be applicable applicable for 10 years commencing with taxes payable in 2027 and increased each year by the rate of inflation beginning with taxes payable in 2028 unless otherwise revoked and
reduced as provided by law. At this point we need to talk about the number in the blank. I don't want to go first. Do you want to go first or >> say I could give background just to the
finance committee uh which is Jamie and myself met with Trisha last week um for about four hours kind of looked at the projections um all of these sheets really but for the next 10 years and where it would put us and with our
current fund balance policy being at 20% um and looking at at all the numbers looking at even making $20,000 or sorry $200 $100,000 in reduction of expenses each year to kind of do our due diligence as a school district, the taxpayers. Um, and then just things that
are, you know, coming up in the foreseeable future that may not be included in here as well. So, between our conversations and looking at everything, um, Jamie and I made the recommendation of 1.3 originally, we
kind of teetered between 1.2 2 and 1.3. Really, the only reason we said 1.3 is because currently our fund balance fund balance policy is 20%. And if you look at over the next [clears throat] 10 years, it's or
whatever we have in front of us is um 2425 to 2030 2031. That kind of keeps us even. If you go down to 1.2 2 um you know you're staying around that 18% which is you know some of the past uh
school years the past two we have approved under our fund balance policy. So I I definitely think it's doable and talking with Trisha she thought it was doable to kind of maintain and you know keep things um basically where we're at and maybe even hopefully add in some
things that we've taken away along the years as well. So our recommendation was that um based upon what we kind of looked at which ends up being 1445 per pupil. Um when you look at the
taxpayer what the burden is on the taxpayer on a $300,000 house it comes to $233 a year which is less than a dollar a day. So that's basically if Jamie I don't know if you want to add
anything but that's synopsis of our meeting. >> Yeah, I think you stated it very very well and articulated it down to the detail. Um it [clears throat] like you've mentioned um it's also with the district continuing to do its due
diligence as we have in the past and as we will in the future always looking for additional um places of efficiency and like you mentioned um with our recommendation is still looking at opportunities for about $200,000 worth
of cuts or not necessarily cuts but looks looking for efficiency of $200,000 um each year in addition to the amount stated. So, thank you. >> That was a 1.3 or two
>> um we originally recommended 1.3 and then in talking with Trisha, um you know, I think 1.2 would be just fine as well. >> So, 1.2 million recommendation. Um and that still is including like you talked about the 200,000 of reductions and just running efficiencies throughout
the year. per year per year per year per year across the 10 year lifetime. >> That would keep us close to that closer to 20 than the 50. >> Correct. >> Y um >> in the resolution, just make sure that we're doing the per preal amount and not the additional amount is what needs to
be provided in the resolution. Um yes, I am recommending 1.2. Yes, it comes at that 18%. Um we always make sure that we're checking our expenses, the $200,000. Just want to make sure that people know that that doesn't mean reducing staff
programs and that it's just what other ways can we save and we do that every year. You know, can we do better? Um Chris has talked with natural reductions. You know, we always continue to have those as well. You know, that can be included in this 200. It could not be included in this 200. And that's
just another natural reductions. The natural reductions are just when somebody leaves and the replacement is just cheaper. you know, that's a kind of just a natural reduction. Um, but I think as a school district, we can be able to do this kind of show the community as well like, hey, we were
looking higher, but we want to make sure as the district that we're helping out the taxpayers as well. >> And I think something too that no matter the dollar amount, the the bigger thing after this night is what's what's our communication plan look like? Can we get
a dedicated website up and running? Can we have, you know, social media posts? Um, and we do a video, I think it's important to talk about what we're protecting and sustaining and what we want to invest in for the future of the school district, not just asking, you
know, for dollars and cents. Um, so I really would love to see a strategy put together of how we're going to articulate it to our taxpayers. I think we have a lot of people vested and interested in making changes
and um making sure we maintain things here and I think that's evident with you know the amount of schoolboard filings we got too. I think people really are vested in what's happening in the school district. So, I think we have a a really
good opportunity to get this passed, but we have to obviously do our due diligence and make sure that we're communicating. Um, I also think something that was kind of eye opening when we were talking with you, Trisha, is we have 400 students, eligible
students in our school district that choose to go somewhere else. And when we were looking at that list, you know, it's it's for it's a wide variety of schools. There was nothing that was glaring. Um, but when I do the math, that's like 25% of our population that's
going elsewhere. And I know people are having less kids, and I know we talk about it, but I really think over the next year, we need to look at how do we try and get more students to GSL. You mentioned we have people open enrolling
because of our great FFA program that we had this last year. What else do we have to offer here that people don't know about? How do we communicate that? How do we try and get some of those people that are crossing lines to go to other schools to come to GSL? Because 400 students is a large dollar amount that
we're missing out on, too. And I get it. We're not going to get 100%. But what if we got 10% of those people in the doors and how much would that help us? Director Al Sen, you brought up at the last board meeting on um how we have to
be careful on how we present this because so you like you said if I remember right, please correct me if I'm wrong. We have to remain kind of neutral. You you mentioned this, you know, and you went on, you know, a little bit length about this. Um and maybe you can
reiterate what you spoke if you would please. >> Yep. So, as a school district, we can provide the factual information as to um what we're asking of the public. Um [clears throat]
and that is different and separate from a vote yes or vote no committee. Um, so that in that group that that group of individuals that could form a committee
of vote yes, which I believe there's one ready to go that is already in support of um supporting the district and the positivity and things that that we have articulated and what amount we select. Um, that group can get the factual
information from the district. they can encourage the public to vote yes. We as a board obviously are in support of the referendum passing as well. We want that to happen, but we have to as a
district remain neutral. We cannot tell the community how to vote one way or the other, but we can provide the factual information to that committee obviously to the public. And that goes to what Kayla I think has been mentioning as
well is having a plan of getting the facts out there as a district to the community and to this committee if they're wanting information from us. Did that help? Did that >> Yes. I just wanted to make sure I heard you correctly.
>> Yeah. And and once again, if I'm wrong, please correct me and stuff, too. But um I think one other thing that I had sort of mentioned too is just as staff members of the district um once again what they do on their own
time is their business. but when they're in the capacity of an employee of the district um during district time that also is able to provide factual information but not in a vote one way or
vote the other way. Um that was one other thing that I just kind of clarified or articulated the last meeting. Yeah, thanks for asking again for that. >> All right. Um, thank you very much for
your time, Jamie, uh, Trisha, and Kayla, for what where you spent. This is really what I was looking for, and I think it probably took that meeting to get it was a number, you know, a number that everybody agrees on and and uh,
>> what is the number per pupil like? >> Well, for the 1.2, it would be 1445 if I'm looking at it right. >> Correct. If you look at the sheets that I gave you, I highlighted the back sheet of what the per pupil amount would be for each of them. >> That would be the per pupil amount. So,
>> and I think you know one thing too that as as Kayla and I visited with Trisha during the meeting was um you know we're looking at the expenditure component of this. The revenue component of this obviously benefits from the passage of
the referendum, but there's also, as Kayla started to allude to, the enrollment piece, but there's also the piece from the legislatures out into the future. um each time it's a a funding year for a school district within the
life of a referendum. Um you can only kind of project out so far or look out so far as to knowing what the legislature at the state level and at the federal level for that matter um provides in funding. Um so that was
something too that um we had discussed. >> All right. Do we have any other discussion? If not >> Trisha, what was the percentage of the inflation rate you used to figure? Did you figure that in on this number? >> Yes. >> What was the percentage? >> Um it was 2.16.
it automatically filled it for me when I did it. Um, it was like 2.16 the first year, then it went down like to 2.06 and it just stayed like in that 2% range. [clears throat] That number. >> We don't get to set that though, right?
>> No, but I mean, right, you go across the state, but anyone that goes looks at the gas pump compared to where it was 5 years ago, you can see where the inflation rate is. It's almost 50%. >> Yeah. Which is why In reality, I mean, >> that's what the thing is is this number
that we're going to pick tonight is say in four years or be right back here again. >> Not if you look at the numbers. I mean, we don't know. You're right. That's an unknown. Absolutely. >> That's one thing I don't want to go back to taxpayers in four or five years say, "Hey,
>> but look at your projection sheet." I I don't want to send the wrong message that in four years we're going to be asking for money because I did feel that way at 900,000. When you look at it, our our fund balance would be at 10%. At 1.2
based on our current policies and based on yes, there's unknowns and revenues, but inflation isn't keeping up with anything. We have no control. That's like something that's out of our control. >> So, we got to try and find that happy medium if we can, >> right? And that happy medium was we have
a fund balance policy which is the 20%. That's kind of as a board what we have as our safety net for essentially it's our savings account right our 20% fund balances so that if something happens in
the state and they shut down and we don't have revenues coming in that is where we go. I think beyond that, I mean, I don't know what you're suggesting. If you're thinking >> I'm I'm just wondering if I mean, I'm just saying that that 2% inflation
number is way low. That's that's what worries, >> but that's what the program tells you. That's what we basically accumulated over the last seven years with this last one, too. >> The state the state sets it. We don't get to set the inflation. So, when I'm looking at the at the referendum cap
inflation up to 2035, it stays in the 2% 2.10 10 2.16 2.25 2.29 2.29 2.24 2.23. >> I see what you're saying, Randy. You're not wrong. >> Right. >> Um I mean, which is why we initially
said 1.3 because it kept us at 20% and $100,000 on a $300,000 house was like a difference of what would we come up with? $30 or something like that. But we're trying to be mindful too because everything is going up. We
thought 1.2 was the balance, I guess. So actual um inflation for 2022 was 7.17%. 23 was 6.26%. 24 was 3.3%.
25 was 2.64%. And the estimate right now for 2026 is 2.73. >> So the state sets >> an inflationary rate every year in legislation. Is that how that works? >> I don't know if it's in legislation. That I'm not sure.
>> Okay. >> When you're looking at the graph on the 1.2, I mean that it's pretty comforting to see out five years that we would still be at 18%. Providing the $200,000 reductions and that kind of stuff. That's a comfortable level. But like Kayla said, if you do
900, you go out that 5year period, you're only at 10%. Now you're in trouble. So >> the other thing too, Randy, is we do get to pick the amount of years. So we said, okay, what does it look like if you go 5 years or seven years, but then we're trying to avoid
five years, you're going back to the taxpayers potentially in three years. You got to ask already. Seven years, you're potentially going back in five years. and we're trying to like you said avoid that is continually going back and asking for money. So, I I totally get
your point. >> And then there was a point once upon a time when we had a referendum without the um inflationary component. And and so to your point, we have in the past
when we um changed the referendum, we did ask for that inflationary piece which we don't have the control over the amount, but we did once upon a time have referendum without that component even in which made the budgeting even more
difficult. So you bring up an excellent point with regard to >> I I've I've been going back here now going on 11 years and our house payment has climbed $700 in 10 years and that's all taxes. >> Your mortgage has not gone out because
that's >> your mortgage. Yeah. Mortgage tax >> and that's what we're going to fight too. >> Yeah. People are going to start people are going to look at their money really hard right now. Mind that balancing.
>> So the factors um on the caps for that is based off the actual consumer price index. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> CPI. >> Yeah. >> And and you know like Kayla mentioned we can set the number of years for the referendum.
I I think the nice thing about set setting it again for 10 is that it keeps it clean and neat in articulating the message in the sense that we're revoking one that was for 10 years and we're replacing it with the expectation of
another 10 years. But I think also it gives us the flexibility that if we would have to revoke that one again before the 10-year period um after having done the due diligence like we have with this one um you know 10 years
ago our goal was that this one would ride us to 10 years out. Um and we came pretty gosh darn close and I think we are still in that neighborhood. We're asking early once again out of due
diligence to the taxpayers and um in in looking at the current data that we didn't have 10 years ago. We we could only play it out as as far as we could. Um so that's kind of how I feel about asking again for 10 years. Um but once
again that amount, you know, whatever your thoughts are, please feel free to to share. It's a 50/50. You got 50% of people that are going to like it. 50% of people leave. >> Well, and I think, you know, it kind of
goes it goes full circle to what Kayla was mentioning, too. I I I think it goes back to full circle what Kayla was talking about, which was um yes, we're asking for a dollar amount, but I think that
the communities of GSL need to know not just the amount of what we're asking for, but what how did we arrive at it and what are we getting for our money? I mean, what are and that goes to your point, Randy, as far as taxes go,
whether it be city taxes, state taxes, you know, county taxes. What are we getting for the money that we're paying? You know, we're getting streets, sewers, water, you know, that type of stuff at at the governmental level. Here at the
school district level, the communities of GSL need to see what are we getting for this? And um I think that what we've been able to articulate in the past is a
gosh darn good education for the amount of money that we were asking for. And I think that that's kind of at a bare minimum sort of the message again. They're obviously going to probably want more specifics and deserve that and we're going to be prepared to give that
to them. Um, but I think it's it's whether you have kids in the system currently in the past, relatives in the system or in the past
or or empty nesters either as retirees or even empty nesters as far as families that are starting their families. And so they're empty nesters. One of the things that I kind of learned is when we talk about empty nesters, we many times think
about just retirees as empty nesters. Like, oh, our kids are grown and gone. But there's also another way of looking at empty nesters. And another way of looking at empty nesters are those that are building their nest and haven't started their families yet. And so
those those are another demographic to target. But I think that um in the communities that you live in here at GSL, all six of them, you are wanting to have, I believe, strong schools, strong
health care, and and good public services. And I think that the communities of GSL are providing those. I think we are very fortunate to have GRH in our community as not only a big employer but as as
health care becomes important um when you're starting your family or at any stage of your life having that is very very important to property taxes to getting people moving into the communities and so forth a strong school system like GSL is absolutely as equally
important as that and and for us to be able to continue to provide that to be able to provide solid um community values and priorities. Um that's what we've got to go out and sell. And and I think one of the things
that we sometimes short change ourselves on as education in general is we don't toot our horns enough. We we just put our nose to the grindstone and we do the work that needs to be done. We we graduate awesome students each and every
year that go out into the the public workforce, colleges, universities, and so on. And we're proud of them. We celebrate them on that day. And there's the steps that lead up to the
graduation from preschool all the way through. And I think that um once again, it's just super important to that we at this time when asking for a referendum, but at all times that we to that we start to toot our own horns
more often and and and put it out there into the public. And I'll I'll end with one final thing. And that final thing that I'll end with is that going back to Kayla's point about some of the enrollment numbers and people that are
selecting other options and choices, whatever options and choices they pick, they are pleased with those choices. And if they're choosing um a different school setting, it's typically because they've
heard good things about it or they've experienced good things about it. That is absolutely 100% true of GSL, too. People that have their kids in GSL are are absolutely happy with it. I just
want them to be as boastful about it as I'm sometimes hearing the other choices people are making about where they're going. And when they say, "Oh, I'm hearing good things about that, but we haven't experienced it yet, but that's the choice we're making. I respect
that." but they're hearing it by word of mouth. They haven't experienced it yet when they make their choice. And when they make their choice, they're making it sometimes on what they've heard as advertisement from others that are in the system that like it and love it. We
need more of that here at GSL, too. We've got it. We just need to start articulating it. We need to have families articulating and bragging about it. Thank you. Any other comments about item A? If not, I'm looking for somebody to put a number
in that place for me and then I'll read it again. Make a motion. >> I'll make a motion for the 1445 per pupil. >> Okay. >> And I'll second it. >> All right. Thank you. All right. This uh resolution uh rate um
the school board of independent school district 2859 has proposed to revoke the school district's existing referendum revenue authorization of $61.98 per pupil and to replace the authorization with a new authorization of $1,44
per pupil. [clears throat] The proposed referendum revenue authorization would be applicable for 10 years commencing with taxes payable in 27 and increase each year by the rate of inflation beginning with taxes payable in 28 unless otherwise revoked or reduced
provided by law. Um we have a motion by Kayla and a second by Jamie to adopt the resolution authoriz authorization authorizing to revoke and the existing referendum revenue authorization and approving a new authorization. John, this is a roll call vote. Will you
please take that? >> Please signify for or against when your name is called. Caleb, >> four. >> John, four. >> Jamie, >> four. >> Jason, >> four. >> Alicia, >> four. >> Randy, >> four. >> Motion carries. Thank you everybody for
your discussion. All right, we're moving on to item B. Approve the Early Childhood Learning Center uh director contract action items. Superintendent San recommend approving Cheryl Parkinson's uh early childhood learning center
director 2-year contract from August 1st 26 to June 30th, 2028. Do I have a motion? >> Motion by Alicia. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Randy. Any discussion or comments? >> I'll just give you a couple details. We
worked this out with Sher, a two-year contract. Um, you know, this is a the new position that we're um having with uh um having this person be a director. Uh the salary is $80,000 and then the second year would be 824. Uh total
package would be around $114,000 in the first year and 116 with all the benefits that go along with that. And um we work back and forth. Thanks Jason and Randy for that and Jamie for your help with some of the the contract that that we
worked with this. And >> how did we the job was posted for 50 to 75,000 right? >> So how did we get here? How did we get to 80,000 >> negotiations >> based upon what? Why? I mean we we
talked about 75,000 being the high end for a director. Um because I mean Chris, you added the two together, right? You said that you added the old person's position and then what
we were siphoning Matt basically. And so I guess I'm just looking for an explanation on how or why we got to 80,000. She's also keeping her >> she's well she's also teaching so we're
saving teaching we got we're showing a lot of savings with this contract >> because otherwise it would have been teacher contract say with Cheryl for Sherry and then we would have had another director in there >> that's a lot of savings I guess what's a dollar a month
>> oh let me take a quick peek here I had um >> so Sherry would have kept teaching at her normal rate we would got another $75,000 her total >> be a director. >> Actually, last last year she was paid 57,000.
>> 55, >> right? So, you get 55,000. You add a director, there's another 75,000. So, we just gave her >> But she's not a full-time teacher. She's a 2 teacher. So, math that out. >> Math out the director at 8. And when
when I look at that, we're at 74,000. So, I'm just asking, she doesn't have any director experience. She's never done it before. And so, we're setting a precedence and we have people looking at this that we don't have contracts signed
for right now. And the per day, perdeium is more than our director of finance. >> This is a brand new position. >> I get that. >> And this was the amount we settled on. She asked for more. I'm just saying we're going to have other people that
answer too because >> the other people don't have the same job completely different. >> So what happens in 6 months when she needs an assistant because that's what we've had in the past. We basically
>> Randy and I met with her and I Cheryl showed me all the confidence in the world that she's going to be able to do the job. >> Okay. So my question is from 9 to 11 when she's teaching, who's answering the door at the preschool? Who's answering the phone at the preschool? >> They are going to take care of that.
That's Chris's job to watch over that. >> Chris? >> No. Cheryl will have people doing that. >> Who? >> I don't know. I don't know. I'm not in char what their new roles are going to be.
when we met with her, she talked to each member down there and they were all fine with adding on board. >> We we don't have I mean par we can't do that. The the staff down there is contracted under unions. We have
teachers and paras. So that's why I'm asking who these people are. I'm getting neither one of you know. I think what she's going to end up having to do is to look at that schedule. She's giving you a draft of that schedule. We haven't set the family
education piece of that yet. Um, and if there's times where the that uh, you know, have to take a message or those things, we'll work that stuff out. >> I mean, 9 to just think of it like kids who come to school late, kids who, you know, have to leave sick, like it's it's it's a very crucial time frame. There's
bus duties in between there. she has opened up her mornings um in the schedule that we that we saw to be able to >> and that's that schedule is not set in stone yet and so we'll take a look at at that and she needs to make sure that she's available. She needs to make sure that she follows you know the the
expectations of being a director so I have confidence that she'll get that taken care of. I have a lot of concerns with offering someone with zero experience a higher predium at our director level than multiple staff members that have
open contracts right now. >> One thing that I'll add to that as well as a concern is with it being a new position that we're offering a 2-year contract. um with the unknowns and and some of the
questions that Kayla's mentioning um why a two-year and not a one-year to see how it works and and what potential additional needs there are that will come out of year number one.
>> You could thank me for that because there won't be a contract to do next year. She's an Apple employee though. So, so things are >> whether >> it's a one year or twoear. I guess >> if things are going well, it'll just be another contract. It'll just go into the second year. If things aren't going
well, things could be changed. >> She's not part of the union, so she's not locked in. It just guarant I mean it the I guess her wage increase is set, but other than that, there's I mean, she could be termed
I mean, I want to thank the committee for the hiring process. I know they interviewed, I think it was four people and he had five or six people um in the committee process. So, and I think they made a very good decision. I mean, because of the decision that was made, some changes had to be made for the, you
know, to keep Sher Sherry in the position she was in because she did a great job with that. And, uh, from from what I've heard, you know, and what I'm told, she did a wonderful job. So, this is the uh recommendation from the
committee. What they wanted is to get Sherry a contract, and here we are. So, >> where does this put us with the cycle of other director positions as far as >> on the same schedule?
>> Was it two year >> because the other directors are up this year? >> This one's going to start this year. So, it goes on the same schedule besides >> Chris, did you find the dollar savings that's tied to this
>> the the total savings? Yeah. >> Well, you know, when you look at her, when you're combining this position along with her teaching, um, you know, she got paid about 55,000 last year for her teaching. She won't get that amount this year. So, I would
assume it's going to be 30,000. >> Yeah. I thought it was like 23 or 27,000. So almost $30,000 in savings. >> However, we lost money in early childhood last year. Is that accurate? >> We lost money in child in early
childhood for the last nine 10 years. >> How much are you losing a year? Um, before I took over, when I first started here, when Michelle would explain to it at audit and stuff, I think it used to be like 60 70,000, but they weren't at that time. They were
doing busing for free. Um, so a lot of that expense came from, you know, the transportation piece. Then we moved down where they at least paid part with paying for transportation. And I want to say like I don't it might have been only 40 like 30 40,000.
Um but Matt just has been covering that you know what that fund being fund for. Um this year now there was no preschool transportation only special education transportation. Um so that was a less cost too.
>> And I think the other thing to note is that we haven't grown our preschool enrollment in years. we should by rights have a wait list for preschool um because you know we obviously don't
have more rooms per se but we don't have a weight list and I can tell you some of those reasons why we don't have a weight list and why people are choosing other places including myself and so I really really have a hard time starting someone
off higher that has zero director experience and has not proven themselves in a director role right off the bat. >> Well, I guess we could hire a director and waste another $30,000.
We want to change the idea, but >> I don't understand. I mean, we did if if we thought to get quality candidates, we need to pay someone more, then why didn't we post the position at that pay
scale to begin with? I don't know. We also shut down the U process within two weeks and one day we could have let it ride for a couple more weeks and maybe we would have got more candidates too. [clears throat]
>> But, you know, ultimately, you know, that's where we were starting and part of the negotiations process went an extra $5,000 and this is the recommendation that we're putting in front of the board. You make valid questions and I understand them. Um but as we sat and
met with the with the candidate, this is where the the board and actually the board right or >> the committee from us in terms of that negotiating that contract. That's where um
we're recommending you [clears throat] >> and I and I just ask based on what because ultimately I feel like this decision is going to affect negotiations and cost the school district more money in the future. You both may not be here, but some of us will be here and we'll
have to deal with those future contracts. And we have several of director contracts open now that haven't settled. we've cut an IT person and are asking them to do more. Um I I just I'm just asking
does that make sense? Let's take a look at the bigger picture and take Sherry out of the equation for that position. Does that make sense? >> Well, I'll say that, you know, my recommendation is for this to happen because the fact that she's going to be
doing the two positions. Nobody asked for that. I think that's the hard thing is we we posted for a director position. Correct. You made the decision or asked her to do both. Right. >> Not asked her. No, she requested. >> So she volunteered to do both but then
wanted more money to do both. >> So again, how you look at it when you look at the director job, she's underneath 75,000 because she's only doing from logistic purposes a point8 job.
So, we're under budget when you look at it from that perspective because she's also going to add and do her teaching. The reason that she's doing her teaching was because she did it last year and she really would like to do that. And when
she asked that question, I we went through that process and and I support that. So, I guess in her contract, is it laid out where it's similar to other director's contracts where if this doesn't work and we take the teaching
away, can we take a stipen away for that or are we tied into continuing to pay that person $80,000 if they can't do both all of a sudden? >> At at this point, that's what she would be getting and she'd be doing both. That
is correct. it's not spelled out in that. That was the idea is to be able to say, "Hey, you're running the teaching portion and you're running the director, but you're getting a salary to do both, and here's what here's what your your expectations
are." Um, so she's ultimately doing both of those job descriptions, and we're saying, "Hey, we're going to pay you $80,000 to to do this." Um, and so we we had those conversations about
you know, do you do you ultimately, you know, just have a contract with the director and then you get your stipen through teaching >> and and and we worked it out where um this was the the balancing act. Um and
she wanted it this way. I think it's clean this way in terms of of being able to just have her do her job and be able to to do she understands that um the director is the vast majority of her job and responsibility.
Um and uh I think she's going to do a great job. >> To me, there's a lot of concerns and unknowns to offer a two-year contract. But that's just my opinion. [clears throat] >> The overseeing of the funding for that
area, will that be under her jurisdiction or will that still be under um Director Munch? >> Well, [clears throat] the answer to that is that she's still the director. She's running that budget, but Mr. Munchaw will be because of his
community education world. um oversees the whole entire fund for All right. Any more discussion on item B? I have a motion by Alicia, second by Randy to approve a two-year contract with early childhood learning or
learning center director Trail Park from August 1st, 26 to June 30th, 2028. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. >> I [clears throat] post same sign. >> I >> I >> motion carries 4 to2. Item C, approval
of contracts action item. Superintendent Sanju recommends uh Super Sanju and community director Montreal recommend approving the one-year contract with Ron Ronnie Ronnie Ronnie Jennings Haley Schulz and Alexis Kubie wraparound care
assistant leads from July 1, 2026 to June 30th, 2027. Do I have a motion? >> Motion by Kayla. I have a second. Second >> by Alicia to approve the one-year contracts with Ronnie Jennings, Kaylee Schultz, and Alexis Kubby, the
wraparound care assistant leads from July 1, 2026 to June 30th, 2027. Any comments? >> They're kind of some of them will be working like the path and the healthc care. We got to figure out better language for this, but two different programs, you know, like we just start
calling it daycarees pack. What do you call it? Um, sorry. But, um, these are just kind of, uh, he wants to hire more kind of assistant leads than maybe like the student workers that will work more full-time and have the staff and stuff and be able
to fill in at both areas when it's needed. So, >> and I just want to shout out that crew. My child attends pack and they've been going on field trips two, three, four times a week. Um, the kids love it. You
can see it's a great program. was at the Saints game with them last week and GSL was, you know, well represented by parents and staff and the bus drivers were having a great time. So, I really do think there's value to having more adult staff um to make sure that it's a
continued to be a successful program and I think ultimately we'll continue to have more kids joining it as well. >> All right, thanks for your comments. Get a motion by Kayla, second by Alicia to approve the one-year contracts for Ronnie Jennings, Haley Scholes, and
Alexis Kubby wraparound chair assistant leads for July 26 through June 30th, 2027. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. >> I post same sign. Motion carries. Item C, uh, subdivision B, superintendent Sanju and the school board negotiators,
uh, directors Kenan and La Perry recommend approving a two-year contract with Lorie Peterson, accounts payable from July 1, 2026 through June 30th, 2028. Do I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Motion by Jamie. Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Second by Randy to to approve the um the accounts payable contract with Lori Peterson. Any comments or questions? Okay. So, actually kudos to to Trishan the next contracts because she did the
majority of the work for Kayla and I. So, thank you for the corresponding. Um, okay. So, for Lorie's 3% um on salary for each year. So, year one was overall a 2.6 and year um two was an overall um
2.67. So, a total package of 5.3. Um Lori does not have health insurance in hers. She gets a career um increment adjustment for hers. So hers is going to seem like a smaller total package than the other three we're going to go over.
So that's just a little bit of a difference because others will have um insurance adjustments to match what we did for um throughout the district. Um just a small language change. There was a age um eligibility for some severance
package. We removed um that in her contract which we did um for the other ones we'll go over. Um other than that, that was it. Any questions for me? >> One quick clarification. I think you articulated it well, but I just want to mention one more time with Lor's
contract. Is she the only individual with the district office staff that still has the um >> Did you say increment? She's the only one that has that left in hers, right? >> Yes. Yep. Yeah. So, hers is a bit different. So, that's why hers is going
to seem like her total package is a bit smaller than the other ones that we'll go over. >> And then with a severance language or what do we actually call it? Payout. It's not a severance, but >> it's kind of a severance language. So, it used to be consecutive years and plus an age.
>> Um and so we kept kept the bee um for five years. >> For five years. Yes. >> Yeah. We kept on >> Yeah. age eligibility. It used to say I think it was 55 or something like that, but we removed that cuz there's not any other contracts that have that in there,
>> but we wanted to just keep the years just for >> that's not listed as consecutive years as anybody else's contract neither. Um, but all four ladies were two of them already over that. I mean, Lor's here 20ome years, K will be here over 10. Um,
so it's just mostly the other two that they are younger. Yep. You know, we try to want to make sure that we do keep employees here longer times and stuff. So this kind of is an incentive with the five years at least [clears throat] instead of somebody leaving within a year of getting paid severance, you
know, pay out right away. So that's why just kind of kind of back. >> Thank you. Um, we have a motion by Jamie, second by Randy to approve council payable contract with Lorie Peterson. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Post same sign. Motion carries. Item C.
Superintendent Sanio and school board negotiators instructors Keenan and Luckard recommend approving the two-year contract with Pam Tubert, payroll coordinator from July 126 to June 30th, 28th. Do I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Motion by Jamie. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Alicia.
Any comments or questions? Okay. So, um Pam was a 5% on salary each year total package um at 10.78. So, 6.28 on year 1, 4.5 on year two. Um
language changes for hers was the adding more to health insurance like we've done um with all of our other contracts. And then just that same language changed to um removing the age eligibility, but we kept the the five years to receive the
the seven payout. So that's all I have. Anything else on Pam? All right. Motion by Jamie, second to by Alicia to approve the payroll coordinator contract with Pam Tuber. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. I.
>> Both same sign. Motion carries. And indeed, Superintendent Sanji and schoolboard negotiated as Keenan and Lockard recommend approving a two-year contract with Jaclyn Crafty, human resources generalist, administrative assistant from July 126 to June 30th, 28th. Do I have a motion?
>> I'll make a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. Second by John. Any comments or questions? >> Okay. So, for Jacine, we have um an 8.01. Um total package salary for year 1
was 4% and year 2 is 3%. So total for um year 1 was 5.44% and year two is 2.57%. Again hers will have the um addition to the health insurance language and then the same adjustment to the a with the
removal of the age um eligibility for the seance package. Thank you, Alicia. Motion by Jason, second by John to approve the human resources generalist administrative assistant contract with Jaclyn Crafty. Crafty. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. I.
>> Both same sign. Motion carries. Item E. Superintendent Sanio and schoolboard negotiators Keenan Luckard recommend approving the two-year contract with Heidi Hennessy Mars coordinator business services from July 126 to June 30th, 28. Do I have a motion? So move
>> for Alicia to have a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Alicia, >> Heidi's total package was 8.96. She had um 3 and a half% uh salary on each year. So year 1 was 5.9 and then year two is
3.06. Um again, same changes for health insurance. And then age eligibility age eligibility removal for um the severance package. And then also she um uh is eligible for the 403b um distribution
contribution. Um so why hers is a little bit higher. Um other than that that should be it. >> All right. Does this all come from like one fund for that group or is it it's all general? It's all general. Okay.
>> Um no. Um, so Heidi's in Heidi's world, she's also food service. So about 20% of her salary goes to fun because of the food service duties.
Everything else general funds >> Mars comes out of the general. Yep. Um, and then she's the only one that does extra duty sets, but would be considered in a different fund to cover. Yes. Thank you. I have a motion by Alia,
second by Kayla to approve Mars Coordinators for business service contract with Heidi Ness. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. >> I post same sign carries. We're on to item D, miscellaneous. [snorts]
None at this time. Do I have a >> Can I just do a quick uh you know sad news that that came across our our desk this morning? Um that 2025 graduate uh Herum Redmond, other known as Jack um
passed away yesterday and so want to send our sympathies out to uh that family. Uh Jack was a just an awesome kid at GSL and he will be absolutely missed. So, uh, just one on behalf of
the district center of the family. Please, not too far away. Yeah. >> All right. U, thank thank you, Chris. Do we have a motion to move? Was >> that Jamie? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. We have a second. Second by
Randy to adjourn at 6:55 p.m. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. I >> opposed.