Good afternoon. It's Thursday, June 26, and it's 5PM. And this is a special meeting of the Keller ISD Board of Trustees. All trustees are present with the exception of trustee Kelly, who is out of town. We move to pledges. Bryce. I pledge allegiance 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. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you, Bryce. We'll move into prayer. Vice President Washington. Heavenly father, thank you for calling your the calling you've placed on our hearts. Remind us daily that our mission is not to be forgotten. We are here to educate, to guide, and to inspire the next generation. Give us strength, wisdom, and focus to stay true to that purpose. In your name, we pray. Amen. Thank you. We'll now move into the audience with individuals. As we begin the rest of our meeting, I'd like to highlight the school board meeting protocol. Any violations to these expectations will result in a request to be removed from the
meeting. No signs are allowed as this presents a safety concern. Applause, heckling, booing, and verbal disturbances of any kind will not be allowed or tolerated during the meeting. Please refrain from side conversations during the meeting as it serves as a distraction to others. Attacks of a personal nature and name calling against district staff and board members will not be tolerated. Members of the public will not be allowed to approach or walk in front of the dias at any time during the meeting unless invited to do so.
The business of the board begins with audiences with individuals. This portion of the meeting is especially for members of the public to address the board. Your input is encouraged and will always be thoughtfully considered. Please address your comments to the board as a whole rather than to the audience or any individual. Trustees may not respond to audience questions or inquiries. Specific complaints or grievances against an individual should be addressed through the grievance process and not in this venue. We expect everyone to act civilly and with respect.
Individuals who wanted to speak were required to sign up before the meeting began. Pursuant to board policy BED local, the amount of time each speaker receives may be adjusted for effective meeting management. Tonight, each individual will have three minutes to address the board. Each speaker will be speaking from the stand alone micro microphone to your left. In order for speakers to hear when they are called and to be heard, we ask that audience members remain quiet and respectful of everyone. Bryce will be calling each individual to speak as well as the individual who'll be
coming up next so you can make your way to the microphone and be ready when it is your turn. Bryce. First up, we have, Cassie Thomason followed by Stuart Winnie. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Cassie Thomason, and I'm a taxpayer in 76248, and I'm a twelve year employee of the district. While living and working in Keller ISD, I've served in all four feeder patterns, starting as a self contained special education teacher, moving to general education, and for the last six years, serving as an educational diagnostician at the high school setting.
Since you may not be familiar with what a DAGS job is, I would like to tell you some of the tasks that are required in our job. Critical compliance with the state and federal timelines and for initial timelines or SPP 11, compliance with transition guidelines outlined by state and federal government, SPP 12, SPP seven, SPP 13, and SPP 14, Holding our meetings annually, finalizing IEP, completing reads, auditing and compiling reports through Aeries and Frontline, MDRs for behavior, which required which have required an unprecedented
amount of arts this year with new cell phone policy that will increase next year. Additional tasks that every diag I know is tasked with but does not always have time budgeted in for is helping teachers with goals, PLAAFPs, questions about evaluations, and helping helping to set up arts for success. Walking administrators through education framework to ensure campus compliance, building rapport with families to foster trust for difficult conversations. While serving as a DAG, I have felt the weight of being critically understaffed and systemically overworked. I know that emotion alone does not move systems, but data does.
And as a professional who relies on data to guide decisions, I would like to offer you some tonight. One piece of anecdotal data that I personally have gathered from assessment staff ranging from diag, speech therapist, LSSBs, and OTs is that no one is leaving Keller due to personal issues. Support and assessment staffs like their campuses, they like who they work with, They like staff, and they like students. They just say that they can no longer stay because of pay. And looking through pay scales across the district, I have based everything on step 11 if possible since that's what I am on.
And whenever that is not available, I based it on the midpoint range. Comparing apples to apples, the following information is true. Keller ISD step 11 pay rate currently is $337.98 a day or six $68,553. Grand Prairie step 11 is $390.50 a day. Northwest midpoint is $3.99 58, and South Lakes midpoint is 482. When comparing apples to oranges, DIAGS and assessment staff did not get the 4% raise
that teachers received at the last time that there were raises. With teachers receiving $5,000, this year, it means that their daily rate will be three seventy one sixty three. I will be receiving 3%, which of my current salary, which is $3.57 97. This means that I will be making $13.60 less a day than teachers. Please do not hear me say that teachers do not deserve this raise and so much more. They do. I ask you oh, dang. Thank you for your time. Next, we have Stuart Rennie followed by Scott Bruce.
The right to be the sole interpreter of the needs of society. Benito Mussolini. What hit the last years and the new proposed budget facilities acquisition construction was maxed out last year due to spending 3,200,000.0 for land. Spending was unnecessary and caused by administrative blunders by the previous board. General administration was the third highest spend versus budget, make me wonder exactly what the previous board had been doing and sees little actual reductions this year. I see you are almost eliminating community education, slashing food services, decimating curriculum and staff
development, and cutting media and library. The previous board and this rump board own this budget, and we will not let you avoid the blame. These cuts are shameful and will disproportionately fall upon the less well off in the community. Members of these boards still ride KISD like a tick on a hound dog, believing they were the sole deciders of what this district needed while draining its resources. Well, citizens and voters of KISD proved otherwise. I did sometimes find it more appealing to remove my eyeglasses or wear an eyepatch
so I didn't have to see the smug and self satisfied faces of that board. Over six months, a hundred and seventy one thousand five hundred and eighty three dollars and seventy three cents, including nearly three hundred and fifty hours at an average of $467.96 per hour was spent for legal advice. KISD pays a first year teacher 59,000 per year, $315.51 a day. Well, just 67.4%
of what the previous board and the remaining portion of this board paid their pet lawyer and his paralegals per hour. It was an average of 11 times the pay rate of a new teacher. Kell ISD was billed for forty three point five eight hour days of legal work in a period of a hundred and eighty two days. That's over one and a half days a week for a six month period. $7.80 per minute while we give teachers 71¢ a minute.
It's disgusting what the majority of this board did before this, both in spending and planning about splitting the district. My cat treats its litter box better than the previous board treated district finances. Unredact the invoices. Let the public see what we got for our money. The previous board quite possibly legally passed an appeal to spend funds well in excess of all district policies without limit or control. The members of that board, particularly as president, need to be held accountable for wasteful spending. Calling from front board is very Timely.
Because they're all the no ones. Scott Bruce followed by Andrew Sternke. Good evening, board. My name is Scott Bruce, and I appreciate, the recent teacher pay increase under house bill two, but retaining our staff long term requires more than raises. It demands ongoing strategic support and a stronger enrollment outlook. Formal mentorship programs, pairing experienced teachers with newer staff, leadership development, and coaching to build career paths, and publishing a clear breakdown showing how retention funds are allocated across experience levels, roles, and campuses are key steps towards accountability and teacher satisfaction.
Research shows that these types of initiatives significantly reduce turnover and combined with competitive compensation help foster stronger school environments. Meanwhile, Keller ISD's enrollment has declined from around 35,000 in 2020 to 33,000 this year, a drop of roughly nearly 2,000 students or 6%. In contrast, H E B now serves approximately 23,000 students, which reflects modest growth or stability from prior years, up slightly from around 23 to 26 and 23 and '24, and increasing to nearly 24,000 in '22 and '23 with only a small net loss
over that period. HEB ISD stands out for maintaining relatively steady enrollment through consistent programming, full day pre k expansion, and strong community trust, a distinct contrast to Keller ISD's multi year decline. This suggests that while demographic shifts matter, strategic investments in community engagement play huge roles in recruitment and retention of students as well as staff. Tonight, I urge the board to consider, as we manage staffing through natural attrition, what long term initiatives are in place to build teacher loyalty through mentorship, career growth, and
supportive school environments? And how is Keller ISD working with families to stabilize enrollment, not solely through budget adjustments, but by reinforcing program, quality, open communication, and proactive engagement. By combining competitive teacher compensation with strategic investment in retention and community focused enrollment efforts, Keller ISD can both retain its educators and move forward move toward enrollment stability and ultimately sustain academic excellence. Thank you. Andrew Sternke followed by Rachel Jenkins. President of the board trustees and superintendent thank you for the opportunity to speak during
tonight's special meeting on the district's budget. As you finalize Keller ISD's financial plan, I urge you to consider how current legal expenditures, specifically the use of private board attorney Tim Davis of Jackson Walker, represent not only a misuse of taxpayer dollars, but also a potential breach of your fiduciary duties. From mid December to mid March, this district spent almost $200,000 on mister Davis' services. That's more than the annual salary of almost three first year teachers spent in just four months on duplicative legal counsel that the district already has in place.
Under Texas education code 11.1511 b, trustees are legally obligated to manage district funds with care and prioritize student outcomes. Yet this board has instead chosen to spend successfully on an outside attorney who is doing far more than offering legal advice. He's involving himself in political messaging, strategic communications, and even con controversial plans to split the district. This behavior crosses a legal line and potential legal malpractice. The Texas Open Meetings Act, government code chapter five five one, requires transparency in all
deliberations involving public business. If these transparency in all deliberations involving public business. If these discussions, especially about major district restructuring, have occurred outside of public view, even under the guise of legal consultation, this board risk violating section five five one fourteen four, which carries civil and even criminal penalties. Beyond legality, there's moral and financial cost. That $200,000 could have funded six classroom aids, expanded mental health services, reading intervention programs, or contributed toward teacher raises to help Keller ISD remain competitive.
Instead, we are funding political activity under the label of legal advice without any measurable benefits to students. The public deserves transparency. Our teachers deserve better pay, and our students deserve every dollar working towards their education, not political agendas. I respectfully urge you to consider this expenditure and redirect those funds back to where they belong in the classroom. Thank you. Rachel Jenkins. Hi. I have a couple questions I would really like you guys to consider. We have spent way too much on this lawyer. We used to have a plan in place, a rule where he could or whoever,
Jackson Walker, whoever was representing us, they needed They had a threshold and then they need to be approved and at that meeting where you the previous round board gave. A blank check to Jim Davis essentially- there was a suggestion I think it was by Beth Dixon to do 5,000 increments or 10,000 increments something that would have vastly helped us rein in this extraordinary cost. I really think you really need to consider the fact that.
You guys keep calling a few of you keep calling us frivolous lawsuits. You have to understand it's the only repercussions we as taxpayers had to make you accountable. It's the only avenue we had. It's not frivolous. We're so mad. We are so, so mad. And for you to keep calling it frivolous is a slap in the face. It needs to stop. This is real. This is serious. It was the only avenue we had. You guys weren't listening to us here and you kept going. And you're listening to a lawyer who is obviously interested in himself.
He's got conflicts of interest with TEE and getting us involved in TEE. He advised you guys to go against legal precedent, to split the district without needing a vote, which gave him more money, gave him more opportunity to make more money. If he was my lawyer lawyer, I'd fire him. He got you guys in a lot of trouble, and he needs to go. The whole law firm needs to go. And we, as taxpayers, would like to see that happen. We'd like to see checks in place put back, some gates put in place so
we don't get into this situation again because that money belongs to the students. It doesn't belong to you to spend, and I personally would love to see a financial forensic audit of last year. We'll now move into a public hearing this evening. Doctor Allison will present the proposed budget for 2526 school year. Once, doctor Allison completes his presentation, we'll have time for the public an opportunity to provide inputs on the proposed budget. At this point, Doctor. Allison. Thank you, Mr. Burt. Pull it up here.
My intent this evening for the budget hearing is to provide a general overview. We've talked about budget gone in much more explicit detail, on numerous occasions. So, this will be a a little bit of a of a higher look than some of the other conversations we've had. When we, look at what is required for a board of trustees to approve a budget, The board must hold a public, budget hearing prior to approving the budget, which
is what we're doing right now. You because we are a July 1, fiscal year, the budget must be approved before July 1. And you're required, by statute to approve the budget at the major object and function level, which is is really, at a higher level than a line by line type budget. And this must include the general fund, the debt service, and the child nutrition fund.
So those three funds are required by statute. Wanna address the the debt service because it's the general fund we'll spend most time this evening. Our assumptions for the debt service fund and the information that was provided is based on maintaining a flat INS tax rate, of 33¢, and looking at what our current debt schedule is, needing to to be paid throughout, the next budget year.
It would also create an opportunity for us to look at a refunding, potential. We've done some defeasance over the last couple years. Defeasance, those bonds must be within five years of maturity. With the refunding, we can, move beyond the five years. The advantage is if market conditions are correct, it's allowed us to save up to this point in time over $20,000,000 in interest savings through defeasance, and through refunding.
So those are the assumptions built into the debt service fund. The child nutrition fund is a separate fund. We do not utilize any general fund, dollars to, cover our child nutrition fund. It is, strictly self supporting and through the, federal and state nutrition programs. So what is budgeted in the Child Nutrition Fund at this point are basically our fees to our provider and salaries.
You'll see in probably October a another budget amendment for child nutrition that, looks at at the other expenses. Again, it's a it's a cost neutral to the general fund, but it it does need to be, part of the budget that you approve. So let's do a quick review on the state funding formula impact on, Keller ISD. If you look, we did get an increase to the basic allotment of, $55, so
we'll be at $62.15. As we've pointed out, every time we talk about budget, if for us to just get back to treading water, to 2,019 since the state last increased funding for public education and looking at the consumer price index, that basic allotment would need to be over $7,100 So that $55 is not doing much to to plug the holes that we've been facing since 02/2019.
Underfunded mandates, even with some of the additional funding that, the legislature provided this year, we're still in the 40 to $50,000,000 range short of what, is required and what is funded. So we'd be having a whole different conversation around our budget if the state would just form the mandates that they require school districts, as as we move forward. And then always average daily attendance, the most progressive way to, provide for, the basic
allotment, with students versus a a straight, student enrollment process. So these are the impacts that we've we continue to deal with. Let's talk a little bit about the final budget assumptions. Our budget is based on a balanced budget with an enrollment decline of 450 students, average daily attendance at 94%, increase of $55 to the basic allotment. The golden penny, had built into the statute each year an adjusted escalating rate.
Part of the way that the legislature funded, their their historic, funding of public education this year is by freezing the golden pennies, and it will be flat, through at least the biennium. And for Keller, the difference between it being frozen and where it was supposed to be is a loss of $2,500,000 And we we see that throughout, the the funding proposal that, it's no longer a proposal.
The the laws that we'll be dealing with, there was a lot of maneuvering from one pocket to the next and counting it as an increase when what the districts receive really isn't an increase. And one of the examples during our more in-depth conversation at our last board meeting was safety and security. It shows a, multimillion dollar increase for Keller. 900,000 of that was already existing funding. It was just moved from one fund to another and counted as an increase now
to safety and security. So instead of what appears on paper as an almost $2,000,000 increase for safety and security, it's it's just a little over a million dollars. Still $2,000,000 short of the state mandate for armed security or campuses from what our actual costs are. TAD has is projecting flat to minimal property value growth, of course, because we're we're on a, not a yearly, reevaluation. And, salary and step increase is based on the h b two for classroom teachers,
and the state specified, a very narrow definition for classroom teachers. Did not include any of our other staff as we had one of the speakers' diags, librarians, nurses, counselors, any of those folks that are traditionally on on the teacher pay scale, and a 3% raise for all other employees. So those are the assumptions that were built into the budget, that we are proposing tonight. On the proposed budget, our total expenditures would be $348,000,318.500
or $553. Excuse me. It's balanced based on the current HB projections with a surplus of about a $150,000. That's about point 004% of our total budget. It is a it is a very tight budget. However, we do know that there will be changes that will be, forthcoming as more information is provided school districts regarding the impact of the most recent legislation.
So our budget is based on the the the budget templates as far as information is available at, this point in time. The statutory budget approval dates didn't change. It was a very difficult budgeting process here toward the very end. I wanna thank, miss Williams and her staff for for their work as we've daily had changes to, and guidance from TEA on, HB two.
We've had to make adjustments to our budgeting process to, up to the point that we we published in the newspaper. And we've said before, we will have a significant number of budget amendments that we will have to bring back to the board to realign and address our budgets as these changes become more specific, and we get better guidance. I just spent the last hour and a half, on a call, where the commissioner
was presenting to superintendents across the state talking about some elements of house bill two. They there will be some additional funding that may come in some specific areas. We're not talking huge amounts of money like tens of billions, but, it could be another million to to to 2,000,000 that we could see in revenue. It matters about the details. When is the funding going to come? What are the requirements for it? Where are they going to put the funding? Because there are very specific, requirements around, the the functions that we have to meet
under the GASB requirements and TEA. So there's still quite a bit to be determined and when you looked at the list and timelines where TEA would be providing some of that guidance, There's some that will be between now and August, but there's a huge portion of this that they're showing would go through the end of this year and into next year. So it's gonna be a bit of a of a of a revolving process, that we're gonna have to deal with as we move forward. I will say that there's a high level of confidence that the budget we're proposing
is based on what we know we're going to receive. We didn't want to make any speculation about well, we we believe there will be additional funding in this area, and let's count that as as part of our revenues as as we look at our revenues, and our expenditures. I'll give you a perfect example. The new law, will provide districts a thousand dollars per initial special ed evaluation. So we can look at what do we typically do in new evaluations per year
in the district and could have built that number into our budget. We elected not to because the details matter. When will we get it? Will it be this year based on past years? Will it be in retro to what we submit at the end of the school year? What are all those those details going to be? And we wanted to be as, conservative as possible in looking at the projected revenues to where our expenditures are. So we didn't find ourselves in the middle of a school year and having to
make further reductions because of the the revenue projections. So I do feel confident there will be some additional revenue that will, come to us based on on the new law. It is not something that if, it wasn't fairly clear either in statute or TEA guidance, we did not build it into our projections. Tax rate, again, tonight has nothing to do with tax rate. We will address that in, August and September when we get certified tax rolls.
Property values are determined, and key is August 5 deadline for the state to, provide us the NCR. If you remember, the maximum compressed tax rate is both really a ceiling and a floor for the tax rate that we're able to establish. So that information, is comes after we approve a budget, which I know seems a little backwards. Let's talk about our revenues. As I said, I feel comfortable with where we are in these projections. But just reminding that, the majority of our revenue is received from local funds.
The other portion of it is from state. When we look at this next year, we will see that change a little bit. You'll see the the local go down, Some in the state go up because of the the tax compression. Even though the tax compression, the homestead exemption that is proposed must be voted on in November, statute requires TEA and school districts to build a budget based on as if it is already passed. So all our assumptions are based on the the homestead exemption going into effect.
So revenue projections are m and o taxes at a 154,000,000. I've just highlighted there that that's $46,000,000 less than we had in our budget last year. And, again, that's the the homestead exemption. That will be the the impact. Other revenue of 6,600,000.0. The state per capita, apportionment is at 12,000,000. I know I get questions quite a bit on on what is that. That is a rate set by the commissioner that, stems from the available school fund,
the permanent school fund, state, occupation tax, and motor fuel tax. So the commissioner is granted the authority to look at what revenue is available each year from those areas and then allocate that, to the school districts. That number has not changed much for, several years. Foundation School Fund, at a 157,000,000. That's an increase of of about 56,000,000. So you can see where the homestead exemption hold harmless comes into play as well
as the increases that were provided for the staff raises. So it's really, again, a wash. So when the the state talks about historic funding, it's they're going to typically point to the foundational school fund, and not talk about what happened to the local m and o taxes, between years. That that really that historical funding as we look at our bottom line is pretty hollow when when you take a look at it.
It was also very, very prescriptive. The funds we are receiving, are very much already allocated with stipulations on how districts will receive that funding, and it took away local control for school boards. It it's giving you less opportunity to to make decisions reflecting our community and to provide you the leeway. The original house bill, provided more to the basic allotment, which is what school districts advocated for because that's where we have the greatest flexibility.
The senate version was much more prescriptive, and that's where we ended up with, taking away that local control. TRS, on behalf, 12,000,000. That's about what we, budgeted last year. It's a little bit lower this year because we're going to have fewer employees. The state did provide, the $45 per, ADA that will be used to help provide offset some of the salaries for non classroom teachers and, to help with the TRS
because as those salaries go up, the district's contribution to TRS goes up, and that was supposed to to help counterbalance that. It it it did not cover all of those costs and and won't. Federal dollars, 5,100,000.0, that's fairly, consistent with years past. We do know that our charge funding, as it flows through the state, will be a little lower, so that's adjusted. The biggest question mark for us is not really in this budget year with federal funds.
There's a great deal of unknown what's going to happen at the federal level with the Department of Education and those fundings. TEA is telling us we can feel fairly confident in the numbers they've sent us on what they believe our our federal allotments will be, for this year. But in outlying years, we're not so sure. So that's a total revenue of, $348,468,553. That's, approximately 7,800,000.0
more than 2425. So when you look at that total, that's the historic funding for public education is that increase of 7.8, in our revenues compared to last year. But again, almost all of that is allocated and prescribed for us. Take a look at our expenditures. 86% of our budget, they're in people. They're in payroll and benefits. It's why anytime we have to address any significant funding, issues, we we have to
do it through personnel because that's where the the majority of our funds are allocated. Some key expenditures for, for this budget. Just wanting to point out, if you take a look and I apologize for the for the spacing on here. If you take a look, almost all of our comparisons in the documentation from last year's budget to this year's budget, you either saw a reduction or it was fairly flat, with the exception of of a couple of areas, and and I've highlighted, those
here. I do wanna caution when you take a look at the comparison to last year's budget, you need to understand that those those functions, it's not really an apples to apples comparison because of HB two has required us to look at funding differently in some of those functions. So they're they're not necessarily, you look at some of those percentages and you'll see a a decrease in an area, and that may be because funding was moved from one fund to the next just like on our safety and security.
So that's going to impact the percentage when we do a comparison. So that's going to impact the percentage when we do a comparison. And it's particularly this year, some of those numbers are misleading just because of of the way we're we're having to to meet, the requirements in HB two. So you look at our our grand total for expenditures, you look at our grand total for revenue, and a projected budget excess of a $150,000. And as I said, I believe we've been, very careful and conservative in our revenue
estimates. There will be some additional funding that will come in. We just don't know how or when, and we'll have to address that, as we progress through this budget. So that gives you an overview of the three funds, that we, you're required to to pass in the budget and what those, numbers look like from a a high level review. So, with that, mister Burt, that concludes the, presentation for the budget hearing.
Thank you. Thank you, doctor Allison. It's now time for the public to have an opportunity to provide input or comments on the proposed budget. No individual signed up to speak specifically on this item. Is there anybody, in the audience that would prefer to speak during the public hearing session? If so, you'd have three minutes. Seeing none, we will move on to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion for the consent agenda?
So moved. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? All opposed? Passes six zero. The only action item today is the approval of the 2526 annual budget. Do I have a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. We have a discussion. Yeah. I have a few questions, doctor Alice, if you don't mind. So if you look at the original budget for 2425, we had a surplus a projected surplus of 348,000. Based on your guys' discussions that, I know it shows that we're, you know, just
over six and a half million negative right now where we got three more months of funding that are coming in. And you're expecting us to be in excess of a 348,000 surplus. Is that is that accurate? Yes. As you take a look at that, we do have three more months of state revenue. We have the charrs, which is funding that we anticipate somewhere in the range of $2,000,000 So I believe we're on target for our budget projections. Okay. So, so we're looking at I mean, I guess, depending on the situation, just North
north of $2,000,000 in surplus, hopefully, to increase fund balance? Possibly. Okay. And And if you look at our current proposed budget, a 150,000, is it safe to assume that there's some expectations of something similar for next year barring any other frivolous lawsuits or none of that? Yes. As as I mentioned that we have, some additional revenue we anticipate coming, at the state level, as well as there are just, unknowns that we we've talked about with
tax rules, our attendance with our PEIMS submission, in the summer and then the review by TEA. We've we've projected a budget of 94% right now. We're a little above 94%, which will give us some some additional revenue, but that has to be a refined and audit number by TEA. So I do believe that, we'll exceed our revenue estimates. As I said, I don't know by how much at this point in time, but
that that 150,000, we we should exceed that by, a fairly good amount. Okay. Good. And that that was my biggest concern with it is, I mean, a big topic has been to make sure that we're increasing fund balance every year. We need to get to a healthy fund balance moving forward just from, you know, our range with the TEA and everything else. So, that makes you feel a little bit more comfortable with a budget like this. Thank you. I always have to say the caveat of unless we have, you know, unexpected, expenditures
or or some major issue, yeah, I believe our $150,000 projection is is probably pretty conservative. So based on the budget amendments that we're gonna supposedly see down the line, will that affect our bottom line in a positive way or neutral or negative? It should be in a positive way, because we did build our assumptions based on what was known. Every everything that I'd that that we're hearing as we get more guidance will give
us more clarity and, like the commissioner's conversation today. As I said, it's not gonna be significant amount amounts of money, but he highlighted some areas that, were were a little bit of a surprise because it was, not been in any of the material that we received up to this point in time that there would be some additional funding attached to to those items. So, budget amendments will be hopefully including some additional revenue but also, getting us realigned to the function where we actually receive the funds.
And then, did they give you a timeline on when all of this might be finalized? Between now and 2026. Nice. End of twenty twenty six. So we're approving a budget on things that we don't have in that context. Yeah, that's why I keep wanting to warn folks that we're going to, like every school district in Texas, is gonna have a number of budget amendments we're gonna have to do, particularly through the fall, I would say through first semester, just to realign and, based on on the information we receive.
It will also give us an opportunity to continue to review our expenditures. So as we we do those amendments, if there are expenditure changes we need to make, either in adding or reducing, we'll be able to bring those to you at the same time. And with all those questions, I just wanna say thank you. I know that y'all have put on put put in many, many hours, you and Kristen and the team, and thank you for your conservative approach to balancing the budget. Our budget and finance team have put in loan hours having to make these last minute adjustments.
And because we're at July 1, at the same time, we have been trying to finalize this, with changes daily coming from TEA. We're also trying to close out this budget year and prepare for a rollover. So, I just want to say thank you for their hard work because it wouldn't be possible without everything they do. I have one more actual question. So when I see I mean, you kind of highlighted this a little bit in your proposal, Lauren. There's a few things that whenever I see an expenditure, when I see a massive or more specifically in revenues, a massive adjustment or reduction in revenue.
That was gonna stands out to me because I always wanna know why. And if you look at a line item for rent, it looks like it's over 50% less than the the budget the year before. What what's the reason for that? Part of that is moving the natatorium to, a special fund. We had built that in. It's now in a in a special fund, so that that's no longer included in, in those numbers. Okay. And the tuitions and fees? Tuition and fees, you know, those those vary from year to year.
And, at this point in time, because of changes to to dual credit, particularly in some of our fees, again, the natatorium, we were able to to budget less. Okay. Thank you. Mhmm. Just when I talk about the the natatorium, it's in its own special fund now, so we're able to track those those expenses. And, that removes it from being part of these calculations, which in some of those functions kind of skewed them, and we wanted to to have it more reflective of
actual revenue and expenditures without the the the natatorium's impact. So, we were able to to move that this year into, what's what's known as a special fund and be able to track it that way. Alright. Doctor. Allison, we talked a little bit about, the whole homestead exemption to a $140,000. And I see that there's a 23% decrease, which is significant in line fifty seven eleven. That's being offset by line fifty eight twelve foundation, which we would call basic allotment.
But that's not really an increase to basic allotment. Would you expand on that a little bit? Yes. The the basic allotment, we saw the 55 increase. But you're seeing, as I pointed out, you know, over $40,000,000 swing, and that is, to offset the the homestead exemption. We still don't know the details. There's a couple of different ways for the state to do that. And we have still not received the the the final methodology, but, as I said, the TEA and school districts are required to build that in even though it's gonna
be approved in in November. But that's a reflection, really, of that that homestead exemption change. And it's approved in November, but the funds come in when that really show when? Okay. Correct. And that's that's a perfect example when you look at the percent decrease between last year's budget and this year's budget. Some of those percentages are misleading, just because of the ways funds were shifted and had to move to different functions or, the way in which they're they're accounted and that, therefore, the way we have to account for them.
In a few of those line items, do do create a, a false narrative based on those percentages. I have one more question, and it's not really a question. But, I know that many people who will be watching our presentation today have been asking me and other people about pay raises. So, would you reiterate that again for for the public about what what exactly we're gonna do for pay raises for teachers and and, non teacher staff for the next year? Yeah. I'd be happy to.
So under House Bill two, teachers that, were zero to two years were not included in the raises. So teachers with three to four years of experience and that's total experience that's not just Keller experience, received $2,500 increase to, to our salary schedule. And those, five years and above received 5,000. So those teachers will receive, you hear the term step, and it's really if you
look at a at a pay scale, each year has a different amount that you would receive. Year one to year two, maybe $200. Year two to year three, maybe $275. It it varies and and is adjusted. So those teachers, wherever they would move in their next year of experience, will then also have the the state mandated, increases. Other staff that are typically on the teacher's pay scale, one of the things we're
having to do. So your non classroom teachers, were having to move to to a separate, scale, and that's something TEA, reiterated today. So your librarians, your diagnosticians, your counselors, your nurses were all just built into the teacher pay scale. So it'll be a separate scale. It'll mirror the teachers. But because they're not getting that raise, in in the base amount, then they'll receive
their step plus 3%. All our other staff will receive a 3% raise, and if there is an adjustment in their year, of experience, they'll also receive that. So, that's been a concern and is is a is a bit complicated for folks to understand. When we were unable to give a pay raise, we we've had a couple years there where we were unable to do the step as well. So we will be doing whatever that next year of experience would have paid plus
the 3% or the the state amount. Thank you for that. Mhmm. Yeah. I had just one thing. And a community member brought it up, like, maybe the ed line in the budget. We talked about it earlier, Jay. Can you just expand on what that change was? Yes. It's it's, twofold. The community ed line is actually regards types of services we provide outside of education to the community as well as some of those partnerships. And in this case, some changes with community schools and some others where we were
able to shift funding into into other other areas is why we see an offset. So it's it's not really reduction of services, or significant changes in partnerships. It's just where where the expenditures will come from, and it's offset in other other parts of the budget for the most part. I've just got two questions, I guess, to piggyback on the pay raise question because I received some comments about that as well.
How how is that being communicated to staff so it's clear basically what they'll be getting? Bryce has a communication. Doctor Wilson had sent out toward the end of the year at the end of the school year what our intent was, what was proposed in the budget. So, upon approval of this budget, we'll be able to to reach out and and communicate that. We are waiting, for TASB. TASB helps school districts, go back in and it they they help us recalculate all of our scales in in what those pay scales will look like.
So they're working, you could imagine, overtime adjusting all of those. We've given them the criteria we've proposed in the budget, so they've already started that process. So I would hope soon after we get back from the July 4 break, we'll have some of those details and then we'll be able to to post that as well and communicate that with staff so they can they can go directly and and see what, what their increase would look like. Awesome. And then, I guess the other question, it came up at our last meeting and
you brought it up this evening, and it might be helpful, I think, for the community, but as well as the board, if you guys are able to pull it together. It would be nice to kind of understand, some of this kind of shell game that they've been playing where they've been moving funds from one pot to the next. And so while folks may have come back to their district and said we provided historic basically funding, when in fact it sounds like it it hasn't. And so what would be helpful, I think, is for folks to get some idea of what was the actual increase, right, versus what is what is being shared with
the community. No. That's, it it is complicated particularly at this point because we don't know some of those details, but our communications department has has worked on some infographics and and some other communication, to to be able to share that. And then we'll continue to update it as we get, more finality regarding, where where funding will will need to, to be allocated and how it'll be allocated. And and then just so I I I understood it correctly, when Heather was talking
about you made that comment, you know, forthcoming in terms of This additional funding that that may trickle in over however many months. So we're we're anticipating that between now and end of the year. Is that right? Yes. Okay. So a couple of, excuse me, good questions, couple of comments, in no particular order of importance. Like trustee Campbell and trustee Erickson, I went to some TASB continuing education training last week, and one of the sessions I sat in on was actually the whole pay
raise. We spent an hour, talking about pay raise. And my takeaway from that session was that the presenter said it's complicated. And when you start looking at how different categories of staff are characterized, I guess, for lack of a better term, in our payroll systems and then matched what what, TEA thinks as far as the raises are concerned. It's it is complicated, and I have no doubt that we will do our utmost
best to be sure that we, number one, are in compliance, but number two, that every eligible educator, receives the amount of raise that is entitled to them under these, these funds coming in. These funds that might become trickling in as Charles mentioned and Heather, do we know if they'll be associated with a particular pigeonhole in the budget, or will they be freelance, to be spent, how the district sees fit? I think I know probably the answer to that.
Yeah. The the the last would be the preferable, but it's not gonna happen. It'll be as all portions of this have been. It'll be very prescriptive. And, lastly, I'll just say that, kudos to you and Kristen and the entire staff for working so hard on this. We've had workshops. We've had budget updates starting in September. So thank you for all the work and all the changes that have gone into it. I will say that, having talked with other school board members from other districts and,
listening to them talk about their their most of them either have passed or soon will be passing their budgets for '25, '26, and they are talking deficit budgets in the double digits. And, for us to be able to pass through the third year in a row a balanced budget, considering all the headwinds that we're facing, I think kudos to everybody that's worked so hard. I know it's not been easy. And note to self, I think I've mentioned this before over the next couple of
years, there there's no easy conversations coming forward. The lack of school funding and 55 for the allotment is, paltry at best, disgusting at worst, to be the 40 I forget somewhere in the fortieth state in the in the nation yet prides itself on being so pro public spending. I think, I'll just put a dot dot dot at that point. But I will say, kudos to them for at least recognizing the efforts of our
educators and our staff. So I'll I'll leave it at that. So any other questions, comments? Alright. Take a vote. All in favor of passing the twenty five twenty six school year budget? All opposed? Passes six zero. We will not have executive session this evening. So at this point, I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? All opposed? Six zero. Thank you.