WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=jtrUAv2tGOg

Part: 1

1
00:05:24.080 --> 00:05:39.039
come out to our Montazum Cortez uh school district meeting tonight. Uh thank you to those that came in person and those that are joining us virtually. Uh today is June 16th and it's 5:00 pm.

2
00:05:39.039 --> 00:06:03.680
Uh we will start by uh doing the pledge of allegiance. >> 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

3
00:06:03.680 --> 00:06:27.199
justice for all. >> Hey, I'd like to remind everybody of our school's vision and mission. Uh our Montazuma Cortez School District vision is Montazuma Cortez School inspires resilience, lifelong learning, and civic

4
00:06:27.199 --> 00:06:43.600
purpose by fostering high expectations, critical thinking, and accountability in a safe and diverse environment. Our mission as we strive to become a district of choice, we celebrate diversity, build meaningful relationships, and open doors to personal growth and a world of

5
00:06:43.600 --> 00:07:04.319
possibilities for every student. Uh, can we have a call to order, please? We have five board, one, two, three, four, five, six board members available. Um, and we are using mics tonight and

6
00:07:04.319 --> 00:07:19.360
diligent for voting. Um trying to think if we have more members, one more member show up during the um executive session, we will note the time of attendance. >> Okay.

7
00:07:19.360 --> 00:07:49.440
>> Thank you. >> All right. Uh we will go ahead and move to set our agenda. >> I'll move to set the agenda. I'll second. >> Not everybody's >> online voting is now available. Shall we do it verbally?

8
00:07:49.440 --> 00:08:05.120
>> Well, those who have access can continue. >> Okay. Dr. Shamway, >> yay. >> Dr. Det, >> yay. >> And other votes are in O. Director Mate.

9
00:08:05.120 --> 00:08:23.919
>> Yay. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> All right. And then our first item on our agenda, we have our uh executive session. Um those invited to this executive session are the school board

10
00:08:23.919 --> 00:08:48.120
uh representatives and our superintendent, Mr. Ramirez, along with our legal counsel. We need a motion. I move that the board go into executive session pursuant to section 24-6-42

11
00:08:50.240 --> 00:09:06.560
parentheses 4 parentheses B CRS for legal advice related to the Matthews HVAC litigation. I second. >> I second it.

12
00:09:06.560 --> 00:09:30.560
>> Online voting is now available. >> Dr. Shamway, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Um, >> can you state the time for the record? We will go into executive session. Time

13
00:09:30.560 --> 00:42:37.680
is 5:04 p.m. >> Thank you. Pausing recording, Mr. Lynch. recording is the second recorder is in the other room. Okay. All right. Like to welcome everybody back from our executive

14
00:42:37.680 --> 00:42:55.680
session. Uh it is 5:38 p.m. and we will continue on with our agenda. Uh going into our presentations. First one up, we have our City of Cortez Park Village development presentation.

15
00:42:55.680 --> 00:43:14.640
>> Just as a reminder, 10 minutes has been set aside for each of these presentations. >> Okay. Good evening, Board of Education. you guys are doing well tonight. Uh, thank you for inviting me. My name is Jason Armstrong. I'm the interim community and economic development

16
00:43:14.640 --> 00:43:32.000
director and the city planner for the city of Cortez. And I'm here this evening to uh do a pretty high level overview of the Park Village on 7th housing development the city is working on. This is for uh housing development

17
00:43:32.000 --> 00:43:48.720
for 60 to 70D restricted workforce affordable housing units. Um the information on the project I'm going to present to you tonight is subject to some changes. Uh we're just in the initial phases of site design. Uh and

18
00:43:48.720 --> 00:44:07.599
the unit mixes uh may change over time. All right. So, just a little bit of a background for those that uh aren't familiar with the site. So, um most people in the community uh know this site as the old

19
00:44:07.599 --> 00:44:23.280
Cortez High School site. Um we obtained this property from the school district in 2018 through a land banking grant that we received from the state of Colorado through the Great Outdoors Colorado uh fund. The original intent of

20
00:44:23.280 --> 00:44:41.119
the grant was always to uh have a portion of the property be used for affordable housing and the rest of it be used for park. Um, as you can see here on uh this slide, there were originally three acres uh slated on the uh east

21
00:44:41.119 --> 00:44:56.319
side of the property that were going to be affordable housing. Um based on where things are headed right now with the developer, we are now looking to do a lot line adjustment and basically split the property in half. So the east side

22
00:44:56.319 --> 00:45:12.079
will continue to be uh slated for the affordable housing and then the uh city will maintain the existing park that's there and we'll look towards planning in the future for uh additional amenities.

23
00:45:12.079 --> 00:45:29.599
Um just wanted to emphasize that the park uh planning portion of this is not part of the housing development. Um if and when uh the city is ready to proceed with that planning process, it'll be our parks and reccks department that will be

24
00:45:29.599 --> 00:45:46.560
heading up uh that community engagement around the park development. So a little bit about the preliminary site design. Um so as I mentioned we are in the initial site design uh process

25
00:45:46.560 --> 00:46:02.720
with the developers. As you can see um we do have a preliminary uh mix of units uh including one to four bedrooms um a clubhouse and a common open space for the residents. Uh the current unit mix

26
00:46:02.720 --> 00:46:20.160
is uh 24 one-bedroom units, 24-bedroom units, 12 threebedroom, and 10 fourbedroom units. Um with that bedroom mix, uh we might expect the project to generate uh more students than typically

27
00:46:20.160 --> 00:46:36.480
than a typical multifamily project because 31% of those units are three and four bedrooms. So, I kind of ran this through a planning scenario. Um, and a reasonable estimate would be the project would generate around 30 elementary

28
00:46:36.480 --> 00:46:52.240
school students um that may be attending Mesa Elementary School. Um, being two blocks away from that school does not necessarily change the number of students generated, but it does make it more likely those students will attend the nearby school rather than another

29
00:46:52.240 --> 00:47:13.359
school in the district. So the decision to proceed with the project and determine its feasibility came through a market study um completed by the developer in March of this year. Here's some highle findings from that. Um, so, uh, based on Monizuma County's

30
00:47:13.359 --> 00:47:31.520
current AMI limits, 100% AMI for one person household is approximately $71,400 and an 80% AMI is approximately 57,120. Um, so you can see from this slide that

31
00:47:31.520 --> 00:47:48.079
there is a huge demand for that 70 to 80% AMI. Um while the exact income level mix across the development is still to be determined, you can see that people that are making that 70 to 80% AMI are somewhat between 48,000 to 52,000

32
00:47:48.079 --> 00:48:07.280
annually of the highest demands for housing uh such as starting teachers and administrative staff. So the developers provided us with some exterior uh exterior precedent images. So um these are to help us understand

33
00:48:07.280 --> 00:48:23.760
the types of architecture and aesthetic design features uh that they have used in uh similar projects around the state of Colorado and nationwide. Uh the overall design will resemble town homes. So, mix of single level uh and two-level

34
00:48:23.760 --> 00:48:39.280
homes. And we feel like this is going to be a good fit from the transition from the single family uh residents that are kind of surrounding the property as they move south into more densely zoned uh

35
00:48:39.280 --> 00:48:59.599
areas of town. So, a little bit on the project timeline. So this timeline is subject to change and it's based on the assumption that the developer will be successful in their initial lowincome housing tax credit application letter. Um they have

36
00:48:59.599 --> 00:49:16.880
to submit that uh to CHAFA the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority as a letter of interest in June. uh be invited to apply in August and then we'll have about three months before we're going to know if they were successful in receiving those tax

37
00:49:16.880 --> 00:49:32.559
credits. Uh the project does hinge on their ability to get these tax credits. Um the developer does have uh a lot of experience uh successfully in getting these tax credits and getting these projects off the ground. So, we're we're

38
00:49:32.559 --> 00:49:48.079
pretty confident that they're going to um be able to have a su a successful first application. Um we did just recently sign anou with the developer. Um and in thatou we're basically giving them two bites at this apple. So they'll

39
00:49:48.079 --> 00:50:06.240
get to apply uh in a in August. If they don't succeed in that first one um they'll be uh going through another application process and usually chaff provides some feedback. So their second application is a little more robust and more likely to succeed. Um if in fact

40
00:50:06.240 --> 00:50:21.440
they go through two rounds and they are not funded. Um either party at that point has uh the option to terminate theou. Um which means uh you know the city could back away from the relationship

41
00:50:21.440 --> 00:50:37.520
with the developer and start over with another full uh request for proposal process. Um, we're really hoping it doesn't come to that. Uh, we're hoping that they are successful. Um, let's see.

42
00:50:37.520 --> 00:50:51.760
So, uh, this kind of leads me to the city's ask today from you guys. So, you're one of the largest employers in the city and the proposed letter of support coming before you tonight is going to be part of the developers tax

43
00:50:51.760 --> 00:51:09.760
credit application. Um, so the uh the final note that I wanted to leave you guys with and I will definitely open it up for questions um is that we are going to be having our first community engagement uh at the Cortez Rec Center

44
00:51:09.760 --> 00:51:25.359
and I believe you have the flyer in front of you. It's on June 30th um from 4 to 6:30. Um, at that time, the developer is going to present their initial site design, um, and talk to the community about

45
00:51:25.359 --> 00:51:42.079
ideas that they have to make their project better or more workable for that area of town. Um, they'll collect all that information and then they're going to come back to the community in late July. I don't have that date set with them exactly yet, but um at that point

46
00:51:42.079 --> 00:51:58.880
they'll explain how they integrated that feedback and um we'll continue to move forward with the project. In the meantime, the city is out uh we're going to be tableabling at third Thursdays and um doing some marketing around it just to just to get interest in the community

47
00:51:58.880 --> 00:52:15.760
to give us feedback on the project. Um so at this point um I will open it up for questions. So, I do appreciate your your time to let me present. >> Thank you for that. All right. U we'll open up to the board if you have any

48
00:52:15.760 --> 00:52:30.319
questions about this project. >> Where's the contractor out of? >> Say that again. >> Where where is the contractor from? >> The contractor um they are well they have a Denver base uh in state, but they're originally from Chicago.

49
00:52:30.319 --> 00:52:51.760
>> Yep. So, will the units be only available to uh local applicants or >> Yeah. Um well, there's some fair housing uh rules that we have to follow around that. Um the developer, I guess I didn't

50
00:52:51.760 --> 00:53:06.160
mention this, the intention is for the city to sell the property and the developer is going to build the project and they're also going to manage it long term. So these will be deed restricted uh units. Um

51
00:53:06.160 --> 00:53:22.480
they will um they'll be sort of taking charge and making sure of uh everybody meeting the income requirements. Um I do believe that they can have uh units uh at least from fair fair housing

52
00:53:22.480 --> 00:53:39.359
standards. You're allowed to say that they're restricted to local workforce. You can't like designate them necessarily for particular employer. >> Yeah. So in the past we've had projects like that in Cortez where

53
00:53:39.359 --> 00:53:54.960
uh a lot of questions came up as to where the residents came from. >> Uh possibly from outside the county. >> Yes. >> And uh so the so the county didn't benefit the city didn't benefit from

54
00:53:54.960 --> 00:54:11.680
that. uh people from outside our area benefited. And so um I my understanding is that uh the fair housing part of it um

55
00:54:11.680 --> 00:54:28.559
doesn't allow uh very many restrictions because it's more on need and not on who you work for or where you live. >> Yeah. And the market study bears that out. I mean there is a high demand for

56
00:54:28.559 --> 00:54:44.800
these AMI levels and these represent um when they do the market study they also you know work in demographics um current sources of employment into that so they understand what the demand is for the workforce. And again it's a

57
00:54:44.800 --> 00:55:00.800
pretty broad range. So 30% AMI um all the way up to 80% AMI. you're sort of serving that deeply affordable segment of the population as well as kind of going moving into that middle income range.

58
00:55:00.800 --> 00:55:16.480
>> So, I think what you're confirming for me is that it's possible for people outside of our area to be accepted as uh residents into the units. >> They will have to meet the income requirements.

59
00:55:16.480 --> 00:55:37.599
Yes. And we would expect folks from the county, maybe from uh the tribe to want to take advantage of these units. Um we have a lot of outcommuting for uh housing, people coming into the city

60
00:55:37.599 --> 00:55:54.079
because they can't find affordable housing. So we feel like there's a demand there from the local workforce. >> Yeah, that's the issue. there's a demand from the local workforce, but the the the residents

61
00:55:54.079 --> 00:56:11.599
can come from other places. So, how do you know you're filling the demand of the local area? I mean, uh it just depends on who applies, >> correct? And if people from uh Denver meet the AMI qualifications

62
00:56:11.599 --> 00:56:27.280
and come down and apply, what's to stop them from becoming residents in those uh units that are being uh not sold, but I mean uh promoted as a

63
00:56:27.280 --> 00:56:44.640
help for the local area. Well, we would welcome anybody from Denver that wanted to move to Cortez and be part of the community and part of the workforce. >> All right. Thanks. >> Yeah, of course. >> Jason, can you introduce our city manager so we can

64
00:56:44.640 --> 00:57:00.240
>> He's here. Sorry everybody. This is our city manager, Drew Sanders. >> He's here to provide a little moral support for me, but if you have any questions for him, >> Yeah. >> he's here, too. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the

65
00:57:00.240 --> 00:57:50.520
board? All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you guys. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll go on to our next presentation which is the director executive director salary schedule. Is there two?

66
00:57:56.240 --> 00:58:42.400
>> Thank you. Yeah, she needs one. And then I think I don't think there was two in each one of these. Oh, there's two in there. >> Oh, yeah. >> No, >> it was on the back

67
00:58:42.400 --> 00:59:24.799
of these. >> Yes, >> I don't think >> she did. Um I think on YouTube they can see and hear you better maybe over there. >> Yeah. >> Let's see how this works. All

68
00:59:33.839 --> 00:59:51.040
right. So, the first document that I want to share with you is the director's salary schedule presentation. Um, so what we wanted to do with this, and I know we've talked about this information before, but what we wanted to do with this is try to provide provide a little

69
00:59:51.040 --> 01:00:07.760
bit of a history and also a little bit of a comparison that you can see in front of you instead of just hearing me talk about it. Um, so the objectives are to increase director salary schedule. I need to skip that uh level um SK

70
01:00:07.760 --> 01:00:28.160
schedules to a level that is more competitive with other rural Colorado school districts of similar size. And we want to be better positioned to recruit top talent when director positions do need to be filled. So what kind of districts did we use to

71
01:00:28.160 --> 01:00:44.880
do the do the comparison? We looked at district of similar size throughout Colorado. Then we narrowed that focus down to rural districts. And then we also looked at districts from the southwest region and districts with publicly available salary schedules. And that part's important. There are some districts that could have fallen into

72
01:00:44.880 --> 01:01:00.240
this group. Um but they didn't publish certain salary schedules like their directors or executive directors. They only published teacher salaries. So we couldn't look at those ones. The salary schedule for the 2526 school year were analyzed to produce the presentation. So

73
01:01:00.240 --> 01:01:18.960
we did not use the proposed increases for the presentation. So how do we compare? In 2025 2026 of the districts we analyzed 12 were smaller and six were larger. Nine districts had a lower starting teacher salary and nine districts had a higher.

74
01:01:18.960 --> 01:01:34.960
So we were right there in the middle. 17 of the 18 districts had a high starting director salary and eight of the 10 districts had a higher starting executive director salary/chief because some people call things different. We try to keep it at the senior level but different districts

75
01:01:34.960 --> 01:01:50.720
called the had different titles for the same type of positions. Not all districts analyze had those salary schedules um specifically for the senior leadership. So we when you look at the numbers there that's why you see 18 for for directors we only see 10 for the

76
01:01:50.720 --> 01:02:07.200
senior leadership. So how do we compare uh Monzuma Cortez and I wanted to also make sure that we're kind of looking at this in comparison to teacher salaries because that was brought up in the last board meeting and so I thought that was important data to share. Uh currently

77
01:02:07.200 --> 01:02:23.040
Monzuma Cortez School District pays teachers a wage that is 78% of a director's salary. Of the districts we looked at, only one district paid a higher percentage of director salaries. And and in that particular district, both the teacher and the director salaries were higher.

78
01:02:23.040 --> 01:02:38.880
18 districts paid teachers a lower percentage uh than director salaries. Of the 19 districts analyzed, including MCSD, the average is 59.87 87 and we're at 78.33. Um, and so we're not making the argument

79
01:02:38.880 --> 01:02:59.119
that teacher salaries don't need to continue to climb. We we we do believe that, but we want to also make sure that those uh salaries for our leadership positions are also keeping pace. Oh, wrong button. This is just a breakdown here so you can

80
01:02:59.119 --> 01:03:15.839
see the districts that we looked at. It shows the enrollment of those schools. It shows the region that those schools are from. It shows the starting teacher wage, the starting director wage, starting executive director wage, and the percentage of a teacher salary um or

81
01:03:15.839 --> 01:03:33.680
of a director salary that is a teacher salary. And the same for executive directors. This is just another way to look at it in a graph format. This shows our director salaries as compared to the districts that you saw on that list. Monosuma Cortez is the second one from

82
01:03:33.680 --> 01:03:54.720
the left there. And this one shows the same information for executive director or senior leadership positions. So over time, teacher salaries have risen from about 31,500 in 2021

83
01:03:54.720 --> 01:04:10.319
to 50,000 in 2627. And again, this is just step one, which is an 18% inc or $18,000 increase. Daily rate of pay has risen from 176 to 307. Teacher salary to director salary ratio

84
01:04:10.319 --> 01:04:27.280
has ri risen from 65% and uh 2021 to 78% in 2526. It will be 83% this coming year if director salaries stay the same. We looked at high school uh principal salaries as well. We just chose high

85
01:04:27.280 --> 01:04:46.400
school principal. Um their their rate has increased 15 or almost 16,000 and their daily rate has gone um has risen from 318 to 455 which is an increase of 137 a day in the last 5 years.

86
01:04:46.400 --> 01:05:01.200
Director's salaries have risen in that same have risen from 48,000 in 2021 to 60,000 in 2526 which is an 11,000 increase and 21,000 below the 2526 average of the districts that we looked

87
01:05:01.200 --> 01:05:18.240
at. Proposed increase brings the salary to 64 and that's the average salary because there's different tiers as you guys know. um which puts it at a $16,000 increase and 17,000 below the average. The daily rate

88
01:05:18.240 --> 01:05:35.920
of pay for a director on average is 185. And it will it would go up in the different tiers to 282, 292, and 302. And that's for director 1. You can see the same information there for director one 239 and director 1 213. I'm not

89
01:05:35.920 --> 01:05:51.920
going to read all of it. The information on executive directors is comparable. And then this is just the a preview of the information that you'll be looking at later today. Um the stratifi stratified executive director and

90
01:05:51.920 --> 01:06:08.319
director salary schedules. And then one point of note there and for everybody looking at the TV you can't really read it. I don't think it says these increases that have been requested are based on the daily salary increase

91
01:06:08.319 --> 01:06:23.680
proposal for teachers uh with consideration of maintaining the salary stratification from teachers to assistant principles to principles to executive directors and assistant superintendent salary schedule. Any position that would receive a decrease in salary based on the stratification

92
01:06:23.680 --> 01:06:45.599
efforts will be adjusted through an increase in steps. Danielle, did I miss anything? Are there any questions about that presentation? >> Um, how much uh from the general fund has been used to increase teacher

93
01:06:45.599 --> 01:07:06.640
salaries since the mil levy was passed >> that? Let me go back. I'll can tell you that. Oh, since the mill levy has been passed. >> Yeah. Have we used anything from the general fund? So, all raises have been from the mil levy that voters >> in the last two years. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Yeah. One thing that to point out is our

94
01:07:06.640 --> 01:07:23.319
teacher salaries were stagnant for a really long time and in the last five years they've gone up substantially. about 8,500 of that was general fund and then the last two years 10,000 was MLO.

95
01:07:27.520 --> 01:07:44.319
We also provided a document for you that I don't have on the screen but this is the director and executive director fiscal impact of initial step placement uh that was requested at the last board meeting. If you look at the list of

96
01:07:44.319 --> 01:07:59.760
uh leaders on this page, I did it by position. What you'll see is the initial step placement, what the beginning salary was at the time that that placement was made, what the

97
01:07:59.760 --> 01:08:15.039
salary schedule allowed for in terms of maximum step coming in plus one. Because if you you have eight years of experience, then you're given eight years experience. You start on year nine. Then the steps above the maximum in the next column over. Then the salary

98
01:08:15.039 --> 01:08:30.239
schedule limited placement. So how much they could have been given based on that allowable step. What the difference was. There's also a difference in benefits. And there's a total fiscal impact. And so if you look, there's two individuals on that list that were placed higher

99
01:08:30.239 --> 01:08:47.520
than what the salary schedule. They were not in alignment with what the salary schedule stated at the bottom where it says number of years allowable. And then if you look at that very last page on there, it shows what that total impact was. So the total fiscal impact

100
01:08:47.520 --> 01:09:03.120
uh was $20,000. It's important to note that the fiscal impact can only be calculated on the initial step placement because after the initial step placement, movement within the salary schedule is due to a variety of factors such as the change of the director's salary schedule from one that

101
01:09:03.120 --> 01:09:18.239
contained a three-year salary ban to a schedule with a step for each year of service. is one cause. Board approved raises that sometimes result in step adjustments um and is another cause. Promotions uh

102
01:09:18.239 --> 01:09:34.319
and I don't know why I have a period right there like that, but movement based on but not limited to uh situations noted above is permissible according to the district policy and board approved salary schedules. Legal counsel has confirmed that as well. That's after the initial step placement.

103
01:09:34.319 --> 01:09:50.880
That's that's I was just explaining why we could only provide that information on the initial step placement. >> How many steps um can an employee expect to advance in one year with one with an additional year of experience? >> So typically if there's no changes to

104
01:09:50.880 --> 01:10:06.800
the salary schedule, there's not a like one of those categories that I mentioned below. It would be one year. Um, sometimes there's a salary schedule adjustment or there's a raise and that raise might result in or a stratification might result in uh an

105
01:10:06.800 --> 01:10:22.640
unequal raise for that person and so a step adjustment might be given that's more than one step in that case. Uh, another example might be a person moves into a position and more prior experience can be granted in the new position than it could in the last

106
01:10:22.640 --> 01:10:39.920
position because maybe they don't have experience in what they started in, but the position they moved into, they had more experience. So, there's a ton of reasons why it could be different than one year, but a typical movement be would be one step per year. Should the board expect if that should happen to be

107
01:10:39.920 --> 01:10:55.840
notified of that or is that just slipped into the consent calendar? >> I would say that it has historically been in the consent calendar. However, um the objective our objective is to make sure that that's noted clearly what the prior step was and the new step was.

108
01:10:55.840 --> 01:11:12.480
And there's al there's always the ability to pull that out of consent if there's a question about why that's being done. And we can certainly go into detail about that. So if directors were advanced more than one step for a variety of reasons, that would not have been flagged with fiscal impact

109
01:11:12.480 --> 01:11:28.320
previously. It would have just been put in the consent calendar. >> So I can't speak to every, you know, prior scenario. I can say that the consent calendar has kind of changed over time. Did you have something to add, Mr. Ramirez?

110
01:11:28.320 --> 01:11:46.159
I think testing testing I think that uh it's always during the time of the annual budget approval and so there's through the different work sessions that uh that is explained. I know two years ago uh we

111
01:11:46.159 --> 01:12:05.040
kind of got off and had to go into further detail because uh the stratification of the different positions was based on a percentage and I remember the wrath that the statement of uh the uh cost of living came up and

112
01:12:05.040 --> 01:12:20.800
two years ago this year. This is why we use a strategy of basing it on dollar amount that was based on what teachers got and taking that dollar amount and looking at the number of days and comparing apples and oranges between teacher and director length of of work

113
01:12:20.800 --> 01:12:36.719
and trying to be uh mindful of that so that we didn't get caught in that trap of the percentages because some the higher you go up the more the percentage uh will inflate the the salary increase than uh when you stick to dollar for

114
01:12:36.719 --> 01:12:55.040
But yes, uh there's uh what the intent is during the work sessions and the budget workshops is to uh get an understanding of those and then that's when it's placed on the consent agenda when it's been vetted sufficiently. But uh

115
01:12:55.040 --> 01:13:10.000
this year's process has taught us that uh to be attentive to all of that and always to bring to the board attention when there's exceptions to the standard. I I recall a meeting that I attended as a private citizen where a teacher stood

116
01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:24.960
up and made a public comment um you know stating that he felt that teachers should have more experience and it was explained to him that um there's just one step advancement per

117
01:13:24.960 --> 01:13:42.480
year and if an exception was made that it would be unfair and it would make people upset. So, I want to make sure that we're playing by the same rules regardless of if you're a custodial worker or an executive director. Um,

118
01:13:42.480 --> 01:13:58.239
personally, I think if we're making any sort of exception, that should be clear. um and the fiscal impact should be um noted for the board um so that we can approve that because otherwise my

119
01:13:58.239 --> 01:14:14.000
assumption is that we're following the salary schedule for every employee in the district >> and I agree agree with that and uh uh while the process was uh vetted and

120
01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:29.920
approved by the board as recommended by the administr administration I too think that uh every employee should uh receive the same type of treatment in reference to movement in the salary skills.

121
01:14:29.920 --> 01:14:47.040
So uh two years ago things were quite a bit different than they are now in regard to transparency of the salary schedule. uh two years ago it was included in executive content which meant only the

122
01:14:47.040 --> 01:15:03.040
board members saw it. Two years ago what you saw in executive uh content was the final product. You didn't see how much each one changed,

123
01:15:03.040 --> 01:15:19.120
nor did you see which ones changed. All you saw was here's the numbers where we're ending up. Please adopt this. And so, not only has there been more transparency and moving this to um

124
01:15:19.120 --> 01:15:35.679
publicly available information at the meetings, but also with the information at the top, you can tell um which uh um column has been changed and by how much. and you can compare across I believe the

125
01:15:35.679 --> 01:15:52.960
entire salary schedule. So um just just pointing out that there's been a a huge advancement in my opinion of transparency in regard to salary schedule. >> I appreciate that as well. Um and I appreciate the the redlinining that's

126
01:15:52.960 --> 01:16:11.040
important. I I would note that I had several um people reach out to me because the initial salary schedule was not available for public view. Um and um that was another point that was a membersonly attachment and um also in

127
01:16:11.040 --> 01:16:27.199
the um I guess in defense of of equity um administration is able to see what's being proposed and advocate for director schedules. However, other employees were not able to see that

128
01:16:27.199 --> 01:16:42.400
until after we voted on it. um so weren't able to make uh similar comments and so I would encourage that that be available publicly because as a board member it's much easier for me to uh know if there's objections before I take

129
01:16:42.400 --> 01:17:01.600
my vote than after um I want to hear all the information and uh before >> duly noted. Thank you. So on the the TJ it says the teachers is $37 a day is what it got raised to. Um

130
01:17:01.600 --> 01:17:16.880
so on the directors in that in that scale it says it has the daily rate there. I'm assuming that is the new daily rate from the >> um which which >> document? Yeah, that would be the new one >> that so that's the new daily that's the new daily rate.

131
01:17:16.880 --> 01:17:38.880
>> Yeah. So the new daily rate is still below the teacher daily rate. And you know so is there the big difference is just the number of days worked >> correct. Yeah that's yeah you can you can see that so teachers contracts nine months correct >> teachers are 163 days. >> Okay.

132
01:17:38.880 --> 01:17:54.800
>> Uh the lowest number of days for directors we have we have a 10 month is 178 y >> and then 213 and then 239. >> Got it. And as far as education requirements is the or like certification requirements

133
01:17:54.800 --> 01:18:10.080
the each director probably has different ones. Is that tough to go over or is it something that we could ask that you have in top of your head or >> I I don't have all of that on the top of my head. Um there are different requirements for different executive and

134
01:18:10.080 --> 01:18:27.360
director level positions. Some require um you know a bachelor's degree, some require master's degree, some require lenture, some do not require lensure. But there's also responsibilities and legal exposure, compliance, those sorts

135
01:18:27.360 --> 01:18:45.120
of things, supervisory responsibilities that we took into consideration as well in proposing that. >> Yeah. So the ones that do require a bachelor's degree would be similar requirements to a teacher. >> Yes. So the daily rate in my opinion

136
01:18:45.120 --> 01:19:01.360
should be what a teachers is. >> It could be but usually what separates them is the days that they work. Usually directors work more than the days of teachers. >> Yeah. >> And so it appears they're making more uh they are totally but when you drill it

137
01:19:01.360 --> 01:19:15.360
down to daily rate that's when you notice uh equity. Yeah. >> And I might remind the board also that there was never hardly an alignment between all the different levels of jobs. And it's this has happened over a

138
01:19:15.360 --> 01:19:32.719
threeyear fouryear period about where uh first equity and pay for teachers and moving that up from the 31,500 to where it is today for a beginning teacher at 50,000 in such a short amount of time in the last four or five years.

139
01:19:32.719 --> 01:19:50.239
But then it dawned that there was mismatch in different disparities in non-eing positions. So this is painful movement in where you try to bring this segregation, this separation depending on the level of responsibility and the

140
01:19:50.239 --> 01:20:06.080
number of employees you may supervise. We have some directors that have less uh employees that supervising than we have some directors that have many that they supervise. So that's >> that's where the job responsibility comes into play as well. >> So and that's that's exactly what my

141
01:20:06.080 --> 01:20:22.000
concern is. I'm you I might have come off the wrong way, but it seems to me like it's not a >> like we're not giving directors enough. >> Yeah. um when their daily rates, especially the ones that have certifications and requirements, um no

142
01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:38.560
different than principles and and assistant principles and stuff like they have specific responsibilities that should be paying them more. >> Well, why is there some that are going down? >> I I would say that when Danielle and I first started working on the

143
01:20:38.560 --> 01:20:53.679
stratification, that's what we found as well. But the amount of increase that was going to result from that was going to be very very large. It was going to be very large and we didn't know if that would be something that would be

144
01:20:53.679 --> 01:21:11.520
um a reasonable ask, you know, to tore increase that much. And so we pulled it back a little bit to try to accomplish the stratification as well as to try to propose something that would be basically we used the teacher daily rate

145
01:21:11.520 --> 01:21:27.280
and multiplied it not the daily the teacher increase and multiplied that by the number of days that the directors worked to arrive at that and then we did the stratification. If we had done only the stratification and only a market comparison, it would have been much a

146
01:21:27.280 --> 01:21:57.600
much higher ask for each of those director positions. And then the I had the same concern last time. So, there's there's two positions on there that are going down um in the and you've you've addressed this

147
01:21:57.600 --> 01:22:12.000
in the other piece of paper that you gave us about giving them extra steps to to to make it right. But again, as a long-term person, um any anybody that signs up for a job, they are going

148
01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:29.040
to look at their max step, and that does affect the most that they can ever get paid um in the position that they're in, especially at the director level. Um what kind of what kind of promotions can they move to um

149
01:22:29.040 --> 01:22:44.080
and or if they want to stay in that job for the rest of their career. And whenever we have those steps um in the new salary schedule and that max step is lower than what they signed up for originally whenever they signed

150
01:22:44.080 --> 01:23:01.840
up for that job, the increase that you're we're giving them on a step basis just gets them closer to their max, but they still will max out in well both of the both of these two would be at step 23. So they're going to max out in the next couple years. um which is a

151
01:23:01.840 --> 01:23:19.040
negative effect on their pay total and a negative effect on their retirement at some at some point in time for them. >> Um so I don't I really don't think we should do that to them. Um >> I also agree. I mean if we're acknowledging that these employees that

152
01:23:19.040 --> 01:23:38.400
we have currently are worth that. Um, I and I was going to bring it up later in our discussion for the director of nursing, but I'm not sure if you're aware of what the market is for nurses in a rural setting. Um, a travel nurse

153
01:23:38.400 --> 01:23:55.199
could have no administrative duties and probably work five months and make more than what we're offering. So the flexibility and things like that and as a parent with a student in the district and knowing that there are medically fragile children

154
01:23:55.199 --> 01:24:12.239
um the the liability if we don't have a qualified person in that position um is pretty intense. Um so I it the those particular directors going down is not something I

155
01:24:12.239 --> 01:24:29.199
feel prepared to support. The the other thing that I would mention with regard to that is when we just to be clear when we did our our uh market comparison we did not compare to the private sector. We were comparing to other school districts because you're right if as soon as we

156
01:24:29.199 --> 01:24:45.199
start to compare with the private sector there's many positions in our district that are way out of whack. you know, if we're looking at mechanics or we're looking at um CDL drivers or we're looking at nurses, not just the director of nursing, but the other nurses in our in our organization as well, there there

157
01:24:45.199 --> 01:25:01.120
would need to be some major adjustments to get in line with with private sector levels of pay. So, so the system that we're recommending is not perfect and we too agree with you that no, you you

158
01:25:01.120 --> 01:25:18.400
can't have retention of quality people if you treat them in that manner. And so this is a perfect example of why multiple steps are sometimes given to hold as a safety net, hold harmless an employee for that to get the dollar

159
01:25:18.400 --> 01:25:34.880
amount increase that others are getting. Like we said, we were basing it on that 3,000 that teachers got from going from 47 to 50,000. And so when you take that director's uh case in in in mind, you would look at the number of days they

160
01:25:34.880 --> 01:25:50.800
work and then that dollar amount that of the daily rate of a teacher on the pay raise for this next school year. You would look on that director's uh salary schedule and you would look for that dollar amount and what step that was. And that might that might be two or

161
01:25:50.800 --> 01:26:07.280
three steps above and and then you wonder as a board why are they getting multiple steps because the way the system is now there's only so much and there are some that are being treated unfairly and so I just wanted to and Justin hasn't mentioned that yet in his

162
01:26:07.280 --> 01:26:24.560
presentation but that's what we're looking at with a few that are getting affected this way. Now, incoming new, they'll follow that step by step, one year at a time because they're starting at at a different point. But we have some staff when I first got here, some

163
01:26:24.560 --> 01:26:39.440
uh directors that have topped out and one has retired and I still have two that haven't retired. And I don't want to lose them. They they they are a valuable asset to our district. They're responsible for the data pipeline

164
01:26:39.440 --> 01:26:54.480
submissions and there are over close to 200 submissions that we do that we depend on the PPR and all the funding that we get as a district. It's almost a position that's irreplaceable because it takes vast knowledge on that. It's not

165
01:26:54.480 --> 01:27:21.840
simple. But anyway, uh I just want to the last phase of this is looking at multiple steps when the system is penalizing someone. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board members about the

166
01:27:21.840 --> 01:27:38.840
salary schedule? May I just ask where the um advertised internal posting for the assistant super of academic services? How is that going to blend? Like is that

167
01:27:39.520 --> 01:27:55.600
>> is it aside from the executive director of academic services as well? Is it a different separate position? It's uh the closing of the position of assistant superintendent and designating

168
01:27:55.600 --> 01:28:14.560
the title to whoever applies uh including internal only uh and I am taking half of the responsibilities as superintendent and then whoever whatever position uh uh it's it's combined. So

169
01:28:14.560 --> 01:28:31.520
it's going to be paid like a stipen above and beyond what whatever uh person or whatever position that is. So uh the previous board member I talked to you about how there's been a uh steady direction of reducing the number of

170
01:28:31.520 --> 01:28:48.080
people that we have at our level that yet I feel we can still do the work including myself. So uh I hope uh that answers your question. And there's no predetermination, but I have to advertise it to everyone in the district and I only did it in

171
01:28:48.080 --> 01:29:02.960
district. >> But I think my question may have been yours is what is the pay scale? Because I've you had told us that you were eliminating the assistant superintendent position. >> There is. And what I will do is take

172
01:29:02.960 --> 01:29:19.040
whatever existing person that is bestowed that work. I will take whatever scale they're on and I will look at the difference between that scale and the assistant superintendent scale. And it doesn't mean that I'm following the super assistant superintendent scale,

173
01:29:19.040 --> 01:29:34.159
but I'm looking at the difference and that would be an add-on to that stipen. >> Okay? Because I' I've asked twice in premeating questions why the assistant superintendent is on the salary schedule when you indicated you weren't filling

174
01:29:34.159 --> 01:29:48.639
it. And then you you told me twice you were removing it and so I'm confused as to why it's on there again. >> I'm not using it. I'm not feeling that position like I had testified or communicated earlier. And uh I've tried

175
01:29:48.639 --> 01:30:05.840
to explain how uh a small portion of that will be added to an existing uh position of academic services or it could be the HR. I would have to go back and readvertise again. It just

176
01:30:05.840 --> 01:30:30.320
depends on the applications and the interview process and who I select. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm curious, is there a policy as to what step um an executive director can

177
01:30:30.320 --> 01:30:52.080
enter in as regardless of the experience of that person? Like what's the highest step the policy indicates that you can enter as a new hire? that uh that step has gone for all categories of employees has gone up each

178
01:30:52.080 --> 01:31:09.760
year. So currently if you look at um that PowerPoint in front of you on that last page it states going into next year this would be both the directors and executive directors 10

179
01:31:09.760 --> 01:31:43.040
years of experience. If you go back last year it would have been nine. The year before it would have been eight. It's just kind of gradually going up. >> Any other questions? >> Okay, let's continue on. We will continue to our reports starting

180
01:31:43.040 --> 01:32:07.600
with celebration reports. I don't have I don't have as many of these. There's not a whole lot of sports going on right now, but >> it's kind of a dope time of the school year, I have to say. >> Yeah, we had some we had some baseball players make all state. Um, we had for

181
01:32:07.600 --> 01:32:23.199
honorable mention, Jarus McDonald, Parker Conrad, Mikey Krupa, and Bodie Steagle Meer all made all all state honorable mention. Um, Cory Carver made the all state first team, one of nine kids in the entire state. Um,

182
01:32:23.199 --> 01:32:44.239
just one heck of a baseball player. Uh, and for track, Trey Hall made all state. >> We had something I I think it was in there, wasn't it? >> Miss LJ, >> Dr. Bonaface and Miss LJ. Um,

183
01:32:44.239 --> 01:33:05.199
>> now I got to find it because I don't want to get it wrong. >> Rookie principal of the year. There you go. Congratulations. >> And then I think Miss LJ was the is semi-finalist. semi finalist for teacher of the year.

184
01:33:05.199 --> 01:33:26.400
>> Teacher of the year. >> We're very proud of both of them. >> Good job, Miss LJ. She is an phenomenal instructor. My children learned a lot from that teacher. Just saying. >> Just a congratulation to all of our

185
01:33:26.400 --> 01:33:42.880
graduates. Um it was really such an honor. I felt unearned to be sitting on stage and be able to shake all their hands or fist bump. Um and um whoever planned it, thank you. Um it was just um I don't know, it was just really a joyful celebration from all the

186
01:33:42.880 --> 01:34:08.960
speakers. So congrats to everyone who put all that hard work in. Okay. Um, we'll move on. We have our student reports, but we don't have our representative here today. >> Um, I can >> Oh, do you have Oh, please.

187
01:34:08.960 --> 01:34:27.840
>> So, uh, Ka is not here tonight. Um, we had been talking. Um, Mr. Ramirez had put us in touch with um one of the Durango um board members who's the student liaison and so Ka and I will be meeting with her

188
01:34:27.840 --> 01:34:46.159
on Friday um and kind of talk about um you know any ideas from them that we want to want to use moving forward. So I hope to report on that in the next meeting. >> Okay. All right. and then we will open up to

189
01:34:46.159 --> 01:35:01.440
the next report which is our board reports. >> Dr. Shamway, I have a letter from Monzuma County Elections Department asking the board if they plan to participate in the 2027 coordinated

190
01:35:01.440 --> 01:35:17.120
election. The deadline to have this turned in is July 1st. And to my knowledge, if you have no bond, no mill levy, and you have a board that's not allowed to leave, we do not have any positions that we

191
01:35:17.120 --> 01:35:32.960
need for the election. Is that correct? >> Sounds correct. >> 26 or 2027. >> 2027 >> because we'll vote this year for 27. >> They are talking about 2026. So maybe it's a typo, but that is the way they worded it

192
01:35:32.960 --> 01:35:50.000
>> because this is the word. Yeah, it that must be a typo. >> Seven. We do. I >> think they're talking about 26. >> I think they >> So, they do have a column on here where we can answer for 2026 general election and then 2027 coordinated election.

193
01:35:50.000 --> 01:36:07.280
And they do want to know that by July 1st of 2026. >> What is the coordinated election? >> I don't know. >> Yeah. What's the coordinated election? Do we know? Um that would be the um one where um we have three board members I believe that

194
01:36:07.280 --> 01:36:23.280
would be up for reelection. >> Yeah. 27 we would >> or if we were to run for a bond or mill levy. >> It's a short time to figure that one out. >> And they do note on here that for that election that's just if we know now what

195
01:36:23.280 --> 01:36:40.000
we're doing they want to start planning a bond election or mill election takes a lot of extra work on their part. But mostly they're just wanting to know about this fall. So I guess we would have three board members up for reelection for 2027, but other than

196
01:36:40.000 --> 01:37:08.159
that, I'm not aware of any plans that you have. >> Okay. I'll get this letter sent off. >> Okay. Any other reports? Okay, let's continue on. Um, next item,

197
01:37:08.159 --> 01:37:26.480
um, is just aformational review of our, uh, campus handbooks. So, we'll just keep them separate. So, we have section A, which is the secondary campus handbooks. And do we

198
01:37:26.480 --> 01:37:45.199
have any questions about those handbooks in that section? >> If you do, I just recommend that you email me and I'll run it down for the entire board to hear the question and the reply. Uh it's for information

199
01:37:45.199 --> 01:38:08.800
tonight and we it'll go back for approval until July regular meeting. >> There go. >> Yeah, there's a lot in there. Yeah. >> Okay. Then we'll go to our next section uh which we have uh citizens address the

200
01:38:08.800 --> 01:38:34.480
board. There were also policies and information just to note that are these policies that will be coming to us or are being changed. >> That that is how our policy um to adopt

201
01:38:34.480 --> 01:38:54.560
new policies works. First you'll see it as an information item. >> Okay? And then you'll have first reading the following board meeting. >> Okay. >> And then second reading. >> Okay. >> And we do not have any tickets turned in today to speak to the board. Thank you.

202
01:38:54.560 --> 01:39:10.000
>> Okay. >> If we have questions um just about the changes, who would be best to direct those to you, Mr. Ramirez? >> You could uh direct Mr. Ledge who's a chair body of the board and me also. >> Okay.

203
01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:39.199
>> Yes ma'am. >> Okay. Um and then our next item is our discussion item for the board. So I'll go ahead and go. Um something I want to remind the board

204
01:39:39.199 --> 01:39:55.280
members there are a set of policies that we have uh they start with the letter B and those are um the group that applies to the board. Uh

205
01:39:55.280 --> 01:40:12.159
I need I want to read one to you. It's a very short uh policy, but it is uh very important for us to know as board members because it's so easy to go uh outside the guard

206
01:40:12.159 --> 01:40:28.560
rails in regard to this. This is policy BHC, board communications with staff. The superintendent shall transmit appropriate and pertinent communications from the board of education to employees

207
01:40:28.560 --> 01:40:46.080
and from employees to the board. Communications suggestions and complaints from district personnel shall follow appropriate channels that is those related to the individual's regular assignment. In those instances where satisfactory adjustments cannot be

208
01:40:46.080 --> 01:41:02.320
made by the superintendent or designate, the communication suggestions or complaints may be referred to the board. Basically, what that's saying is if somebody comes up to us and says, "Hey, I'm I can't stand this. It's happening. What are you going to do for me about

209
01:41:02.320 --> 01:41:20.320
that?" You have to tell them follow the chain of command. It's not you you have you do not have the ability to do that. Um it comes to the board after it has gone through the complete chain of command and then only. So, just a

210
01:41:20.320 --> 01:41:41.600
reminder, um, during my service on this board, uh, before November 2025, we we received many accusations of not being transparent and calls for more transparency. Our

211
01:41:41.600 --> 01:42:00.000
student board reps presented some uh survey data earlier this year and uh I was under the impression their survey project was self-motivated and self-generated meaning it was all their idea and since then I've um

212
01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:14.960
uh I don't want to say learned but I' I've been given a different impression and that is that possibly one or two school board members or possibly coaching or advising the students in regard to that survey.

213
01:42:14.960 --> 01:42:31.360
If this is true, then we can hardly claim we are transparent. Anytime a board member is injecting themsel as a go-between between staff or students and the board uh attention or board action,

214
01:42:31.360 --> 01:42:48.080
they are going outside their responsibility and mandate as a board member. And um hopefully we'll get our training on board government governance um soon so that um new board members can

215
01:42:48.080 --> 01:43:07.679
learn what the guard rails are. >> Mike, could I pause you for a second there? >> Yes. >> Um Dr. Dr. Bonafice, am I correct that you worked with Ka and the other student rep

216
01:43:07.679 --> 01:43:24.159
for that survey that they presented? >> The most recent one, but the first one not at all. >> Okay. I I am the liaison with the student representative to the board.

217
01:43:24.159 --> 01:43:41.840
So, um, I helped our student rep with a format for a board report. Um, I based that on a similar format to

218
01:43:41.840 --> 01:43:58.800
the communication documents that we had given Mr. Ramirez for director reports. Um and um I did not coach her on what to put in that.

219
01:43:58.800 --> 01:44:13.679
Um those were ideas of hers. I suggested a format where she could discuss the impact of concerns that she had heard, how she collected them, and

220
01:44:13.679 --> 01:44:31.920
what sort of action steps to take. Um, so I hope that clears up your question about how that happened. >> So, thank you for that. Um, something else that I should probably mention it,

221
01:44:31.920 --> 01:44:50.239
uh, it's my understanding that, um, this board does not have a position of student liaison to the students. Um, and it's also my understanding that in order to have one, the board has to adopt that idea. and uh either appoint or uh vote

222
01:44:50.239 --> 01:45:07.440
someone to be put into that position. It can't be the positions that board members take in the in the district can't be self-appointed. Um it has to be by by board vote that the position even exist and then once it does exist then

223
01:45:07.440 --> 01:45:23.520
the board can decide on whether to appoint or to um uh select and vote on who goes into that position. So, um I'm I'm a little um uh surprised that uh to find out that we have that position when

224
01:45:23.520 --> 01:46:17.880
it has not been voted on by the board. I'm sorry. I'm done. Okay. Um, we will continue on to our uh consent action items. We have several.

225
01:46:27.840 --> 01:47:02.960
>> I believe we're waiting for a motion. >> I move that the board approve the consent agenda for June 16, 2026. >> I second the motion. Online voting's now available. >> I don't think anything's popping up.

226
01:47:02.960 --> 01:47:21.040
>> No one else too. Got it. >> Click on that bottom key right there. Try to show vote in then it does pop up. >> There we go. Okay. >> Okay, that must motion passes unanimously. Let's show

227
01:47:21.040 --> 01:48:01.440
the results on the screen. Can we refresh? There it goes. Okay. Just making sure it's working. All right. And then onto our action items.

228
01:48:01.440 --> 01:48:32.000
First action item A, we have the Montazuma Cortez High School math curriculum adoption. >> Do we have a motion? Sorry. I make a motion to approve the MCHS math curriculum adoption.

229
01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:53.760
>> I second. >> So, uh are we is this discussion for you now? >> Yes, it is. Um so uh my when I read the packet on Thursday there were two

230
01:48:53.760 --> 01:49:09.520
uh choices on the on the math is do I understand that correctly? >> Yes. >> So >> two choices. >> Yeah. Um and there was a recommendation

231
01:49:09.520 --> 01:49:33.679
um by the staff Yeah, the microphone's there. >> Is this the microphone? It's really tall. I'll just tippy toe it. Okay. Um, there was a recommendation by the staff. There was sort of a split recommendation and then an overall recommendation um,

232
01:49:33.679 --> 01:49:48.239
which was on the first slide, I believe. But I also have quotes for you. And so if you want me to tell you a little bit about the two choices, I can do that. Okay. Yes, please. >> So the first one is McGraill, which is the same curriculum that we have with

233
01:49:48.239 --> 01:50:06.239
our social studies, science, and English. There it is. Um the other is Savas. And so those are just the two for your visual. Um the data showed that really McGraill is the top choice. Um so the teachers were a little split and

234
01:50:06.239 --> 01:50:22.480
they also were happy with either. Um some thought McGrath took a little tip and some thought SAS took a little edge. Um but we went through um data. We went through the state CDE website. We went

235
01:50:22.480 --> 01:50:37.760
through survey data. We took recommendations the two that we got from the community. And then I also um researched other schools who have adopted both and the feedback I got from that. And so um the teachers ranked both

236
01:50:37.760 --> 01:50:54.320
SAS McGraill nearly equal in terms of the pros and cons. Um admin ranked McGraill slightly higher due to the needs of our students. And I'll tell you the reason for that. Um SAS time and time again said it's really good if your students are coming to you already pretty high in math and it's very

237
01:50:54.320 --> 01:51:10.400
inquiry based. And so if kids are already pretty strong, it it it works with them. Um but if kids are coming to you a little bit behind and they have gaps, Savas is often over their head and very very challenging. Um and the program itself can be very intense and

238
01:51:10.400 --> 01:51:25.760
complicated for teachers, which sometimes we have newer teachers. We don't want a system that is preventing them from accessing it. U McGra Hill was rated time and time again as more in line with teachers accessibility and um

239
01:51:25.760 --> 01:51:41.440
the ratings were much higher as far as students who are a little bit below grade level getting them where they need to be and also providing that enrichment built in too. Um and I'll read you some statements from other schools here shortly. But um the smoother technology

240
01:51:41.440 --> 01:51:58.080
integration also weighed into our factor. So because we already have three core curriculums with McGraill, our technology department already knows how to do it. Um so it would be very easy to streamline this right in. It wouldn't be working with another curriculum provider trying to work out the PD trying to get

241
01:51:58.080 --> 01:52:13.599
it all set up. It would also be a lot easier for the kids. I already know how to get in to McGraill. I already know how my login works rather than okay, I go to McGra for everything but math and then I have a whole separate provider I have to go find. Um the PD is very good

242
01:52:13.599 --> 01:52:30.800
and it is built in to the quote and just today actually we had a PD with science that was amazing. Um and they come and do inerson training which is very very nice. So I'm a fan of the PD we've been getting with McGraill and again students are familiar with the program. So some

243
01:52:30.800 --> 01:52:47.119
of the feedback from the teachers and I won't read these to you but you can kind of see they really wanted something that had the Desmos calculator built in. Both McGrath and Savas have it. Um, Savas has it where it's more um I don't know if I want to say in

244
01:52:47.119 --> 01:53:03.599
depth, but McGra has it in the way that our students use it. So, for what we use it for, it's SAT and that is what the kids need to know and do. ZAS goes a little deeper into it and they don't really need all that depth. They really need to know how to use it for their math class

245
01:53:03.599 --> 01:53:21.199
and for SAT. Um it does have integrated data progress tracking and both have a intervention program. Um the one Alex is with McGraill and that is a program we actually tried to purchase before we ever were looking at math curriculum

246
01:53:21.199 --> 01:53:36.400
because we thought it would be so good for our students and it is built in to McGra Hills product. Um the one from SAS we've never used. it probably is good as well. But again, um, every everything said that that one was a little over

247
01:53:36.400 --> 01:53:53.119
kids heads. Um, our new teacher who we hired came in and actually went through both curriculums here in the district office and she said her quote is up there. Let me see if I can find it. Um, I reviewed the three curriculum choices this morning. Although they are all strong features, in my opinion, the

248
01:53:53.119 --> 01:54:09.360
McGraill is a clear choice. Um, I appreciate the easy formative assessment integration, personalized learning options. So, she was just blown away by that. Um, picked that one hands down. So, admin feedback. Um, it does provide

249
01:54:09.360 --> 01:54:26.159
the Desmos calculator. Um, it has a utility tool. Calculators embedded. Go ahead >> before you go on. What is Desmos? >> Uh, so it's the calculator that's built into the SAT test. So, it is a tool that pops up on their screen. You know, SAT

250
01:54:26.159 --> 01:54:42.400
is um digitized now. So, instead of having a handheld calculator, which the kids were very familiar with, now they had to get used to this online calculator and figure out all the tools that it does and the features. How do you graph with an online calculator? And so, it's a very specific type of online

251
01:54:42.400 --> 01:54:57.679
tool. And these curriculums both have it. So, the kids are familiar. It was a stumbling block the first year with SAT being digitized. Kids were like, I don't know how to use this calculator. can I please have the handheld one back? And we did provide it as an option, but that was a little cumbersome. So, this has

252
01:54:57.679 --> 01:55:12.639
that practice all year. So, we like that. Um, yeah. Um, how does each address improving math achievement? So, we highlighted the one that took the top for us and that was McGra Hill. Um, and

253
01:55:12.639 --> 01:55:29.679
so the gaps are present with our students and so we want something that can fill those gaps. the concepts in math build on each other. This one had a ton of data that showed it helps fill those gaps and doesn't widen the gaps whereas SAS was more for your upper

254
01:55:29.679 --> 01:55:45.520
level students who already are pretty successful with math. Um the root cause of our achievement. So this was one thing that we really focused on is you know what is the root cause of our our students being at 18% proficiency and how do we close that?

255
01:55:45.520 --> 01:56:01.440
And so again, we chose that McGra Hill because it has the remediation. It has safety nets and it has skills from pre-alggebra all the way up. Go ahead. >> Um, sorry to interrupt, but >> good, >> but um I I believe I read all those.

256
01:56:01.440 --> 01:56:16.719
Wasn't this included in the package? >> It is included. So if I if you've already read it, I'll just tell you the recommendation. >> Yeah. Can we jump questions? >> Absolutely. >> Let me tell you the cost. So yeah, if you've read this, I'm just going over what you already saw. So, I will show you this. I didn't make enough copies

257
01:56:16.719 --> 01:56:32.880
for everybody, but I'll highlight a couple points. So, another plus for McGraill is it is $23,000 cheaper for the three-year plan. Um, they do have a one-year plan, three-year plan, five-year plan and up. With all our other curriculum, we went with three years. You want to give it a good enough

258
01:56:32.880 --> 01:56:49.760
go, but you don't want to be locked in for so long and find out it's horrible, but you don't. A year is not enough. So, I'll show you these. Um but for the three-year for SAS it's $96,87. For uh McGraill it's $73,67

259
01:56:49.760 --> 01:57:06.159
and that's for algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2 for both and the um intervention program built in. McGraill also has the PD built in to that price and I'm not sure that SAS does. So I'll show you

260
01:57:06.159 --> 01:57:21.679
also pages of what's included and that is Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'm gonna let you answer ask me questions, but I'm going to pull up those quotes from the other schools that I found just so I can show you a little

261
01:57:21.679 --> 01:57:48.480
bit more that you didn't get to read. But if you want to ask me questions, I will answer. Here we go. I I do have one question. Um, in the future, um, if

262
01:57:48.480 --> 01:58:04.960
it it might be a possibility, uh, because a lot of schools, a lot of districts that I read about across the country are, um, stepping back from the tech used in schools and to include no

263
01:58:04.960 --> 01:58:21.119
more Chromebooks. >> Yeah. Um absolutely no cell phones. Um so um there's a lot of studies involved but anyway they're they're stepping back from that. Uh does the McGra Hill um provide the resources

264
01:58:21.119 --> 01:58:37.679
for that case where students if or the district adopted that kind of a policy where the students would not be hindered by using that. >> Correct. And that's actually one of the first reasons admin at least like McGraill a little bit more than SAS.

265
01:58:37.679 --> 01:58:55.199
Now, I did learn Savas has some printed option as well, but McGraill does have more capacity to do the printed work and the textbook work, not just the computerized work. And it also has more opportunity for teacher feedback instead of digital feedback where everything is

266
01:58:55.199 --> 01:59:12.320
just graded by the computer. And I think that's very important for kids to get. So, that was why McGraill had a little leg up for us over SAS. SAS does have some of that as an option, but McGra had Hill had more. So, yes, it does. >> Thank you. >> Yeah.

267
01:59:12.320 --> 01:59:29.119
>> Do you feel that McGraill also offers rigor to the more higher? >> Yes. >> I don't know if I said that well, but the higher students. So, it does offer that. >> It does and it is built in to where you can actually select each student and what level they need to be at for that.

268
01:59:29.119 --> 01:59:44.960
you can have the intervention or the enrichment set right to the student. So, we liked that as well. And it will give you data. So, once the student takes a assessment, let's say, it'll say here's some remediation or here's some advancement skills. And you can also

269
01:59:44.960 --> 02:00:01.840
select the depth of the questions, which we really liked. So, kid A could get a, you know, one sentence word problem. Kid B could get a paragraph word problem. And definitely work on, you know, all the gaps, not just for the low. Yep. >> Dr. Bonaface, could you t real quick on

270
02:00:01.840 --> 02:00:17.280
the instructional methodology of direct instruction versus inquiry based? >> Yes. So, another thing that we really like um is the direct instruction approach with math where the teacher is up at the board walking the stu students through some of the math doing some

271
02:00:17.280 --> 02:00:33.679
modeling, having kids come up to the board, working with them, and then turning them slightly loose but with that support. Then finally turning them a little bit more loose. That's the more direct teach model and that's McGra Hills model. SAS is the inquirybased and

272
02:00:33.679 --> 02:00:51.679
it's more of a let me present students with a problem let them grapple with it try to come to some sort of conceptual understanding and then I'll start teaching them if they don't understand and I don't think our students are quite ready for that model yet. um some are um

273
02:00:51.679 --> 02:01:08.560
but this has that built in if you need it but it is not the full teaching method of the program and that is what most of the teachers who were from the other schools said that the SAS was often way over the kids' heads and also very complicated for the teachers to

274
02:01:08.560 --> 02:01:24.639
teach and McGraill had a lot more positive reviews about how the direct teach worked, how the kids understood it and just the ease of the program itself for everybody. So, we don't want more work for our teachers or our kids.

275
02:01:24.639 --> 02:01:43.199
Yep. Oops. I'm gonna close the picture. Back back. Um, so one uh teacher from another school said, "SAS is awful unless you have advanced students. We switched to McGraill. I

276
02:01:43.199 --> 02:01:57.599
like it. In the Alex program, which is the intervention for McGraill, I can create assignments, tests online. Uh, it grades for us, but also lets me give feedback. All students have an individual learning path with choices.

277
02:01:57.599 --> 02:02:15.199
Um, so I liked that quote. Um, I've we've had McGraill in our district. I'm all for it. I make my own quizzes so students are able to get used to taking math tests, but also do paperbased tests. She bundles the lessons together

278
02:02:15.199 --> 02:02:32.639
to fit with her other SAT lessons. Um, she says she loves it. There's three versions of every exam, so she can do differentiation. She also can put vocabulary questions into her quizzes and she uses Alex as a gap filler and does extra lessons for kids who are

279
02:02:32.639 --> 02:02:48.480
higher. Um, another teacher wrote, "Don't do Savas. We were tricked into thinking their online platform was going to be amazing and it's not. their content is way above our students abilities and we have so many of the workbooks sitting around unused it's ridiculous and that's we don't want a

280
02:02:48.480 --> 02:03:08.639
curriculum that sits on the shelf and we have seen that before we want one that's in the kids' hands and actually usable so that's why we put McGraill a little above >> other questions all right thank you thank you >> thank you >> thank you

281
02:03:08.639 --> 02:03:26.639
>> um as far as the the motion on the floor. Um, we might need to revise that >> because what was stated was McGraill was not in it.

282
02:03:26.639 --> 02:03:43.280
>> Mr. chair. Um, it might be it might be quicker if we just uh have the vote on the uh motion that was incorrectly made, vote it down and then make a new motion >> because it it's it it's pretty much

283
02:03:43.280 --> 02:04:00.400
spelled out in the agenda. >> Yeah, but that's not what was read. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Our current motion on the floor is Director Blair recommends the board approve the math curriculum adoption. Yeah, that's not specific. >> Seconded by Director Hall.

284
02:04:00.400 --> 02:04:19.440
>> It may not be what you're reading. >> Yeah, >> it's not what's on the screen, >> right? That's the issue. >> Okay. >> So, we can go the way that director Lynch suggested. We can vote on this and then we can work on a different motion.

285
02:04:19.440 --> 02:04:54.520
>> So, the idea is to vote no >> because now available Thank you for clearing that. >> Director Hall, did you get a vote? How do you vote, sir? >> No.

286
02:04:54.960 --> 02:05:22.639
No. Motion fails. >> I move the board approve the McGra Hill proposal costing $73,6762. I second the motion. >> I wasn't done. >> I'm so sorry.

287
02:05:22.639 --> 02:05:38.320
Rawill >> from academic services budget for Monizuma Cortez high school math curriculum for 2026 2027. >> I second the motion. >> Sorry, I just realized there was

288
02:05:38.320 --> 02:06:08.360
>> Can you give me that amount of money again? 73,000 >> $6762 >> from the academic services budget for Monizuma Cortez High School math curriculum

289
02:06:08.400 --> 02:06:37.520
for 2026 2027 2026 2627 budget or 2627 school year. >> It just says 2627. >> It was the academic service budget >> for 2026 2027.

290
02:06:37.520 --> 02:06:55.199
Do you want me to email it to you? >> Which should it be? >> That's right. Okay. >> Nope. That's right. >> Um, who was my second? >> Thank you, ma'am. >> She gave you two seconds.

291
02:06:55.199 --> 02:07:20.000
>> I'm going to send for a vote. Please check that it is >> correct. >> She really likes math. It doesn't let you move it. >> Yeah, I think I believe the wording is correct.

292
02:07:20.000 --> 02:07:58.560
Does it look okay? Director Blair, did you get a vote? >> Oh, I thought I did. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> See if we can put it on the screen. Nope, we cannot. But it was unanimous.

293
02:07:58.960 --> 02:08:14.159
Okay, move on on to our next action item B. Uh, assignment salary schedule 20 26 through 2027. >> I move that we approve the assignment

294
02:08:14.159 --> 02:08:46.760
salary schedule for 2627. >> I second the motion. Okay, >> then we can open up to the board for any discussion. doesn't happen very often. Let's go. >> Online voting is now available.

295
02:09:00.320 --> 02:09:27.440
Motion passes 6 to one. Kim, will you hit refresh? Oh, there it goes. Next action item C, we have director executive director salary schedule 2627.

296
02:09:27.440 --> 02:09:55.280
This is to exclude health services. I'm move to approve the director executive director sorry schedule excluding director of health services. >> Do we have a second? >> Second.

297
02:09:55.280 --> 02:10:14.360
>> Okay. >> And then we can open up to the board. I'll just like to state that this one is this way so that director hall can vote. Um that's why we excluded the health services from everything else.

298
02:10:14.800 --> 02:10:31.280
>> So for discuss we have for discussion now. >> Yes. So for discussion I think we're still behind behind. Um, I I'm going to vote I'm going to vote to approve it because I I know they need their their contracts and their

299
02:10:31.280 --> 02:10:45.679
everything's coming up, but I really would like some more to it. I would like I would actually I I know what it sounds crazy, but I would really like it to be higher. Like I the $37 a day is a is at

300
02:10:45.679 --> 02:11:03.040
least the benchmark. um I for starting directors um especially the ones that are required to have educ they have employees they have respons big responsibilities um I think they

301
02:11:03.040 --> 02:11:19.679
need to get paid more. Um but I would hate to shut this one down and vote no and then now we're scrambling to now they're they're not getting a raise at all. Um, so I I really think we need to go still stay on the drawing board when

302
02:11:19.679 --> 02:11:46.079
it comes to this one and bring it back to us again. >> Any other comments, discussions for this? >> Not really sure how to say this, but I feel compelled to say something. Um when I had the opportunity to read the exit

303
02:11:46.079 --> 02:12:03.440
interviews and um some of the resignation letters, there seemed to be a common thread and our admin I think is um supposed to provide the support that these um

304
02:12:03.440 --> 02:12:20.560
um employees are asking for. So I personally would like to see improvement in that regard. And I would like to know what is going to be done with improving the communication with the staff um like a

305
02:12:20.560 --> 02:12:44.159
lot of those personnel um reports are showing because I know there's a lot of pressure on you know how are the teachers improving scores and doing things like

306
02:12:44.159 --> 02:13:10.840
that, but where's the support there um for them to be able to do that? So, if you'd like a raise, which I'm not opposed to, I would like to see improvement in that arena. Any other comments, discussion for this?

307
02:13:11.199 --> 02:14:08.079
Okay, let's proceed, please. Online voting's now available. Director Blair, did you get a popup? >> I did. >> Motion passes 6 to one. Next action item we have director of

308
02:14:08.079 --> 02:14:29.199
health services salary schedule for 2627. >> I move to approve the director of health services salary schedule for 2026 2027. I second the motion. >> And then we can open it up to the floor

309
02:14:29.199 --> 02:14:50.159
for any discussion, comments. >> Yeah, I'm not in support of this. um just for the reasons that I explained before, I think it would be difficult to recruit a quality health services director with that uh that salary given the amount of liability, certification,

310
02:14:50.159 --> 02:15:25.199
education and responsibility for that critical role. Any other comment discussion for this one? >> Okay, let's proceed. Online voting is now available. Director

311
02:15:25.199 --> 02:16:15.599
Hulk, can you abstain from this vote on your side? >> Does it show you that? Yeah, it has that as an option. goes down. Max motion fails. 4 to2

312
02:16:15.599 --> 02:17:02.319
that on the screen. >> Yeah. Two. Well, two to four. Next action item is E. Secondary online instructional model. I move to approve the secondary online instructional model. >> Do we have a second?

313
02:17:02.319 --> 02:17:36.639
>> I second. Okay. And then we can open it up to the board for any discussion or comments. So, I'm just curious. I think there was a there were some engagement nights that were held. um

314
02:17:36.639 --> 02:17:51.120
after our last meeting. Um and I'm just now seeing that the there was some information given. Um I'm just wondering how that feedback um was

315
02:17:51.120 --> 02:18:25.200
used to um adjust planning or adjust programs or adjust the proposal. I put some of my survey data hopefully in your packet. Um, we had one uh parent

316
02:18:25.200 --> 02:18:41.840
night and then we also have sent out three surveys. Um, one also went to parents who have withdrawn their students. We did not get as much feedback as I had hoped on them. Um, but we did the survey data we got and the turnout that we did have, which was a

317
02:18:41.840 --> 02:18:58.080
good turnout um, for high school events was all positive. Um, the feedback came back to us that people were excited. Um, several families were there who had withdrawn their student and they were asking questions about how do I sign my student back up? um they've asked for a

318
02:18:58.080 --> 02:19:15.040
registration night to come in and start getting help with which model to choose and how much of each things like that. So, we are putting together a proposal of registration nights um that are separate from our back to school night so that families can come in and get more information and pick the right path

319
02:19:15.040 --> 02:19:31.200
for their child. But um I put some of the responses into your packet and like I said there was a lot of positive and I think um some families are happy with the in-person model and they're happy to stay just the way they are and so that also was pretty evident. I don't think

320
02:19:31.200 --> 02:19:47.439
we will see a significant change. I think the families that want this will take it and the families who are happy with the way things are are just fine to keep going. Um, but from the families that want it, they were definitely excited. Um, and hopefully

321
02:19:47.439 --> 02:20:02.080
that'll prevent them from going to schools like, you know, goal and all those other online schools and they'll come back to us or stay with us. So, the the responses were positive and so I think it the only change for me is we will have those registration nights and

322
02:20:02.080 --> 02:20:18.640
help parents more with what to pick and then we're trying to make our library more of a fitting space to have kids in there getting support. So, the last time that you presented, you said that there was no staffing changes that were going to be happening um and that the existing

323
02:20:18.640 --> 02:20:35.439
I I may be remembering incorrectly, but the existing counselors would be the ones supporting >> correct >> um the online families. Um >> and you've and that's um you have sufficient support with your current

324
02:20:35.439 --> 02:20:50.880
counselors to do that. Okay. >> Yes. And like I said, so far the numbers are not showing to be big. Um, it's pretty minimal for the kids who I think want the >> you're talking about the totally online program. >> Totally online or even the blended. They

325
02:20:50.880 --> 02:21:07.840
there isn't a huge number. So, I don't think we're looking at oh my gosh, we're going to have a big problem to staff with the staff we have. I did request a few positions this year, but that was to support the overall school, not just this program. And so we definitely have the staff to to do this. Yes.

326
02:21:07.840 --> 02:21:24.000
>> And then what vendor are you using? That wasn't decided at the last presentation. >> CDLS is the vendor. Um I know we were still in talks about some parts of maybe another, but I don't know if that's still a thing between Drew and I or not. >> I can actually give an update on that.

327
02:21:24.000 --> 02:21:38.720
There was a there was a financial benefit to going with BYU, but I had a great conversation with Dan Morris, the executive director for CDLS, and they have a pricing model that they currently do with their K5 program, which instead

328
02:21:38.720 --> 02:21:55.439
of sorry, um which instead of being like $250 a course for their teachers teaching or 150 for our teachers teaching, which is substantially more than BYU, they would it would they would extend that that elementary model to the

329
02:21:55.439 --> 02:22:11.200
middle school model because they would be doing multiple courses. And uh Drew hasn't even heard this yet, but it would be about $175 per student for the year as opposed tound 150ish per kid per course times six

330
02:22:11.200 --> 02:22:27.200
classes for the year. So it it saves over $100,000 in in cost. Um, so that's the one of the other concerns is that BYU only went down to the seventh grade level. It did not go down to the sixth grade level and CDLS does. And so we

331
02:22:27.200 --> 02:22:45.120
could put it all under the same roof, so to speak, with CDLS. And so that that is the recommendation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening, board. I'll answer >> I got to go the opposite direction. Sorry. I'll answer the same question. And I do apologize. You didn't get any

332
02:22:45.120 --> 02:23:00.479
information from me when the request for this went out. I was unavailable. Um and so I did not get this in in time. But the data from our initial surveys you did receive in my last presentation. I also shared the uh some per her request. Uh Dr. Duet requested some of that

333
02:23:00.479 --> 02:23:15.760
information. I did share with her and I believe she shared that on with the board. Um from our last community night or excuse me our our um night that we presented to the community as a request of you all. We had about 50 people show up and we had a survey with 15

334
02:23:15.760 --> 02:23:32.240
individuals that responded. The bulk of the responses were no questions or just comments about they were excited. There was three questions um that came from that. One of them was general why does my student need to take online classes? Another was about um enrichment models

335
02:23:32.240 --> 02:23:47.600
in the traditional sense and another was about if students wanted to change models mid year. All three of those individuals we had the opportunity to communicate with that night. But what we're doing is taking those questions and as we kind of roll out and get prepared for in the same capacity as we

336
02:23:47.600 --> 02:24:03.520
get prepared for res uh registration, we're going to put that information with more complete answers to those questions to ensure that those things um are answered thoroughly as we go forward. Additionally, um we also asked again during that presentation just what the

337
02:24:03.520 --> 02:24:18.640
interests of the different models were and it was a little bit higher about 5% higher in the blended than it was in our initial survey. Um I do partially attribute that to the fact that I think that those are some of the people that came with more questions that night. Um

338
02:24:18.640 --> 02:24:38.560
but like I said, there was only 15 responses in there and so that's a pretty negligible response compared to others which was closer to 20% of our total population. So, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> Um, are students already signing up for

339
02:24:38.560 --> 02:24:55.120
these classes or when does registration happen? So it it's kind of tricky because what we can do is have them get surveys to try to get information on courses, but this is unique in the sense that we're having to work with parents to register for the models. And that can't happen

340
02:24:55.120 --> 02:25:12.399
until registration occurs. So what we did is at the end of the year, we sent out surveys to fifth grade, sixth grade, and seventh grade students to get interests in electives because that would be a good portion of it. But in terms of the the models, we can't do that until we do registration. If that

341
02:25:12.399 --> 02:25:26.560
makes sense. >> I just kind of heard second or third hand that a parent was upset that a middle school kid was signing up for online classes, but there might have just been a misunderstanding about what was being asked. It sounds like >> it would have been in regards to their

342
02:25:26.560 --> 02:25:42.960
electives because we're just the timeline for our counselors coming back and building those and we have to staff those and so for us to kind of try to get a bead, we got ahead. >> Okay. So it was just like an interest survey. Nobody >> and it did say that it was subject to change and that you know if there was need for that we could but it just kind

343
02:25:42.960 --> 02:25:59.280
of was for us to get ahead of the curve if we could. That was like third hand. So I don't >> And just for the information to the board, online registration will not open till July the 9th. >> And so we have an information sheet with different dates uh going out to the

344
02:25:59.280 --> 02:26:17.920
prayers this week in regard to uh registering or getting the kids ready for the next year. Uh it does that process require the parent parent or guardian input or can kids do that on their own?

345
02:26:17.920 --> 02:26:40.800
>> No, it requires a parent input. Yeah. >> Good. Um I just wonder if there is a plan to present an update to the board maybe mid semester on um you know some of the details that

346
02:26:40.800 --> 02:26:56.800
are not particularly well defined like actual enrollment um the actual funding um you know how much is coming in how much is going out and then also maybe a mid semester um

347
02:26:56.800 --> 02:27:12.880
um evaluation of particip with students and parents about you know how it's going and imagine you know you do something the first time there'll be modifications. Yes, we could do that. And it's

348
02:27:12.880 --> 02:27:28.640
dependent on what one of the later items about the uh board meeting meeting calendar revisions and so we can use one of those quarterly workshops to report all that information. So it can be before the semester. So

349
02:27:28.640 --> 02:27:45.399
>> um yeah, I mean it would be nice if we could just commit to having that at the October maybe at the October meeting. Would that be mid semester? >> It'll be before that. Uh >> okay. What's the first quarter of the board counter? >> I believe it's September. >> It'll be September.

350
02:27:46.800 --> 02:28:02.160
>> If I may, we actually discussed this with our team and had some conversations. It would be beneficial for us if the board would like to review and establish success of this model to understand what your success metrics would be so that we could have that information to kind of look at that

351
02:28:02.160 --> 02:28:18.720
ahead of time and maybe if we needed to get baseline assessments or anything like that, that would be appreciated. I probably would need help figuring out those metrics. >> The the only other piece is you mentioned the fiscal piece. Um after October one, we would be able to let you

352
02:28:18.720 --> 02:28:38.000
know which of those students enrolled in full-time or part-time online that were fundable. Uh we could we could report that out as well. >> Um Mr. Mr. Ramirez, the motion says the uh Mr. Ramirez recommends the board approve

353
02:28:38.000 --> 02:28:54.960
the secondary online instructional model. Is secondary referring just to the high school or is that referring to >> it's a middle school or the high school? >> It refers to middle school >> six through 12. >> Okay. So secondary just means an

354
02:28:54.960 --> 02:29:18.000
additional instructional model, not secondary school. >> The middle school and the high school are considered considered secondary. Okay. >> Any other questions, comments? >> Okay, let's proceed, please.

355
02:29:18.000 --> 02:30:08.640
>> Online voting is now available. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. >> Next action item F, we have the 2627 budget. Do we have a motion?

356
02:30:08.640 --> 02:30:34.880
>> I make a motion to approve the 20 2026 2027 budget. >> I second >> and then we can open it up to the to the board for discussion and comments. So, I warned everybody

357
02:30:34.880 --> 02:30:50.479
uh about the appropriation and I gave you the um the basis that I believe allow allowing us to set the allocation different than the entire um funds in

358
02:30:50.479 --> 02:31:06.960
the general account. Um, I sent out uh what was CASBY's um uh training from their manual and then what the uh CRS said there were several um several

359
02:31:06.960 --> 02:31:21.439
statutes that applied. But um my understanding of both those are that uh we are allowed to um allocate or appropriate

360
02:31:21.439 --> 02:31:38.720
um an amount to the budget and uh if we not typically a a a district allocates their entire revenue because they don't have anything else but revenue to draw on to pay bills.

361
02:31:38.720 --> 02:31:54.640
In our case, we have um some uh accumulated uh funds. I I forget what they're called, but it's basically um funds that have accumulated over time

362
02:31:54.640 --> 02:32:13.040
in the general account that um are above and beyond what we need in the budget. And so, um, what I'd like to do is allocate the amount of money necessary to meet the budget, not the entire

363
02:32:13.040 --> 02:32:30.240
budget, not I'm sorry, not the entire fund. And it's um it's a difference of about $23 million. So, it would be very easy. it would only um involve changing

364
02:32:30.240 --> 02:32:48.240
the this document in one place if I figured it out correctly. Um, and so, uh, I'd like I'm I'm gonna, uh, I'm I'm going to propose an amendment

365
02:32:48.240 --> 02:33:19.359
when the discussion is, uh, um, farther along and then you guys can decide if you want to go with the amendment or not. May I discuss some of the extra documents provided tonight? >> Yes, please. >> Um, so there were since we reviewed this at

366
02:33:19.359 --> 02:33:35.600
the work session, there were some slight changes in staffing. I seem to have overlooked some positions specifically um at the school level. So, those have been added. Um we did you know there were slight adjustments throughout. Um

367
02:33:35.600 --> 02:33:52.960
what I wanted to share tonight though some things that are new from prior discussions. The UBS or uniform budget summary document takes the entire budget by code by chart of accounts and breaks those into programs. So that's the five-page document. Um it separates you

368
02:33:52.960 --> 02:34:09.120
know from instructional program to admin uh to facilities um transportation and so on by fund. So you'll see there's a column for each fund from fund 10 all the way to 63 and then the rows represent the columns. So

369
02:34:09.120 --> 02:34:24.080
that's just another way to look at the budget that is required um by statute. So that's that's new um to tonight. I also tried to summarize that for you and show a chart. Um the pie chart is

370
02:34:24.080 --> 02:34:40.960
general fund and preschool fund uh broken down by program. Um I did not I failed to include the actual numbers but I did give the chart of accounts in the on the um pages two and three of the document. And if you want to take notes,

371
02:34:40.960 --> 02:34:56.160
um, if you look down at the table where it says instructional services, that is going to be anything up to program 2100 and then pupil services is 2100 and thereafter it increases by um each

372
02:34:56.160 --> 02:35:14.399
program increases by 100. So on this chart here, it'd be up to 2100 for instructional services and then 2100, 2200, 2,300 and so on. Then when you look at the um pages number two and three, I took

373
02:35:14.399 --> 02:35:29.520
snippets out of the CDE's chart of accounts that explains each program and then I gave bulleted items that apply to our district and what we have coded there just so you have an idea of how that um chart is made up. Ultimately,

374
02:35:29.520 --> 02:35:46.960
um 56% of our budget is going directly to instructional services. Um we have 5% going to pupil services. That is things like um that's our attendance, it's counseling, it's guidance, social

375
02:35:46.960 --> 02:36:03.600
work, um health services 2,200 or it's represented as instructional staff support includes um training, the library, special ed, instructional staff, um instructional technology.

376
02:36:03.600 --> 02:36:20.000
2300 is our general administration. That's really the board's budget, superintendent's budget, legal, audit, and election. Um 2400 is our school administration, so that's more that principal level and clerical staff at each of the schools.

377
02:36:20.000 --> 02:36:34.640
2500 um is our business services. Um operation and plant services is 2600. 2700 is our transportation. 2800 is support services, the central. So that

378
02:36:34.640 --> 02:36:52.000
includes things like HR, um, technology, information systems, planning, research and development. And then I did also include other services. That's 2900 that is primarily for um discretionary and um sick days

379
02:36:52.000 --> 02:37:07.120
for all of the staff. So that's kind of an oddball out there. It's challenging because all of these codes can be combined, the program codes can be combined in a number of ways. We tried to replicate how our auditors have done it in the past and I'm not exactly sure

380
02:37:07.120 --> 02:37:23.680
how they merged different things. Um, so what I did find is that the CDE's template or budget template and how they broke it out and that's what I've replicated here with our data. So that's a lot, but I know there have been some questions as far as, you know, how

381
02:37:23.680 --> 02:37:42.000
much of our budget is spent on each of these different programs. So, I've been asking since January for a breakdown of our purchased and support services. Um, I've also offered to collaborate with whoever was pulling that to make

382
02:37:42.000 --> 02:37:58.560
sure that it met what I was looking for since um I might not know how to ask for that. Um, back in February, I think I was given a very large document that was just pulled that also lists purchased and support

383
02:37:58.560 --> 02:38:15.920
services for in some cases for um, tens of thousands of dollars with no explanation of what vendor they went went to. Um, so I'm just curious. Um, I've said that's something that I needed um, in order to understand the budget.

384
02:38:15.920 --> 02:38:33.760
Um it is the board is initially we are the ones who are responsible for this. Um you guys make the recommendation but when we approve it it's on us. This is a lot of taxpayer money. Um so I'm just curious why I haven't gotten that information.

385
02:38:33.760 --> 02:38:49.040
Um so Mr. Schmidt is actively printing that document. I think the challenge has been just getting it in a format that is consolidated because we've had to pull it from so many different ways in different forms. Um, but he is printing that for you tonight. I know it's not time to review it ahead of time and I

386
02:38:49.040 --> 02:39:04.960
apologize that is coming. >> And that and that was created by pulling from different places because the software uh that we're not going to use after June 30th isn't conducive to that information pooling. But the new Skyward

387
02:39:04.960 --> 02:39:20.399
is and all the descriptors will have uh the consultant company or name of the consultant. So going forward from July one, you'll see that every month and you could see uh and that's just a movement

388
02:39:20.399 --> 02:40:10.880
to a more efficient financial software. So Skywalk that document that I just shared is just curriculum budget or things that are kind of adjacent to it or or combined with it. It's not all general funds. Some a lot of that is covered in title

389
02:40:10.880 --> 02:40:29.760
funds. Um, I think I had a a description that was incorrect on line eight. Intentional design solutions was purchase service not subscription extra out. >> Sorry. >> Yes.

390
02:40:29.760 --> 02:40:49.319
>> Does that also include architects, engineers, all the >> just academics? And this doesn't include professional development or professional or academic coaching or things like that.

391
02:40:55.200 --> 02:41:11.359
>> And and we're looking at Danielle at 2526. >> Um what he has prepared is 2526 and 2627 side by side. Is that what you're asking? >> No, I'm just asking the handout that they have. Is it the fiscal year 2526

392
02:41:11.359 --> 02:41:35.760
>> and 2627 >> and 26? Yes, but that's not >> so total for the 2526 is 486,457 and the total for 2627 is 68,619. And I'll say a large chunk of that um

393
02:41:35.760 --> 02:41:49.439
that increase is due to that math curriculum adoption. We had originally budgeted for it in 2526. We don't have the time to get it here. Um so that has been moved over to 2627. Um and then we've also added the online

394
02:41:49.439 --> 02:42:08.240
or blended learning um curriculum. If you look at the items that are highlighted in yellow, those are things that either did not carry over from last year to this coming year or this year till next year or the the cost changed um

395
02:42:08.240 --> 02:42:24.880
uh went I think one of them might have been left off that Dr. Arsen Romero that cost did change a little bit. Um the ones in green are new. Um, and there is one in green that we don't have a we don't have a price for, but it

396
02:42:24.880 --> 02:42:41.760
is professional development. Um, the items on the lefth hand side that we're consulting or PD related uh, intentional design solutions, Kitan Associates, um, are a couple of those. Um,

397
02:42:41.760 --> 02:42:56.640
Christian Northrup is another one. Dr. Arsenia Romero is another one. uh benchmark. There was a a component of that was that was professional development and there was a component a small component about 6,000. The rest

398
02:42:56.640 --> 02:43:16.160
was curriculum. But I do know that I want the board to know that I've reduced as much as possible for the 2526 that don't have to do with the major initiatives that we have like the NES or this online. The

399
02:43:16.160 --> 02:43:32.880
CDL CDLS also grew tremendously in summer school. We had over 239 students in uh CDLS courses in summer school. So while we talk about that it's limited in the number of what we really won't know

400
02:43:32.880 --> 02:43:48.800
the impact until they register for school uh for this coming school year and that's how you can see how CDLS has grown from the 2526 budget and then you look to the right for and I don't know that it has even uh it

401
02:43:48.800 --> 02:44:03.680
has 112 for middle school and that's correct Mr. Pearson had calculated that way early and provided that to me. I don't know that the 50,000 is going to be sufficient for 9 through 12. So I have involvement in this, but I'm also

402
02:44:03.680 --> 02:44:22.160
the filter and the gatekeeper of the consultants that we're uh cutting and what we're going to go forward. and I have to leverage not only the general op money, but the federal program application is due June the 30th. And

403
02:44:22.160 --> 02:44:39.200
that application hasn't been completed. And tomorrow I have a three-hour uh session with Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Popquist, the business office, Mrs. Bradford because that's another source or portion for some of these consultants.

404
02:44:39.200 --> 02:44:57.359
I am also uh in the workflow at Skyward to approve all purchases that go everything well it doesn't matter what department buys and how big I look at all the purchases and I have feel like I have to have that because I

405
02:44:57.359 --> 02:45:17.040
need to have control of uh where the district money is being spent and I have to be accountable to you the board and also the adoption so there's not any gray I appreciate getting this. Um I think if I had more time I would have more

406
02:45:17.040 --> 02:45:34.800
questions. So um I'm kind of last minute but thank you for providing it. Um >> and I'm still open to questions and even though we're at this point uh because that's why I asked for a copy of this right now. This is the first time I've

407
02:45:34.800 --> 02:45:51.600
seen it. Well, and and I wasn't planning on providing that today because it's still a little bit under development, but I I just kind of provided you with that so you could see there's a lot of the consultative and PD services that are cut. But I just was telling Danielle there's a mistake there. I put the I put

408
02:45:51.600 --> 02:46:08.640
the math curriculum adoption on this year's budget. I mean on next year's budget, but I didn't put it on the last year's budget even though it was there. It just got moved over. So there's there's still a little bit of work to be done on that, but I wanted you to have a visual of some of those things that were cut from last year to this year. Um, and

409
02:46:08.640 --> 02:46:25.760
some of the things that are different. I say last year this year, this year to next year is what I mean. I would just encourage us at the um at the administrative district level to um

410
02:46:25.760 --> 02:46:40.720
um consult with the people who are using these programs, our frontline staff um and find out which ones are um are useful, which ones aren't. Um which ones just duplicate what's already been done

411
02:46:40.720 --> 02:46:57.920
or what we already have. Um, you know, then that's what I'll be interested in seeing as we go forward. Um, I would love for this to be shared with teaching staff to see what, you know, what are you using? >> Go ahead.

412
02:46:57.920 --> 02:47:14.960
>> And I also think that for too long it hasn't been evaluated to see if it's effective. And so uh that's another process in our checklist of products that we use and involvement of the campus level is always important because

413
02:47:14.960 --> 02:47:53.040
they use it day in and day out and so we listen to what they have to say about its effectiveness. But I'm going to want to see data that shows the growth the achievement of uh increasing Any further questions, comments on this

414
02:47:53.040 --> 02:48:10.560
budget? >> Mr. Chair, I move to amend the motion by changing the text on the appropriation resolution fiscal year 2627 which is the first page after the table of contents.

415
02:48:10.560 --> 02:48:30.520
The text I would like to change is by um adding at the end of that first paragraph, except that the general fund appropriation shall be 13,716 uh 13,716,248

416
02:48:31.120 --> 02:48:59.760
instead of 36,716,248. And the total appropriation shall be 27,238,369 instead of 50,000 I mean 50,238,369. The numbers on the page that that were that are being referred to would change

417
02:48:59.760 --> 02:49:19.439
as well. Mr. President, if I ask a question of Mr. Lynch. >> Uh, I'll wait. >> Well, he's got a motion on the floor. >> I'll wait. Thank you. So, it hasn't been seconded. Yep. I'll wait. >> I'll second.

418
02:49:19.439 --> 02:49:36.479
>> Now we can open it up. >> Thank you, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Lynch, is is the amount of 13,616,248 equal to three months or four months operation of money?

419
02:49:36.479 --> 02:49:54.880
I do not know if that's equal to three months operation. What I did to come up with these numbers was I took the expenses of the budget and um uh subtracted them from the total um uh

420
02:49:54.880 --> 02:50:11.439
monies that are shown here as appropriated and it's a difference of about $23 million. Um the uh the three months of um um >> you said expenses operating exp.

421
02:50:11.439 --> 02:50:28.720
>> Yes, sorry. Yeah. So I don't know the answer to that question. That would be for Danielle. Danielle, >> I'm sorry Mr. Lynch. I am having a difficult time following where you got that 13 million from and I'm wondering if it's how I calculated appro appropriations originally. Um, are you

422
02:50:28.720 --> 02:50:42.640
saying the total general fund would be 13 million? >> I'm saying the appropriated amount from the general fund would be that number. >> So my recommendation would be at minimum

423
02:50:42.640 --> 02:51:01.240
to do all budgeted expenditures otherwise we are not able to spend the budget that is going to be approved. Um so my recommendation without any extra the um it would be a minimum of 29,372,999

424
02:51:02.640 --> 02:51:18.479
for general fund. If you look at just expenses when I originally calculated the appropriations there are some exceptions but the majority of them are one and a quarter p or 125% more or less. So I gave three

425
02:51:18.479 --> 02:51:33.840
months in addition to the overall budgeted expenditures. There were some funds where I could not do that. So it was actual expenditures um or 5% but generally it was an extra three months to carry us

426
02:51:33.840 --> 02:51:59.760
>> and the number that you came up with. Um if you look on the general fund summary page which is um page number four the total expenditures would be 29,372,999. I did take your guidance previously. I

427
02:51:59.760 --> 02:52:15.680
know there was concern about how we were doing appropriations in the past. So I tried to make it um get it closer to what our actual budget was this year. So that might have thrown off how you were calculating that. >> And so what happens is that about that

428
02:52:15.680 --> 02:52:31.760
those numbers are mix of general fund revenue and carryover >> to some degree. >> So how much is the carryover? Because if >> so the carryover what you want to look at there is on page number three the resolution to use beginning fund

429
02:52:31.760 --> 02:52:46.960
balance. Those amounts show what I am suggesting we take out of the fund balances. So there's sort of two separate things. Appropriations tells us how much we're allowed to spend for the whole year, right? >> And then the use of beginning fund balances is just what we can't cover with anticipated revenues.

430
02:52:46.960 --> 02:53:11.720
>> Correct. And so how much is that amount on >> for the general fund? It's $865,87. But of the carry over the three months that you make reference to, how much amount? How much? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Give me one moment to calculate

431
02:53:21.200 --> 02:53:41.520
um approximately 700 or sorry 7,343,000. So that's the amount of uh carryover that's being added to the revenue appropriations to come up with a total budget. >> So we're honoring the >> That seems low. >> That seems way low.

432
02:53:41.520 --> 02:53:58.160
>> 137. >> So that is just I may not be understanding you for three months. Three months of our operations is seven million. >> Okay. Yeah. That's different than what you said. Well, the seven million. >> Yeah. That's three months. Yeah.

433
02:53:58.160 --> 02:54:14.800
>> Versus the fund balance. >> They are two very different things. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The other is how much at the end of the year, if we receive all the revenues we're anticipating and spend to the full amount of expenditures we have budgeted, we will dip into our fund balance about $800,000.

434
02:54:14.800 --> 02:54:31.120
So that's different than >> Yes. >> the three months to carry. Yes. Which would be that 7 million. But the original discussion was to limit not put in all of the carryover into the budget and only and we came to an agreement of three or four months general

435
02:54:31.120 --> 02:54:46.479
>> right >> expenditures. >> So the appropriations for the most part where it was possible I did three months >> in addition there are some cases where we don't have that much in those specific fund balances. Um so like the bond for example I did 5% above but that's very calculated. We don't need

436
02:54:46.479 --> 02:55:01.760
any additionals >> right? Um, >> so if I understood what you said in the recent conversation is, um, from the entire year, we would only be dipping into the general fund with less than a

437
02:55:01.760 --> 02:55:16.880
million dollars, $800,000. Is that what you said or did I misunderstand? >> For about three months of operating, yes, that's Are you speaking at a prior meeting? >> No, what you just said. I thought you

438
02:55:16.880 --> 02:55:32.800
said you um uh we based on the budget and the revenue coming in and the expenses going out, we would only be dipping into the general fund um uh by about $800,000. >> That is correct. At year end, if everything goes according to plan,

439
02:55:32.800 --> 02:55:48.479
>> that Yeah. After all is said and done, >> that's a calculation. >> Yeah. So, we got So, basically, it's a it's a it would have been a negative budget by $800,000. >> That is correct. Correct. There are certain times in the year where we might be three million under. Yeah. Um just

440
02:55:48.479 --> 02:56:05.279
depending on how the revenue it flows in because it comes in in the spring. Um, however, yeah, the appropriations, the way they are set up as being presented is the full year's expenditures plus an additional three months, which would allow for like um inter fund loans to

441
02:56:05.279 --> 02:56:22.640
the federal fund pro uh federal funds for things of that cash plus an additional three months plus an additional 800. >> No, they're two separate things. I'm sorry. >> Um, >> is that what you're asking? So ultimately the appropriations could

442
02:56:22.640 --> 02:56:40.240
allow us potentially to spend that much more beyond what's budgeted. The auditor is going to check what we actually spent, what we receive in revenues, what we actually spent and make sure it does not exceed these appropriations. So in essence, which I think speaks to your concern, by doing the appropriations

443
02:56:40.240 --> 02:56:57.600
with an additional three months, that would allow us to take out 7 million from our fund balance. I only anticipate 800,000. >> Yeah. So, so there's a big discrepancy there between uh what I believe is not

444
02:56:57.600 --> 02:57:12.880
being used and what you're telling me is not being used. >> Right. >> So, that I didn't understand. So, you're saying that the seven a7 million is a threemonth operating value. >> Correct.

445
02:57:12.880 --> 02:57:29.520
>> And I would need to add that to the number I gave you. Not necess that is what I presented is with three months. If you want to take it down to actuals, I would request that you use the actual expenditures so that we can spend the full amount of money that is approved in the budget. So rather than 13 million,

446
02:57:29.520 --> 02:57:44.880
I'm not understanding where that 13 million comes in, but it should be that 29 million that is the general fund expenses. So this appropriation document the first page after the table of contents >> does not appropriate

447
02:57:44.880 --> 02:58:02.399
the total which is 50 million >> in the general fund. >> It it's the the total is the total of all the funds. >> That's correct. But up on top line number one a um well one is 36,716248.

448
02:58:02.399 --> 02:58:17.840
That is the total ex budgeted expenses of $29 million plus three months. So we would be cutting ourselves short being only able to spend a very small portion of our budget if we went to $13 million. We need it to be a minimum of 29

449
02:58:17.840 --> 02:58:35.120
million. I cannot we cannot spend more than what you appropriate here. So to make that less than our expenses would put us in a bind where we can't actually use our budget. Well, um, if if that condition were to arise, let's say we made a mistake today and we didn't get the

450
02:58:35.120 --> 02:58:51.359
number right. If that condition were to arise, the board could approve a supplemental appropriation to cover that mistake. Correct. >> Correct. I mean, we have until January 31st to do revisions as much as we want.

451
02:58:51.359 --> 02:59:06.560
Right. >> After that, you need to do the supplements. >> When you say general fund, do you mean the cash reserve or do you mean the general fund? No, it's it's called >> general fund is fund 10. Um so we have fund 10 which is general fund. That's the largest of our operations. We have

452
02:59:06.560 --> 02:59:23.760
18 which is um the risks. It's all like our property liabilities. >> We need to appropriate the entire budget for the year plus at least three months of the cash reserves. Is that what we're talking about? >> So that would be a recommendation. When

453
02:59:23.760 --> 02:59:40.720
I've worked with groups in the past, they recommend all of your revenues plus your fund balance. That's a little extreme, especially in our district. I think three months still is probably higher than we need. Okay. >> Um at minimum, I would just love to see the actual budget expenses. >> 36,000 comes from it's our entire budget

454
02:59:40.720 --> 02:59:58.000
for the year >> plus a threemon cushion from our cash reserve. >> And and so this may be a misunderstanding on my part. The general fund amount at 36.7 million includes the carryover which is like $23 million.

455
02:59:58.000 --> 03:00:14.160
>> It includes about 7 million of the carryover. >> So where is the carryover in this document? >> Um this particular document doesn't look at carryover. It doesn't break it out. That would be page number three. That is looking at the carryover or the fund

456
03:00:14.160 --> 03:00:32.160
balance. I'm sorry. So, page number three tells you how much of the fund balance this budget would allow us to spend. Page number one, and there they do contradict each other. If we truly did

457
03:00:32.160 --> 03:00:47.520
spend to this appropriation, then we are using more fund balance than I am suggesting. >> Well, we've done it in the past and we didn't spend it. But basically what we've done in the past is we've appropriated or given permission to

458
03:00:47.520 --> 03:01:05.200
spend everything that we have which is uh what I like to refer to as the checking account and the savings account. It's not supposed to be savings but it's it makes it easier for me to understand. >> Correct. So every year we appropriate

459
03:01:05.200 --> 03:01:20.080
the total amount even though we don't need to. But once you appropriate it, the district has the ability to spend that if they want to. They don't have to ask for board approval to spend more than the budget. They just go do it. And that's what I'm trying to get away from.

460
03:01:20.080 --> 03:01:37.520
>> Okay. So and I think probably part of where the com the confusion is coming from is sorry in the past that is absolutely how we have done it. How it is set up tonight is not all fund balance. It is three months of operations from the fund balance

461
03:01:37.520 --> 03:01:53.920
>> and we're not going to spend it. It's for cash flow because we don't get our federal draw down for about half a year. And so when we had bigger amounts of federal money with ESSER, that's why it was such a big amount of carryover uh to

462
03:01:53.920 --> 03:02:09.840
to carry us through those cash flow problems. And so if we but right now we're looking at probably of the carryover of that 7 million that we would we have a deficit budget of about 800,000 and that's what it would cover

463
03:02:09.840 --> 03:02:25.600
from the carryover not the 7 million the 7 million will get repaid back when we get the federal draw down we had a loan from the carryover to carry us through the federal expenditures. >> Yeah. So the part that I that I that

464
03:02:25.600 --> 03:02:40.479
doesn't make sense to me is the total appropriation is 50 50 million and that seems way out. >> So you are right. If it was 50 million for just the general fund that would be almost our full fund balance. Um if I were to have done this how I've done it

465
03:02:40.479 --> 03:02:56.000
in the past I would have had just for the general fund $53 million. But this document has every single fund. So, um, the general fund portion of it is just line one, that $36 million.

466
03:02:56.000 --> 03:03:11.760
>> So, that's what I'm saying. At least we need at least 29 million. The or the amount of the expenses in the budget. Otherwise, we have a budget approved that we can't really spend to. >> Yeah, I I agree. >> Okay. >> I agree with that. It's just um me wanting to get the numbers right for

467
03:03:11.760 --> 03:03:27.760
what is appropriated and what is available and making a distinction. >> Right. And that's the difference between the two documents. That page number three, >> yeah, >> I'm saying we are not spending more than 800,000 856,000 of our fund balance.

468
03:03:27.760 --> 03:03:43.600
>> And realistically, it's probably going to be much less than that once we get our grants in there and all. >> So that's what ends up happening. But how much is appropriated? >> So the full expenses plus three months of operating. So it is >> and that's and that's the 37. >> Correct.

469
03:03:43.600 --> 03:04:04.160
>> Okay. I didn't understand that. >> Sorry, it is confusing. Well, >> and we've done it differently. >> Finances. >> Okay. Um, so because the motion has been made and seconded, uh, I cannot withdraw it.

470
03:04:04.160 --> 03:04:20.520
>> We have to vote on it. >> Can you give it to me again? Do you have it written down up there? I just missed the numbers. >> Yes. Can I um send it to your >> That will work.

471
03:04:20.880 --> 03:04:37.720
What's your um Okay, I'm going to send it to what I have for you and you tell me if you get it. >> Okay. >> No, failed to send. >> Oh, wait a minute.

472
03:04:40.319 --> 03:04:56.560
I have airplane mode on. >> Okay, let me try one more time. >> Everybody, >> you get that summer cold that everybody got. >> So, is it when >> Thank you. >> two weeks worth. >> Two points.

473
03:04:56.560 --> 03:05:19.040
>> Two points. >> I don't know how to turn off the sound. I just got this phone. >> Danielle, aren't you glad that didn't sound before he started his questions? That would have been a little bit >> I mean, we could add sound effects. It would make it interesting.

474
03:05:19.040 --> 03:06:28.319
>> We should make it more fun. >> Kind of reminds me of the the sound they made uh over in England for the fox hunts. >> Yep. I was hoping you could cut and paste.

475
03:06:28.319 --> 03:07:45.680
>> Um, I cannot out of a text. Okay. Um, I have it. Are we ready to send that for a vote so we can confirm the wording? >> Mhm. >> Mr. Lynch, can you confirm the wording? Um,

476
03:07:45.680 --> 03:08:48.000
so after the word add >> to the text of the appropriation resolution, first paragraph. I'm going to resend that. That correct wording?

477
03:08:48.000 --> 03:09:24.720
>> That's the correct wording. >> Um, after appropriation, put in resolution. Okay. >> First paragraph. rescending. >> I think that gets it. >> Okay.

478
03:09:24.720 --> 03:09:58.800
Online voting is now available. >> So, we are voting no. >> Thank you for your reminder. Director Hall, did you get a vote? >> How do you vote, sir? >> Nay. Motion fails. >> All right. Then can we get a new motion?

479
03:09:58.800 --> 03:10:42.399
>> Actually, we have we can just >> Oh, yeah. That's the amendment. Sorry. Now we can vote on the original motion. >> Yes. Where did that go? >> I'm trying to get diligent to play nice. Online voting is now available for the original motion.

480
03:10:42.399 --> 03:11:01.279
>> That's not the right wording. >> Oh gosh. >> Sorry. >> What's different? >> You put in Mr. Morer's recommends. >> Oh, gotcha. >> That's how it it's always comes.

481
03:11:08.000 --> 03:11:30.560
resent it. You should have new wording. >> That looks better. >> Thank you. >> Motion passes unanimously. See if we can put that on the screen.

482
03:11:30.800 --> 03:12:05.359
Can you refresh? All right, continuing. All right, we're going to action item G, which is our emergency policy adoption IKF-E-1 to 2029 graduation requirements and

483
03:12:05.359 --> 03:12:39.920
policy IKF-e-1 2029 graduation requirements. I move that the board approve revisions to policy IKF-e-1 2026 graduation requirements for emergency adoption. >> I'll second

484
03:12:39.920 --> 03:12:58.640
>> 2029. That's a great question. >> Thank you. That is It should say, shouldn't it? >> No, it's for the graduates of 2029, >> but the the language here says 2029. >> Oh, I said the motion was 2026. Can I

485
03:12:58.640 --> 03:13:14.880
withdraw my motion? >> It's been seconded. >> Yeah, >> we're just too fast. >> You guys have just wanted to vote today. >> What you read was a typo on my part, I believe. I believe it should have said 29. Is that correct, Mr. Lynch? >> I believe so. Yeah.

486
03:13:14.880 --> 03:13:32.160
>> Can we correct that typo since it's my error? >> Well, we have it open. So, let's Any discussions, comments about this uh revision? >> Uh yes. Um so, under the policy for adopting uh or editing or uh creating

487
03:13:32.160 --> 03:13:48.000
policies, um there's a paragraph that says, "Under unusual circumstances, the board may temporarily approve a policy to meet emergency conditions. This emergency policy can be adopted in a single meeting when it is introduced. An emergency policy may not last longer

488
03:13:48.000 --> 03:14:03.600
than 90 days. However, the policy adoption process is required before the policy can be considered permanent. So, the um the emergency here is too much time has passed uh in developing this.

489
03:14:03.600 --> 03:14:21.520
there were several conversations about what it should be and what it could be and so now it's being needed for next year's um enroles and so it needs to be adopted quickly in preparation for the

490
03:14:21.520 --> 03:14:37.439
new students coming in and then the the process would be tonight we choose between two languages that are recommended in the policy And then after choosing which language

491
03:14:37.439 --> 03:14:56.040
to use, we adopt the policy uh under this emergency condition. And then we have uh uh and then after a certain amount of time before 90 days, we need to ratify that to make it become permanent. That would be the process.

492
03:14:56.800 --> 03:15:16.239
>> Dr. Bonafes, you had requested to speak. Yeah. >> Come on up. It's really high. Um, thank you for the opportunity. Um, I want to just give you a little history on this policy. So, several months ago, I met with the

493
03:15:16.239 --> 03:15:31.600
policy committee and we put together um what was approved in the graduation requirements and then I found a typo that I had made. Um, and that typo was in the graduation requirements. It said four math credits required, but down

494
03:15:31.600 --> 03:15:48.319
below it said career recommendations and I put three math credits required. That didn't make sense. It should have said four. They all have to match. You can't have a recommendation that is less than a requirement. And so that was when it came back to the drawing board and I

495
03:15:48.319 --> 03:16:05.760
wanted it to each one say four recommended or required. Um but then some more discussions happened at the policy committee level and I believe I could be wrong that now the re recommendation is to go to two and I will just advocate that again we still

496
03:16:05.760 --> 03:16:21.840
can't have recommendations that are less than the requirement and the reason we wanted four math credits um and we also didn't just have four math credits we also took away the specific classes so in our original requirements we stated

497
03:16:21.840 --> 03:16:36.640
algebra 1, geometry and algebra 2 were required for all students. Three math credits. Now we have fourth math credits required for all students, but it does not specify which classes. And so that does give students the ability to have

498
03:16:36.640 --> 03:16:52.560
some um deviation in what classes they take. However, we still recommend kids get through algebra 2 and that I don't know if my packet was linked in your board docs. Was it? Okay. There are various very important reasons that kids

499
03:16:52.560 --> 03:17:07.359
need to get algebra 2 and one of the primary I feel is that 30% of the SAT content is algebra 2. So if we have recommendations and many of our students not taking algebra 2, we might as well

500
03:17:07.359 --> 03:17:22.720
opt them out of SAT because they will not be ready for it. So, we really need to promote algebra 2 and give kids the tools, scaffolds, curriculum, and support so they can take it and pass it and be ready for SAT. And we also don't

501
03:17:22.720 --> 03:17:39.760
want to have preconceived notions of what our students are or have the ability to be. Um, many students, I have one primary example who I worked with very closely his senior year, but since freshman year, he never thought he was going to go to college. Nope, college is not for me. I am not the kind of kid who

502
03:17:39.760 --> 03:17:56.479
can go to college. and he is going to college this next year. Um, but he never thought he could. If he hadn't taken the math classes he needed, he would have been spending more money. He would had to take remedial classes because kids don't always know what they are going to do in the future. But we want to say

503
03:17:56.479 --> 03:18:13.120
every kid is able and ready to go to college coming out of MCHS. If we say two math credits are recommended, we're not even up with other high schools in any any city in Colorado and most other states. Um the research I found was

504
03:18:13.120 --> 03:18:29.040
three minimum four most of the time. And so I would encourage you to go back to the original um approved graduation requirements, which was four, but just fix my typo where they say four, four, four. Um but

505
03:18:29.040 --> 03:18:48.640
definitely don't drop to two. Please. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, you have questions. >> Oh, why is this for um 28 29? >> So, we every group of kids has to be on the requirements that they had as

506
03:18:48.640 --> 03:19:02.479
freshmen. >> And so that is why these requirements would be for the incoming freshmen only because everybody else is on the old requirements. Actually, I think it's 28. Anyway, I'm gonna get my >> So, where does 2029 come in?

507
03:19:02.479 --> 03:19:19.760
>> 2029 is for next year. Am I right? Help me out with my math. Who is >> It would be 2030. >> So, this was a correction of your policy that applied to the 2029 class, which is this year's freshman. >> Thank you. >> Next year's freshman is 2030. >> Yes, I was having math issues, but

508
03:19:19.760 --> 03:19:36.000
because we approved it in the past, found the typo later, it got a little messy. >> Okay. >> Yep. So, is it still for 2029? >> It is still for 2029. >> So, the 20 the 2029 class >> basically just had a typo. >> Yes.

509
03:19:36.000 --> 03:19:52.720
>> In in the requirements that said three credit hours even though at above it said four credit hours. >> Correct. >> And we need to just revise that typo. >> That's what I'm asking to just revise that typo. >> Is that the only class that it's impacting? >> It will impact and then the future. Yes.

510
03:19:52.720 --> 03:20:08.880
And we still put in our handbook even though they are on old graduation requirements. We recommend they do this same model because it is what the higher education commission requests. It also if you looked in here the NCAA to be able to play division one sports. It

511
03:20:08.880 --> 03:20:25.120
requires you to have certain number of math credits. Um we want those kids to have those um possibilities and not come into these roadblocks later in life. So we did put in our handbook to go to these ones. Also, same with foreign language. Very important.

512
03:20:25.120 --> 03:20:40.319
>> So, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's more edits here than just the numbers of credits. I thought that in the conversations between the policy committee and you and your staff that

513
03:20:40.319 --> 03:20:55.840
everything that is in red are what you agreed would be good changes. You know, one of the one of the examples is that um uh before certain classes

514
03:20:55.840 --> 03:21:11.680
were named in the policy and so that would require that every time that class was dropped for and another one put in the policy would have to be changed. So the >> yes >> the suggestion was to take out names of

515
03:21:11.680 --> 03:21:27.840
particular classes and actually just make it more generic so that it's chosen between the counselor and the student >> are do you agree that the things that are in red are things that you and the

516
03:21:27.840 --> 03:21:45.359
policy committee um agreed on as far as changes? >> Yes, taking out those specific classes was very important. So yes, those still stand. And you did bring up a good point. So one other change we requested to make that was not I don't believe

517
03:21:45.359 --> 03:22:02.080
part of the original policy um request was also to put IAP as a graduation requirement. Um that is important because it is actually a graduation requirement through the state, but we didn't list it on our graduation requirements. Um and we also didn't have

518
03:22:02.080 --> 03:22:19.439
it as a credit or a grade. So kids did not take it seriously. So we were requesting to have that as um part of our graduation requirements as well. So that was a addition in red at least in my original ask. It's in the handbook.

519
03:22:19.439 --> 03:22:44.319
>> So in the process that got missed. >> Ah okay. So >> because I don't I don't see the IAP anywhere. I read it somewhere. >> Is that still on page one of I was like I don't know what

520
03:22:44.319 --> 03:23:03.760
>> Yeah. I was like I don't know IAP is >> career >> where is it at? >> So So with the IAP it's not uncommon for for high schools to not have that in their graduation requirements. It is a requirement that all kids have an IAP. It's not a requirement that an IAP be a

521
03:23:03.760 --> 03:23:20.000
class for credit. What Dr. Bonavves is trying to rectify is that when it's not a class for credit, kids won't do the work associated with it. So, she's trying to incentivize doing that. >> Yes, >> it would be like a pass fail credit. It wouldn't be GPA bearing and it would be very minimal in terms of number of

522
03:23:20.000 --> 03:23:35.439
credits, like an eighth of a credit per semester or something like that or a quarter credit per semester. I forget what the math is, but in four years it equals like maybe one credit. But that's what she's trying to fix >> the goal. And I presented about this back when I I did the big presentation

523
03:23:35.439 --> 03:23:52.160
with all of our changes, but they will all have a portfolio with their high school career as their IAP. So all of them will have a demonstration of learning through high school that meets this standard and that is what the credit is for. And it is one credit over

524
03:23:52.160 --> 03:24:08.399
their four years. Um, but it is important. We have found we have not had success with IAP without it having that credit or being part of our requirements. And even this year, we preached it to kids. You have to have this done. It's in your Zello. You have

525
03:24:08.399 --> 03:24:24.239
to have it done. We had seniors going, "Wait, what now?" Even though we told them, teachers told them, but now if it's in their actual credit requirement, they have to do it and not wait till the last minute. And we want it to be meaningful. they can save their Zello clear into college, clear into their

526
03:24:24.239 --> 03:24:42.479
career, house their resume, house their college applications, all of it. And so it's really important to have it as part of their scope. Yeah. >> Okay. So, it's missing the IAP that uh correct.

527
03:24:42.479 --> 03:24:58.080
>> I don't know how that happened in between >> one of those transitions, >> the back and forth emails. I don't know how that happened, but it's missing the IAP. >> So, you would like to see that added, >> correct? >> And then the other the other um part of

528
03:24:58.080 --> 03:25:13.680
this that the board needs to decide is um the difference between what uh Dr. Bonifas and her staff are recommending and the what the policy committee is recommending. and the policy committee's

529
03:25:13.680 --> 03:25:30.319
text is in blue and and so those the blue text is a choice that should be uh made by the board whether you adopt the blue text or the red. So the first place you see that is the careerbound

530
03:25:30.319 --> 03:25:45.520
recommendations are four from Dr. Bonaface and staff and two by the policy committee. Now I want to explain that uh why would the policy committee have anything to say about this? I before

531
03:25:45.520 --> 03:26:02.399
this year I would have uh not uh looked twice but uh jumped at whatever was being recommended by the staff that that sounded good to me. But just this spring I read several books more than one by

532
03:26:02.399 --> 03:26:19.680
Temple Grandon. She has autism. She uh grew up uh in in uh with autism and she was a severe case of autism. And she writes about how she believes and she

533
03:26:19.680 --> 03:26:37.279
preaches everywhere she goes that the school systems are screening out kids who have aut uh strong autism traits. Why is that? Well, because kids with strong autism, they actually think

534
03:26:37.279 --> 03:26:53.760
differently. Temple Grandon thinks in pictures. So when you talk about shoes, all of a sudden every every picture of shoes that she has ever seen in her entire life

535
03:26:53.760 --> 03:27:08.399
pops into her head. So she can talk about shoes. The problem is she could not pass algebra one or two. Why is that? She describes the reason as being because

536
03:27:08.399 --> 03:27:25.439
when you're a visual thinker, you can't um you you don't have the ability to um think in abstract terms. And algebra 2 especially is abstract. She had no chance. there was no way she was going

537
03:27:25.439 --> 03:27:41.120
to uh pass uh algebra 2. Well, she went and got uh she went up through a different path. She ended up being the a professor a professor at Colorado um CSU in Colorado.

538
03:27:41.120 --> 03:27:56.880
She she has written several books. She's written many many articles in the a industry where she is known for uh working with uh cattle and and um uh proper handling and so on and so forth. Anyway, she's very successful, but this

539
03:27:56.880 --> 03:28:10.399
is one of her pet peeves is that autistic kids are being screened out of graduation because they're being told they have to take algebra 1 and algebra 2. And

540
03:28:10.399 --> 03:28:28.800
so the policy committee believed that uh it was unfair to screen out automatically any kids who were not able to pass algebra 1 and algebra 2. So that was the purpose of reducing the credits

541
03:28:28.800 --> 03:28:44.880
by two by the policy committee because then they can they they do not have that thing keeping them from graduating. And the language below is kind of a support of the same idea. Now what should they

542
03:28:44.880 --> 03:29:00.239
learn? First of all there's two sides to this page this first page here. There's a collegebound and there's a careerbound. Careerbound is not collegebound. The policy committee thought that if we're

543
03:29:00.239 --> 03:29:17.920
going to have a collegebound, then sure, four credits are great. Algebra 1, algebra 2 are great. But if you're not collegebound, then why are you choosing uh uh math that is required in order to get into college? If your if your choice

544
03:29:17.920 --> 03:29:33.120
if your family's choice for you is that you're not going to go to college, then why are you making that a burden on them as well? And then uh the the correct me if I'm wrong, but the

545
03:29:33.120 --> 03:29:50.080
the idea the purpose was well what if they change their mind after they graduate? >> That's part of it. >> So they can change their mind. They don't have to have four credits. they can get the two and then they can graduate and then they can change their mind and want to go to college. How do

546
03:29:50.080 --> 03:30:05.760
they get the other two credits? They have to get some other courses before they enter into college. That's not such a hard thing. So that's why the policy committee believed that it was better to change this. And uh I know this is a lot of information and it's hard to grapple

547
03:30:05.760 --> 03:30:20.239
with in one night. You don't have time to think about it and so on and so forth. The safe thing would be to go with uh Dr. Bonafac's staff and do what they uh approve. But this is the policies committee policy committee's

548
03:30:20.239 --> 03:30:36.479
attempt to account for autistic kids. And my understanding is not every autistic kid has an IEP. If they if they did, that would be one way to handle this because your I the IEP dominates everything.

549
03:30:36.479 --> 03:30:52.560
>> Well, I think the policy committee left off some important factors. So, one of the reasons we went to four, but we changed the language from saying algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2, was for that very reason you're speaking about. There are kids who who don't do well in

550
03:30:52.560 --> 03:31:08.560
algebra 2, not just autistic students, but that's why they can choose business math with this model. They can choose vocational geometry with this model. They're not locked into course titles, but they are locked into four math credits. And the reason I still say that's important for all students, they

551
03:31:08.560 --> 03:31:24.880
don't have to take any classes after high school. We've prepared them because if you ask any career place job, they want people who know math. Whether you work at McDonald's, whether you're an electrician, whether you do HVAC, you need some math skills.

552
03:31:24.880 --> 03:31:39.439
And so for that student, sure, you can set up with your counselor. I want to be an electrician. I don't want to go to college, so I might not need algebra, too, but I need business math. And so that accounts for those students. And I would argue that while some autistic

553
03:31:39.439 --> 03:31:55.200
kids can't do math or algebra, um there are research studies that say they actually are exceeding in math. Depends on what type of autism they have. Um and IEPs do make up most students who have a disability have an IEP and it is our

554
03:31:55.200 --> 03:32:09.760
responsibility to catch those if they don't. Um some parents will opt their kid out of an IEP. That's fair. Um, but we also still have an obligation in my mind as a school to help that student meet their needs and still get their

555
03:32:09.760 --> 03:32:25.520
credits. So, I still think two limits our students and four, they have the ability to take options. They're not locked into algebra 2, we can highly encourage them, but if they're not well suited, business, math is there, other options are there. So, that is why I

556
03:32:25.520 --> 03:32:44.160
still recommend four with the language being open-ended. >> Dr. Bonaface, can I add one thing? >> Yep. If there is a student that has a disability that prevents them from being able to be successful in an algebra 2 class, the IEP team has the ability to

557
03:32:44.160 --> 03:32:58.960
create that exception within the IEP to substitute that class for a class that's more appropriate. So, they would not be required necessarily. I can't presuppose what an IP team's going to say, but they would not necessarily be required to take an algebra 2 class if the

558
03:32:58.960 --> 03:33:14.640
disability that was being considered supported that uh supported them not taking that class. >> That's very correct. And we do have a lot of students who take foundations of math as their graduation required math class. So it is not absolutely locked

559
03:33:14.640 --> 03:33:30.640
in. They have to have algebra 2 as the title. Um, also we have interventions for the first time in our schedule. Those students will have help if they're struggling with math like they've never had before. So, I'm very excited for that. If we have a student who really does want algebra 2 and just struggles,

560
03:33:30.640 --> 03:33:45.840
they can take an intervention at the same time and get double the sport. So again, I will recommend that we go with four, but with the open-ended, kids have options with their IEP, with business, math, vocational geometry, other options as needed, and every student can be

561
03:33:45.840 --> 03:34:01.359
successful. >> So, the last thing to address what uh Justin was saying, uh yeah, that that works because the IEP rules. uh but if they don't have an IEP, if

562
03:34:01.359 --> 03:34:18.160
they have not been identified as having uh a disability, then they don't get the benefit of an IEP. So, they're stuck with whatever we write here. And uh therefore the the policy committee felt like the some of those kids are going to

563
03:34:18.160 --> 03:34:34.479
be screened out automatically even though they do not have the ability the the me the mental capability to pass algebra 2, >> but they will have options with other math classes. They they don't have to take algebra 2 if they don't have an

564
03:34:34.479 --> 03:34:51.120
IEP. They have the other options of like I said business math, other types they have online now if they truly want it. math three, high school math, um math for business. There are a lot of types of math they can take and you can speak to some of that.

565
03:34:51.120 --> 03:35:05.840
>> Come on. >> Um we start um any student on an IEP, we start that transition programming by the age of 15. So that is part of the requirements we have to start planning for with students um as as part of that

566
03:35:05.840 --> 03:35:22.319
process. And then our hopes is with our MTSS systems that we are catching those skill gaps those skill gaps um early to identify the needs of students and hope that we can provide those interventions. MTSS

567
03:35:22.319 --> 03:35:39.200
isn't a fast track to special education. It's to um prevent us from going there but providing those interventions um early on. Um there was also an interesting article that um Dr. or Superintendent Ramirez sent um from the

568
03:35:39.200 --> 03:35:56.640
Office of Special Education um so OEP, Office of Special Education Programs talking about this directly that um schools across the nation have decreased or lowered the standards for graduation for special education students and how

569
03:35:56.640 --> 03:36:12.720
that's um to their detriment. And so really focusing on what our standards are, what our requirements are um and making sure that we're providing access for students and really targeting that um aspect of um leveling the playing

570
03:36:12.720 --> 03:36:30.800
field or um helping provide the resources that they need to be successful. >> Yeah. And and the policy committee is not restricting access. they can take as many math classes as they want and that they're able to take

571
03:36:30.800 --> 03:36:48.160
if they are able that that's not here. This here is the what's the bar that they have to get over in order to graduate and that was the concern of the policy committee. Anyway, um thank you so much for your input and and answering our questions. Uh I've probably belored

572
03:36:48.160 --> 03:37:04.560
this too much. Uh it it uh it should be easy for the pol for the board um uh to go with um either Dr. Bonaface and the staff's uh uh the red let me say just

573
03:37:04.560 --> 03:37:21.359
the red text or the blue text. >> Mr. Lynch, did you make a a note that there is some wording missing regarding IAP? >> I did not. >> Oh, okay. We need to add that

574
03:37:21.359 --> 03:37:41.200
>> the um uh the motion can be amended to for the policy to include the ICAP requirement. >> Do is it something that's missing from the chart or is it wording that's

575
03:37:41.200 --> 03:37:58.080
missing in the paragraphs? >> Both. >> From what I just saw wasn't on the most recent draft, but I think our back was lost somewhere. >> Okay. >> I can send it to you. Oops. I had it on

576
03:37:58.080 --> 03:38:14.000
my computer. >> Is it something that could be included in the non-emergency version? >> Oh, that's right. >> Because we have to redo this policy if we adopt it for emergencies. Is that >> That's correct. >> Okay. it can be done and that way that

577
03:38:14.000 --> 03:38:30.160
gives us time to get it right and there's no mis there's no misunderstandings. It'll be the way it ought to be and we don't have to get mixed up with text changes and and motions and all kinds of >> problems. So I like Thank you. That's a very good idea.

578
03:38:30.160 --> 03:38:47.120
>> All right. So, President Shamway, I think our motion that's on the table doesn't tell us if the board is selecting the red text or the blue text. >> Correct. I move to amend the motion to approve

579
03:38:47.120 --> 03:39:35.439
the red text. I second the motion. I noted director Dit moves to amend the motion to approve the version with red text. Is that what you said? >> Yeah. And then we're just voting on that

580
03:39:35.439 --> 03:40:05.120
amendment. >> Yeah. This is just for the amendment. Yes. >> Okay. >> This vote should be just next to me, right? >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Is that the correct wording? Yes.

581
03:40:05.120 --> 03:42:44.239
>> Okay. Online voting is now available. Motion passes 6 to one. Ready for the real motion now? Online voting is now available. Please check the wording. Oh, we did not address the should say

582
03:42:44.239 --> 03:43:05.120
2029, >> right? >> So, shall we vote this down and do this? >> I think it's a technical in regard to Roberts. I believe that would be a a technical change and if you

583
03:43:05.120 --> 03:43:21.600
can change it that would be I would not be opposed to that. >> No. >> It's your motion. Do you approve changing? >> Please do. >> Thank you. >> I am going to resend. Sorry for that error. That just makes everybody stay

584
03:43:21.600 --> 03:43:56.720
here longer. >> Okay. Please check the wording and online voting is available. Motion passes unanimously. All right. On to action item H. We have the letter of support for city of Cortez

585
03:43:56.720 --> 03:44:22.399
Park Village housing project. >> Uh I move that the board approve the signing of a letter of support for the city of Cortez Park Village on 7th housing project. >> I second. >> Open that up. Do we have any discussion

586
03:44:22.399 --> 03:44:39.760
comments for this one? >> So, um I I fully support uh additional housing for um people who are from our county and um knowing that it would help

587
03:44:39.760 --> 03:44:56.319
uh residents of our county. I I know it's a need. Uh but in terms of what's happened in Cortez's past, um uh there have been projects where um the county

588
03:44:56.319 --> 03:45:14.520
did not benefit. Um it were it was people who were brought in from outside our county. And so because of that, I am not in support of supporting the city of Cortez on this project.

589
03:45:17.439 --> 03:45:32.640
I I think there's clearly a need for more affordable housing in the city. Um I don't think we can specify who moves into that, but you know, we are looking at um dropping enrollment. So, you know,

590
03:45:32.640 --> 03:45:47.920
anything that makes housing more affordable for families or brings teachers in. Um, you know, if we can have affordable housing for teachers, I don't care if they're coming from Denwear or somewhere else. Um, that's great. You know, there's no guarantee that it'll be available, but I think,

591
03:45:47.920 --> 03:46:06.000
you know, the more affordable housing, the better for our our families and our staff. >> Just another comment. Um, Mr. Romeirez and I attended a u a lunch meeting uh

592
03:46:06.000 --> 03:46:24.560
over at the Cortez uh chamber um where affordable housing was discussed. uh it was a couple hours I don't remember but um the reason we were in attendance is because the district was looking for a

593
03:46:24.560 --> 03:46:44.319
way to get a housing affordable housing for staff in in particular teachers and we thought that that was they were going to have the answer but what I found out was that um because of uh the um

594
03:46:44.319 --> 03:47:01.359
government uh rules. Um and if you get money from a government office like the Colorado Affordable Housing or whatever, uh then you have to follow those rules. And those rules say that you cannot

595
03:47:01.359 --> 03:47:18.239
discriminate between residents who apply. It doesn't matter where they're from, you can let them in. and you cannot designate affordable housing strictly for the staff. Um, I

596
03:47:18.239 --> 03:47:36.319
believe those rules apply to uh projects that um where your where your funding comes from particular places. And I think I'm not sure, but I think it's when it's either from the federal government or the state government, then

597
03:47:36.319 --> 03:47:51.120
you kind of exclude yourself from from being able to reserve that housing for whether it's u school staff or a company staff or whatever, but you can do it through private sources or other

598
03:47:51.120 --> 03:48:07.199
sources, grant sources. And so um uh that that was one of the one of the uh hurdles that we found out we could not get over. Um there were districts in

599
03:48:07.199 --> 03:48:24.000
other places in the state who were figuring out ways to set up housing particularly set aside for staff. And that's what we wanted to do. And um that's that's kind of how I came across this this subject.

600
03:48:24.000 --> 03:48:42.800
But uh along with a couple projects that have happened in Cortez that um I believe didn't really turn out very well. >> Any other comments? An alternate um approach could possibly

601
03:48:42.800 --> 03:49:05.239
be to strengthen um the roles that are available in our community for in for teaching and staff and to offer them a good living wage so we don't have to house them. Let's proceed.

602
03:49:05.520 --> 03:49:50.960
Online voting is now available. Motion passes six to one. All right. And action item I, we have the 2627 board meeting calendar revisions. I moved to approve the board revisions referenced

603
03:49:50.960 --> 03:50:11.680
in the attachment. >> Can you repeat your motion? >> Actually, I just better motion than that. >> I couldn't hear you. >> Can I? >> There's We have two options there. >> I'm sorry. >> It was the one It was the draft I was

604
03:50:11.680 --> 03:50:25.120
looking at. Go ahead. Go ahead. You move. You do. >> Are you sure? Because I might watch it differently than you did. Oh, go ahead then. I won't second it. >> Um, oh, wait. No, I'm not sure. >> I was looking. >> Okay.

605
03:50:25.120 --> 03:50:47.680
>> Um, I move that the board approve uh draft two of the revised board meeting calendar. You need to say the year >> is what

606
03:50:47.680 --> 03:51:06.680
>> does it need to include the years? >> Does your motion need to include the years? >> Okay. Well, can I say it again? >> Nobody seconded it. So, you can change it. >> Okay. >> We slowed it down. Good job.

607
03:51:08.399 --> 03:51:27.520
>> So, I just want to make sure I'm looking at the one that I wanted to order. Okay. Uh, I recommend that the board approve revisions uh for draft two of the 2026 2027

608
03:51:27.520 --> 03:51:53.920
revised Monizuma Cortez School District board meeting calendar. >> I second. All right. So, we have a second, so we can open it up to the board uh for comments and discussion. >> Guess my first question was, were there

609
03:51:53.920 --> 03:52:10.960
any differences in draft two from what we already have or is that the same? >> That's a good question. >> July, >> was it July? >> I think it was just July is the one that he was talking about at work session. No work session in July.

610
03:52:10.960 --> 03:52:27.359
>> Draft two is just has the change of there's no work session in July, but it adds one in June. Previously, you had not >> Okay. >> planned to have one in June. >> And then for Oh, okay. So, the red is the changes.

611
03:52:27.359 --> 03:52:42.640
You added the CASBY conference. >> Oh, and I did change the staff appreciation event. >> Okay. >> Because I got information. >> You must have added the first and last day of school and graduation. Okay. But other than that, >> colors may have changed too because when we printed these, we couldn't see the

612
03:52:42.640 --> 03:53:02.720
work sessions on our counters. >> Thank you. >> Um I'm okay with either one actually. The just I can make monthly work sessions or we I can make quarterly work sessions, but if it works better for you

613
03:53:02.720 --> 03:53:23.600
guys to only do quarterly work sessions, I'm fine with that. One every three months. >> Mhm. >> How long are those going to be? >> Yeah, they would. >> I think they'd be more targeted. Um

614
03:53:23.600 --> 03:53:38.800
because right now the way we have it set up is the work sessions feed into our general session. Uh a lot of information prior. Um maybe Mr. Ramirez can speak to the quarterly one a little bit more, but

615
03:53:38.800 --> 03:53:58.399
that one would be I think it wouldn't feed so much into the general, but it would be more I don't know specialized I guess on topics. I'm I'm not opposed to that option two, but the issue is that I don't see the

616
03:53:58.399 --> 03:54:15.760
progress of the investment of time in the work session uh to speed up the regular meeting. So, it seems like the regular meeting and the work session are belaboring the same points longer. uh I try to tie option one to the board

617
03:54:15.760 --> 03:54:36.800
strategic plan about quarterly self- evaluations that the board is uh committed to do and uh so I just wanted to offer options for both and I have a personal uh not a personal but a

618
03:54:36.800 --> 03:54:54.640
a desire to be more efficient uh with our time to at the office level for support at the campus that sometimes I can't get to there because of the two meetings every month and the length of time for the agenda uh in in both

619
03:54:54.640 --> 03:55:11.120
meetings. So I mean the meetings are okay but we're just they're both long both the work session and the regular meeting. And I would think that the work session would be to clear up most of that discussion. So when we go to the regular meeting, it's business as usual

620
03:55:11.120 --> 03:55:28.640
and we're in and out in an hour and a half or however long it takes because my commitment was to make the work session agenda to fed everything through there before it went to the regular agenda. And so that and so you're getting two looks at

621
03:55:28.640 --> 03:55:46.080
it and I and I understand but it's the board's meeting. It's not my meeting, it's your meeting and whatever you uh think is appropriate. That's I'm okay with that. I hope that helps. I don't know where clouds of water, muddies of water.

622
03:55:46.080 --> 03:56:02.479
>> I think especially this being my first year as a board member, there is a lot of information that I need to feel that I can make a decision. And I think um you know perhaps a year or two in I would feel more confident but right now

623
03:56:02.479 --> 03:56:18.239
I mean we're still getting information kind of at the last minute right when we're here. So you know for me speeding I would have a lot less questions if we had that information ahead of time. And I know that um you know we're getting

624
03:56:18.239 --> 03:56:34.239
used to being board members and uh Mr. Ramirez and his team is getting used to um the requests and the kind of information that we have. Um and I don't feel comfortable um approving motions if

625
03:56:34.239 --> 03:56:50.000
I don't have the information to understand how to make that decision. >> Yeah, I understand that point of view. But uh this is not my first superintendency. I've done it for 10 years and in previous superintendency, but I'm also changing and leading the

626
03:56:50.000 --> 03:57:05.600
change of the direction of the district and recommending to you to you as board members to make the system better. So, uh in that also u you know a little bit about

627
03:57:05.600 --> 03:57:22.080
rightly so you should check everything that I say shouldn't assume that it's all accurate and correct. I don't I don't blame you. You don't know me. just like I'm learning to know each of you. Uh but uh it it's delaying the progress

628
03:57:22.080 --> 03:57:39.199
of the school as well because while we're vetting it well and we're going back and forth and coming to a mutual understanding, I think it we're building that relationship. But so besides the two meetings, we've uh we've been bold to change what

629
03:57:39.199 --> 03:57:56.000
we need to change to make it better. And uh you know I know you want me to to recommend and tell you those things and I don't take it for granted that the board is going to rubber step everything that I say. So I appreciate the feedback and the willingness to work with me and

630
03:57:56.000 --> 03:58:15.520
making it better for our teachers and our students and our and our parents in the community. So I agree with Mr. Ramirez in regard to the way the workshops are currently being used. Um,

631
03:58:15.520 --> 03:58:32.319
actually I was I was kind of worried when that change was made because it looked like uh the the work and the preparation by this the administration was actually going up as a result of

632
03:58:32.319 --> 03:58:50.399
that, not going down. And uh I'm I'm kind of relieved to see that um Mr. Ramirez doesn't want to stick with that kind that plan where the workshop feeds into the regular meeting. But I do

633
03:58:50.399 --> 03:59:06.800
disagree with um going to quarterly workshops. Um here's here's one benefit that we get out of having a a workshop. We can bring policies to a workshop as an informational meeting and then in the

634
03:59:06.800 --> 03:59:23.760
same month the next meeting we can have our first reading of the policy. If we take away the workshops that means that we're going to add an extra month to adopting several policies. Not all of them because we'll have one workshop a

635
03:59:23.760 --> 03:59:42.160
quarter. um but it'll just make the process of adopting policies potentially longer by a month. The other thing is that um I believe that we should use the workshop to um redirect some of the

636
03:59:42.160 --> 03:59:57.840
things that we do in our regular meetings. For instance, I believe the workshops are a perfect place for presentations that don't require a vote. Presentations like the one about the letter could have been done at a

637
03:59:57.840 --> 04:00:15.520
workshop and then we take the vote at the next meeting. Why do we stack it all into a regular meeting? You could there are several presentations that could happen at workshops and many of them don't even require a vote later. Um but

638
04:00:15.520 --> 04:00:32.800
it's it I believe it it would be good use of our time to have um monthly workshops available um to for the board to use. Who knows we may even be able to do a training on on a workshop night instead of uh just uh going through an

639
04:00:32.800 --> 04:00:50.520
agenda. But I I am I am opposed to it because I I think we can be more efficient and do a better job if we continue to have workshops every month. but just not the way we've been doing it in the this this spring.

640
04:00:55.680 --> 04:01:12.880
>> Any other comments? >> Okay, let's proceed. >> Online voting's now available. >> Sorry, the voting then would be for option one or two. >> The motion on the floor is for option two. Okay.

641
04:01:12.880 --> 04:02:05.760
Draft two. Motion passes 6 to one. Okay. Um and now we will move to adjourn our meeting. Today is June 16th. Time is 8:57 p.m.

642
04:02:05.760 --> 04:02:09.160
>> Thank you everybody.