Welcome to the June 23rd, 2025 Morehead Area Public Schools Independent School District number 152 schoolboard meeting. It is 6 pm. I'll call this meeting to order and I'll start on my right with Keith. Vote present. Bjorkland present.
Burgard present. Steph present. Markwart present. Volin present. Thank you. Now uh item B will stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item C, preview of agenda. Dr. Lunik, uh, there are no additions or corrections. Recommend approval. Thank you, Melissa. I move to approve the
agenda as presented. Thank you, Melissa, Cassidy. A second. Have a motion by Melissa, seconded by Cassidy. Move to approve the agenda as presented. Any further discussion on this board? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed, same
sign. And the motion carries. Item E, public form. I believe we do not any have any public form requests. That is correct. Thank you. Move on to item two, consent agenda. All items on the consent agenda are considered to be
to the school board at least two days prior to the meeting. The items will be enacted by one resolution. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a school board member so requests in which event that item will be removed from this agenda and considered under separate resolution. To the extent
possible, schoolboard member inquiries on consent agenda items are to be made directly to the district administrator prior to the time of the meeting. Item A, superintendent, we have number one, May 27, 2025 meeting minutes and May 27,
2025 closed meeting minutes. Number two, we have the 2025 to 2026 district memberships. Item B, we have business and administrative services. We have number one, June claims, number two, medical leave. Number three, change of contract.
Number four, return from a leave of absence. Number five, resignations. Number six, new employees. Number seven, dairy and bakery bids 2025 to 2026. Number eight, resolution for authorizing
payment of goods and services 2025 through 2026. Nine, resolution for collection of NSF checks and leases. Number 10, resolution for investment of excess funds 2025 and 2026.
Keith move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Cassidy, I'll second. I have a motion by Keith, seconded by Cassidy. Move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Any further discussion on the
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Item three, new business. We have under a annual operating plan 2025 to 2026. Dr. Damer.
Thank you. Um Cam William, director of business services is here to present the annual operating plan which includes a preliminary budget and the long-term facility maintenance plan for fiscal year 2026. Thanks Cam for coming tonight. We'll make sure the green light is on.
Good evening. Um tonight we're presenting the 2526 annual operating plan. Um the goal is to approve uh the preliminary budget and updated 10-year LTFM plan as well as um showing projections and key assumptions uh for
long-term planning. So, oh yeah, that were the these were the object objectives um I just talked about. We'll begin with the general fund fund one. Um the district is projecting revenue of $118.8 8 million
and expenses of $117.3 million. Uh this this net fund balance is an increase of $1.5 million and our projected year-end fund balance for FY26 is 13.17 million as I'll get into um in
the following slides here. Um all these changes reflect uh combination of new aid and strategic costsaving efforts. Um on this next slide here we have uh also mentioning the $6.2 million um
incommitted and assigned fund balances to cover severance obligations and capital projects is included in there and uh budget assumptions will be monitored to verify accuracy as new information becomes available and we'll come to you in January or possibly
February for a revised budget in 2026. This slide shows the general education formula allowance. Um the state general education aid is the single largest source of revenue for the district. Um it's taken by the formula the the
formula is the formula allowance times the pupil units. So the formula allowance is set by the the state. Uh, and in FY26, that allowance is $7,481 per pupil. Um, up from $7,281
per pupil. Um, which is a 2.74% increase. This graph here shows that top bar. Um, if that formula allowance were to have kept up with inflation since 2003,
it would be at $8,951 per pupil. instead it's at $7,481 per pupil. So that difference of $1,470 um per pupil is the gap there or a gap
of 19.7%. Just to give you some context on where the formula allowance is at. The general fund summary here shows what I explained about the 118.8 $88 million
in revenue, $17.3 million in expenditures, and that net fund balance increase of 1.5 uh projected for FY26. And that puts us at 11.23%
total U fund balance, 3.51% for our unassigned as a percent of our expenditures. And some of the assumptions made when creating this budget were uh our average daily
membership projected to be 7,32 which is based on our 5-year weighted um average enrollment. Um like I said the 2.74% aid increase is included in there. 2% salaries um was an
assumption of uh for our salaries and two to 4% for health insurance premiums, four to 5% energy fuel and 1 to 3% for other expenditures. Also included which I'll touch on um as we go further is the TRA
employer cost increase from 8.75% to 9.81% 81% uh the paid family medical leave um which is a tax starting in January of 2026 which the district um budgeted for
444% of that total.88% 88% that starts in um January. Um and then breaking down uh by line item here starting with revenues. Uh first we have property taxes which
remained relatively stable from prior year. Um also included in this is the $223 223.66 66 um operating levy that was approved in 2016 and that's a per pupil
amount as well as the board approved local optional revenue of 724. So that's 947.66 per pupil. That's all included in that property taxes line. Um which generates for the district about $1.7 million
annually. On line two are local sources. um that varies year to year with our interest and fees from patrons, medical assistance revenue, and tuition. I decreased that slightly just due to some
um estimates uh estimating conservatively on the interest and fees from patrons and things like that that are that vary from year to year. Line three, uh general education aid.
this uh increased based on that 2.74% increase on the basic state aid formula. Also included in here is not only that but basic skills revenue, transportation aid, learning development, staff development, as well as uh student
support personnel aid and library aid. And after the legislative session um that just concluded, the student support personnel aid did uh decrease $150,000 per year and the school library aid
decreased about 50,000 per year as the impact on our district. uh compensatory aid did have an increase of about 541,000 from 25 to 26 and all of that is
included on that line three. Line four uh is our tax credits, our egg credit, homestead credit and border city credit as well as our non-public transportation aid. And um
there was a slight um decrease there just to to estimating conservatively on our uh tax credits. Line five uh special ed aid. That's our state special ed reimbursement. Um after the legislative session there
was a decrease of uh special a special ed transportation reimbursement uh which went from 100% previously to uh starting in FY26 it'll be 95% reimbursed
and this uh based on prior year trends is an impact of about $120,000 per year. Um the cross subsidy aid uh does remain steady at uh $3.4 million through FY26.
Line six, federal aids and grants. Um there was a decrease here noted due to the uh student attendance pilot grant that was a one-time grant that was was received in FY25. Uh, this actually should have been um
located on a on a separate line, but not a federal aid and grant, but that's um that's what that decrease there is for. And um the state did mention did the state did come out and say that the title awards would be the same in FY26
as FY25. Um but we're still waiting to hear from title two and title three for those. As for past FY26 going on to FY27 and FY28, I did decrease the federal grants um
based on that uncertainty from the Department of Education. On line seven are pension liability. The Minnesota districts receive state aid to manage their pension liabilities
such as TRA. So you'll see an offsetting expenditure um included on uh the expenditure side to with a net zero there for pension on line eight. Student activity
uh these are just the funds raised by student activity groups. No real change there. Operating capital aid and levy um is based on the district's building age. Uh that remains stable as well. It also includes our operating capital uh lease
levies. And on line 10, our LTFM aid and levy did decrease uh based on some levy adjustments that uh occurred in prior years and our
building age ratio is now um lower with the new high school. And some of that uh was debt debt service payments that uh for the bond that we we went out for. Um
the next slide here um I should mention if you have any questions feel free to interrupt me or um we can wait till the end whichever you prefer. Here's the breakdown of the revenue um in FY26.
Uh you can see the majority of it is in state sources in the green there of 65.6% followed by special ed state reimbursement of 17.3% of our revenue and uh property taxes at 6.9%.
Moving on to uh our expenditures in line 12, we have our administration, which is our uh instructional administrators, our principles, school site administrators, school board, superintendent and assistant superintendent.
Um we did see a decrease there of 113,000 from FY25 and this is primarily uh because of a reduction in our administrative FTEES and additionally there was a a reduction
of web based of a web-based tool and um that we are no longer continuing otherwise the standard uh salaries and benefits were increased there. district support. This includes our supervisory positions, supporting
administrative staff, um business office, uh HR, admin assistance, um local fees, audits, and school elections were also included in there. And we're seeing the primarily
uh primary increase was uh third party subscription for substitutes as well as school election costs. Line 14, regular instructional. This is our core instructional services that are um in the general classroom
non-special ed. And here we have our standard salary and benefit adjustments. Um, also the implementation of that paid family medical leave starting in June uh January of 2026 and an increase in the TRA employer contribution rate um from
8.75 to 9.81 which is offset by that pension revenue line. Um and then the reductions in this line are FTE reductions through attrition uh eliminate elimination of an online
contract and uh some cost savings from moving our teachers on call substitutes to in-house uh vocational line 15. Um that's our career and teched programs. Um we no real change there other than
supplies uh being greatly increased for um for those those growing programs. Um and that's due to some some uh food and supplies that haven't been increased in
past years. So we're catching up there. Special services. So this is our special ed costs. Um just a cost saving here of uh contracting some some uh speech language pathologists and moving in-house for FY26.
And then moving on to line 17, instructional support delaying 275,000 in one to1 student Chromebooks each year um until FY29 and a $65,000 reduction in extra help and overtime costs. Um this
is our technology staff development and media people support is our counselors, nurses and student safety. Um we are planning a district-wide security audit to uh improve the safety of students and
staff. Um so that's budgeted of 160,000. Buildings and grounds is our upkeep prepare daily operations of our facilities. Uh standard uh 5% rise in energy cost there. and a $35,000
reduction in overtime expenses. Line 20, transportation. Um, transportation uh maintains operational efficiency efficiencies established there in FY25. As you can see in FY25, there was a drop off from FY24. Um, so
that's keeping in line with with that. um optimizing some of the routes and increasing our uh the number of our our district-owned buses and uh especially with the career academy shuttles, moving that to our in-house um buses.
Also included in here are some reductions in overtime as well by $12,000 um and a 5% increase in fuel has been factored in as well. Student activity. These are the funds that are raised by the students for those student activity
groups. This is in line with previous years um as far as the expenditures matching uh what the what the groups are fundraising for. Line 22 operating capital is our curriculum resources, copier leases,
capital leases, and special assessments. And um the decrease decreases here are primarily due to the reduction in textbooks and curriculum expenses that were uh higher in FY25 due to the
implementation of that read act. And um also bus purchases we have been we have deferred those until FY28 for our operating capital. long-term facility maintenance. Um,
this reflects a decrease here. The the FY25 number is high there as well due to the support center and fieldhouse um costs being relieved from our construction fund as they're eligible for LTFM expenses.
And um we'll go over the long-term facility maintenance 10-year plan on the next slide which were approved. uh excuse me, the the projects for FY26 were approved on May 27th by the school board.
So here the LTFM plan um shows building in a 1 to$ 1.5 million average on expenditures there to to keep up with our our buildings and facility upgrades.
Um, we're still seeing an a growing fund balance in long-term facility maintenance. Our projected ending fund balance at the end of 2029 is 5 million and 6.4 by the end of FY30, even with these uh expenses built into there. Um
some of those specifics after FY26 we will we'll be able to fill in u based on our infrared roof analysis and pavement analysis and school security audit that we will be implementing in FY26.
And just a a reminder these are all restricted in use funds that cannot be transferred to unassigned to be used for salaries and benefits and things like that. um FY26 expenditures. Here's a breakdown of what the district spends uh the
revenue on. Our salaries at 60.7% or $70.4 million and our employee benefits at 18.6% or 21.6 million. That totals 79.3%
for salaries and benefits. And that's followed up by 12.6% 6% for purchase services and 3% for supplies. Here is our ending fund balance. Our projected ending fund balance at the end of FY26 like I mentioned earlier is at
3.51% for our unassigned. Our district's uh fund balance policy is 12 to 15%. So this chart on the left on the bottom left shows in orange there where we're at currently where it's been trending
and where it is where it is tracking to end up in 2029 as a negative. Um some of the challenges uh for this for the district are uh the legislative changes the the looming
state deficit. The current state legislation that just wrapped up did not have any increases in our revenue. Um and it doesn't look like there will be in the future as well. Um inflation is outpacing our state aid basic formula
which I went went over previously as well. Uh negotiations um relaying this info to those those different um groups will be uh another ch uh challenge for the district. Um federal program
reductions uh that's kind of up in the air with the education department. We're still kind of waiting and seeing what's going to happen there for the future. Um and then enrollment um potential variances from year to year. We've been
growing in enrollment in the past few years which has helped our revenue stream. Um as you can see our our fund balance has been slightly increasing there. But if this plateaus or decreases um that revenue will have to be made up
in other ways. And some of these ways are operating referendum um going out for a operating referendum or capital projects levy which Dr. Lunick will will talk about after my presentation here. So that's it for the general fund. Um
you have a question? I have a couple questions if I could ask. Does the the two-year tax statement that we approved a few months ago, does that affect how much does that affect property tax coming in, if at all for new homes being built? That I I
don't have the answer to that one, but I can certainly look into it. That uh that you we get to levy that and so we're one year behind on that. So, if we let's just use $200,000. Let's say it saves the the the taxpayer overall. We'll let
that the following year once we determine what the gap is. So, we we are one year behind on that. I see. But we make it up the next year. The next year. Okay. And then with the CTE costs increasing, any of the partnerships that we have with
them, does that help out with those expenses at all? Do they help with those or is that separate kind of category with that cost increase? Yep, those do help out with that. Yep, those funds are to be used for those programs. Okay. Yep. And my last question or kind of a
statement was the activities and grounds maintenance or guess um the Sunday kind of restricted use of our facilities. Just wondering also if the possibility of what that would generate in income if we would like able to use facilities on
Sundays outside activities compared to what it would cost to have it open and people running it. Um just a question but that's a question for Steve. Sure. Yeah. Unfortunately, what we generate in revenue is far short of what we spend uh
running a facility for special events, especially on Sunday when I have to pay overtime at an increased rate. So, we never recover um that. So, okay. I just know a lot of
tournaments and a lot of people have commented that the concern with Yeah. And also, we're staffed for 5 days a week. So, sustaining 7-day operations, even with overtime budget, um is not sustainable. And that's what we did. Uh
we had to cut we cut $35,000 out of overtime. Um that was partly reflected because we don't operate on Sundays. Well, we do for a few Sundays, several Sundays for the theater program, but that's the exception right now. Yeah.
Yeah. All right. Thank you. I'll just add a couple things to clarify. So, uh, Cam talked about compensatory. Uh, that right now is a one-year hold harmless. They'll put together a committee here and try to examine what
the best way is to address compensatory moving forward. Uh, but right now, uh, we have a one-year hold harmless, and that what he talked about moving into next year. But we can't get um we don't want to get comfortable with that number because that could change and we could
end up on the other side of that um compensatory gain. The cross subsidy he talked about at 3.4 million. We'll talk about it in the legislative update, but uh they want to form a uh blue ribbon task force that's
going to be tasked with finding uh 125 million per year uh in cost savings for um special ed um expenses at the state level. Uh if they can't get that through
the committee, uh this cross subsidy is where they're going to get that 250. So, as quickly as we were um supported in reducing our cross subsidy and special ed, we may have to be giving some of those dollars back uh if that committee
cannot find the 125 million a year that they're going to be tasked with. On the LTFM uh front, you'll see, and he talked about it earlier, uh we took a little hit on that and that's the formula in how the LTFM is set up. If you have your
average age of your facilities at 36 or higher, you get the maximum contribution of that $380 per pupil. If your average age becomes less than 36 on your facilities, uh it goes down per student
on a on a formula that they've created. And we I know Dave, I know you weren't on the on the school board then and Keith, you might have been close, but in 2015,
we built Horizon um Horizon West and we built Dorothy Dods. We didn't get rid of any facilities. So, as a growing district, you add those facilities uh to address your growing need. And because
we added quite a few uh square feet that uh were considered new, once we put those in the formula, our average age went from 32 at the time down to 26. And my frustration with the formula is
generally when you build a building, you're going to get rid of one and just replace it. Uh but generally when you're growing, you need the assets that you previously had. And in in my not so successful argument, I argued that our
average age should have held at 32 because we didn't shed any square feet that was older. Um I've lost that argument many many times, but I think it's something we have to continue to evaluate. Now on the high
school front, that's becomes a little different because we tore down the old one, replaced it with a new one. there. I can see our our average age uh dropping. Uh but when you're not dropping facilities, there has to be some sort of a hold harmless until our
average age would catch 32 and then we we could start gaining on the on the per pupil amount again. Um, so just just to keep that uh in your um in the back of your mind as uh when Cam's talking about our LTFM revenue
going down, uh that's part of the reason I think we added uh a high school that was bigger than the previous one. Combine that with the career academy that was only eight years old and we're getting rid of a facility that was built um in the
late 60s, it's uh we're going to lose on that formula every time. Um, one thing that doesn't affect your average age is if you remodel and you go into and you let's say you remodel Propesfield for instance, you will not lose the average
age of that facility uh because of the remodel and the existing brick and mortar is still there. Uh, one example you can look at is, uh, Brainer uh, went through a large bond, uh, built some
schools, added on to others, remodeled some, and because their facilities were so old, uh, even after they were done adding new square footage, their facilities were still over the average age of 36. So they continued to gain the maximum
where we ended up going a little bit younger in our facilities and we ended up losing revenue at about 200,000 a year. So just keep that in the back of your mind. Question. When you say remodel, do you mean if we add on to an
older school? No. If you add on, you're still going to count that new square footage. That will not that will count against you. But if you were to go into, let's say, Propesfield and you remodeled that thing from the inside, Yep. you're not going to lose uh on the average age,
but the minute you start putting new square footage on it, you will lose uh on the average age. That's what I was wondering because we added on to Probesfield and the older high or older elementary schools. So, I was just Yeah. So, the formula will take in all those
additions, the original square footage, and it will kick out an average age uh based on what you have in there. Now, if you don't do anything regarding an addition on the outside, your average age would always stay the same. Thank you.
Also, I have a question in the administration district support and um the regular instruction. It's just a tiny question and maybe it's been answered before um but it looks like just the um decrease in administrations
related to um the or I'm sorry the increase of district support is related to the addition of the red rover substitute management system and just the there's reduction related to um transition transitioning from teachers
on call to in-house substitute staffing. So, is that Red Rover substitute related to the in-house staffing? I'm just curious about where all that comes together. Yep. So, um the Red Rover was um when we were with Teachers on Call,
that cost of our the Red Rover system was picked up by Teachers on Call. Now that we're no longer on Teachers on Call, the district is responsible for paying that fee for that subscription. Okay. Thank you. Yes. All right, I got to get back to food
service. Food service. So, food service fund two um has a positive fund balance uh projected 2.16 million um which is a 41.55%
um of our total expenditures as the Minnesota Universal School Program continues. Uh districts are allowed to carry a fund balance equal to three months of expenditures which is equal to 1.2 million. Um that has been temporarily
changed in FY25. We haven't heard um past that to uh six months of expenditures. Um so we'll have to to monitor that. Um school school lunch participation is around 74 to 75% which is in line with the last three years.
And um the assumptions for this budget uh was a 2% revenue increase and a 3% expenditure increase. As you can see on this slide, our fund balance of $2.162 million is our projected ending fund balance.
Community Service Fund, fund four uh includes our adult enrichment classes, basic ed, adult basic ed, adult with disabilities, uh youth enrichment programs, early childhood, summer school or summer camps, and school readiness.
Um the the assumptions for this budget were again 2% revenue, 3% expenditures. Um the the numbers that you see on the right are our district census and the early childhood most recent census data.
Those numbers are used to used in the formulas to calculate the revenue um for FY26. And then here we have u our ending fund balance of $580,000 projected which is uh 21% of our total
expenditures. I see that that is starting fiscal year 29 is projected to be down to 41,000 for the ending balance. Yep. That's something uh we'll have to monitor going forward to um to keep those expenditures um lower than the 3% projections.
Um, I will say the FY25 estimates are probably a little bit high as we see June come in. They'll probably be closer to around 2.6 million. Um, but still, we'll have to monitor that going forward. Is that because we're spending
more than what we should be that we're lowering here or um are we losing revenue someplace? we're we're not gaining any revenue, significant revenue, um to to keep up with those costs. So So some of those costs will have to be to be looked at
closer and monitored. That's what I was wondering because that's the lowest I think I've seen that since I've been on the board looking at projected that is. Thank you. our debt service fund fund seven. Um this is just used to record our
financial activity um related to the district's bond indebtedness. Um the revenue reflects the required levies for ongoing debt service payments and the expenditures are related to our principal and interest payments uh on
those voter approved bonded projects. So, we're seeing uh an in andout kind of fund for this uh debt service fund with a fund balance of $3.7 million. And then building construction. Um this was our $110 million bond uh in
2019 that was approved to construct the high school and career academy. And the district is uh project projected to fund in full the entirety of the project which should be completed around spring um early summer of 2026.
And with that um that is all I have for annual operating plan. If there are any questions feel free to ask. for kind of related to what Scott asked about the fund balance and how it changes and it at that 29 it was showing
fairly um not not a lot I guess I'll say for community service. Are you talking about um Yeah. Yeah. So I think I mean in the past I know it's very conservative like when you're going out that far. So I've
heard you say that as you've gone through this, but I mean are you looking really conservatively in the forward so that you're not Yeah. Yeah, we're definitely looking very conservatively especially with um revenues. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
Keith. Keith. So the uh the building construction the um $110 million bond that was approved and of course the total expenditures was 144. Uh, and then that was where we got
the alternative funding sources. Bears repeating, but I know that a lot of work has been done to get that and to make sure we get that completed, of course. But, um, are any of those recurring or can those be repurposed,
reused again year after year? Are those kind of a one-time we got it for the construction and that's it sort of. So, a couple of those was were were special legislation. So, if you recall, um, we had to go to the legislature to
get the one-time transfer out of LTFM into the, uh, construction. That was about 5 million. Uh we went out and also got I believe a little over 6 million uh in special legislation which I didn't believe we needed but uh there was a
semicol in there that blocked us from uh interpreting this the way I felt it would have and that had to do with the HVAC system on the um on the Sam's Club facility where uh because we were changing the purpose of that facility we
also had to uh take a major uh make a major upgrade to our HVAC system as per code and I really felt like when we went into that it was a slam dunk to use health and safety. uh the state didn't see it our way and that was when we were
going to try to balance the the levy by bringing on the the abatement bond that we also got for the parking lots and combining that with the 6 million health and safety as the OPED levy was suns setting we were going to trade them to
minimize the impact while the state wouldn't allow us to do that so the one year the levy went down 5 a.5% because we didn't backfill it with the two additional funds that we talked about and then the next year we did get the
permission so it went to a 6% increase. Uh whereas if we if they would have allowed us to do it the way we wanted to do it we would have had a very minimal increase maybe 2% tops. So um that was
the challenge. So those are one time fixes. uh we wouldn't get to use those again and they can only and some of those can only be used for construction. Uh anyway, um we did use some LTFM for uh genderneutral bathrooms. Um so
anywhere that we could use an alternative fund uh based on state statute, we took advantage of that to try to uh eliminate that uh that debt you saw there from the 110. So yeah, I just, you know, kind of want to note it
again that um it really put us at the 110 that we got approved. COVID costs, construction, all that, you know, 30 some% increase is um kind of significant. So, it was uh something
that I know that you had to get and the team had to get creative with and find the funding for and you know, we've we're moving past that, but I know that uh um to have the bond approved and then to still be that much short um cause certainly some some concerns and I know
that the upcoming budget of course there's also concerns. So, we'll continue to stay close on that, but appreciate the efforts there and appreciate it, Cam. Thank you. Yes. Um, can you help go back to line
25? Um, I might have missed this when you were going through. Um, and talk about the restricted like what that is again and then why there's such a difference fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26? Uh, which slide are you referring to?
Um, I'm just looking at the whole this. Oh, so if we look at for the general fund, correct? Okay. Um, yep. So line 25, let me go all the way back. Okay. So with the three million and then 300,000.
Um what is that? Um so our restricted funds, that's that's our uh long-term facility maintenance and operating capital mainly. Um that three million from FY25 is uh the sports center and fieldhouse. Okay. Um costs that we we
could relieve the the building construction fund with um paying some of those through LTFM. Okay. Thank you. That makes much more sense. Thanks. Anything else from the board? This is an action item. So
Keith Move to approve the 2025 2026 annual operating plan including a preliminary budget and long-term facility maintenance plan for the fiscal year 2026. Dave, I'll second. Have a motion by Keith, seconded by Dave. Move to
approve the 2025 2026 annual operating plan including a preliminary budget and long-term facility maintenance plan for the fiscal year 2026. Any further Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, same
sign. And that motion carries. Thank you, Cam, for coming tonight and explaining that. Item B, transportation plan and budget reduction update. Steve. Uh, good evening. Um, so just want a quick uh update on where we moved from
the last time I briefed you on transportation. I'll talk about that and then we have some phase 2 reductions uh that we're going to talk about as well. Um, this was the recommendation. This is just a refresher of what we what I
recommended back in April to the school board. Essentially, three existing or original objectives plus two new ones. um but it still resulted in a reduction of the general education routes from 41
to 39. Uh so we went back um and looked at it again and I just wanted to give you a snapshot. So we had to kind of do a few things. So, we eliminated
objective two, which was to eliminate two contractor routes, but we had had to recover $220,000 from somewhere uh in order to put that back in. So what we were able to do was um we were able to take so the administrative position
that was leaving the high school we were able to re we're not going to backfill that one and but we're going to reallocate a position up here from the district office administration to the high school. So the high school remains
their capabilities remain the same or we reallocate that position. Um, so that's so we're not reducing any functions uh for the high school but realigning from the district office and that was allowed us to make the savings to buy back the
two contractor routes. So where we're at today, the new recommendation is uh that we are able to within the budget just briefed by CAM that we're able to to keep our 41 and nine. So we'll have no
impact to anybody in transportation. So that's good news. Mhm. So that was a full team effort um trying to figure out how are we going to do that without reducing support uh to the to the high school. Um just quick, we're going to continue
to look at this right now today where we operate 20% uh district uh transportation capability. The rest is 80% contractor. As you know, contractor is more expensive. So with the new plan uh we were able to convert uh more
routes and now we're we've increased our piece of the pie by to 30%. So uh we're going to keep examining those but at 30% is about where we top out at because of the bus capacity. I don't have any more buses. I got to retain a small number
for spares. Um so we are tapped out. Uh so we can't increase our capabilities, but long term we'll continue to look at that also uh how our partnerships are going with our contractors because we still we still need them for sure. Eth
go ahead. So that one is not a hiring issue. It's an issue with logistics with buses with costs. Yeah. So you know three years ago I was up here um getting my D minus on transportation. I haven't let that go yet. But um uh you know it
was it was it was drivers and everybody was s was hurting. But uh we did now it's interestingly it's not um we got five new drivers on board this summer. Our retention uh is
way better than it's been since I've been here. So that's a reflection of a change in leadership, change in in how we run business and how we how we're taking care of our folks. So um it's never perfect, but we've I mean this is the best transition year that I've seen,
knock on wood, since I in my four and a half almost five years here. So it's a good balance and I'm you know happy to see the the changes won't require any reductions in routes. So thank you. Yep. Steve, um, when's the last time we had
30% of our in internal drivers? Is that That's I think when I got here five years ago, it was might have been close to that. Okay. Um, I can go back and look at the numbers for sure, but I remember when I first got here, it was a 3070. And then as we started having
issues, we were relying more and more, especially when we brought Oander in two years ago uh to offset those uh shortages with us, Richardson, and our other contractors. Yeah. Thanks. Yep. Go ahead, Melissa. Thank you for looking
at the bus routes and working together to make a plan for all the bus routes. Yeah, I really have to thank my peer group here and the boss uh for for getting creative on that. Um so it was a full team effort. So appreciate that.
And then with that, I'm going to turn it back over to Dr. Lunik. So when we went through uh phase one reductions, we said that we would wait uh we would take a wait and see approach on phase two um because we wanted to see what uh was potentially coming out of
the legislature. And uh now that we know and uh what we do know is that there there is no uh at this point there is no ability to um that allows us to transfer uh any type of funding. And we know that
uh that the state uh used uh this bienium uh to help um rightsize the state budget as well uh with uh a majority of those reductions coming in the next bianium.
So uh I wanted to present to you uh some scenarios. uh we were given an objective uh by the board to uh get to our fund balance policy uh by fiscal year 29. We took some steps in there last year that
uh lowered that minimum from what was 17% uh down to that 12 to 15% range. uh much um much more similar uh in terms of uh what other districts
our size have uh for their fund balance policy cuz I think Scott you might have historical map you might have historical perspective on this but when the 17% went in I think uh the Morehead public schools was around that 4200
4500 student school district and since 2014 uh when I got here it's it's climbed um steady um uh to that 70300
uh student district. So, as you get a little larger, uh it takes a little more uh student impact to really influence the budget. Uh where if you're in a smaller school, you lose 10 students, it really hurts. And that's why that um uh
that's why those uh numbers in a smaller school are a little bit higher than those of the bigger schools. So you took um um the positive or the proactive approach to lower that 17% uh to lessen or to reduce the burden of
um uh the reductions. We we had a target. We chose to take it in two phases. Now that we know what we're up against uh to get there by 29, um you can see uh with our scenarios
that if we have no new revenue and no reductions where we'd be by fiscal year 29, we wouldn't be anywhere near the uh 12 and I'm just going to go with the base. I'll say 12%. Uh if we had uh no new revenue and $4.3
million worth of reductions, uh we would get you close to the 12%, but you'd still be uh a little short with that estimated to be at 11.45%. Um if you had a scenario where uh we had an
infusion of uh 3 million in operating and 1.4 4 million in a capital projects levy and no 27 reductions, uh we would be around that 11%. Uh if we were to um go out and generate additional revenue
for three and 1.4 and had a million dollar uh in reductions uh in fiscal for fiscal year 27, uh we would get you to that 13.83%. So what I'm what I'm
what I'm going to say is without additional revenue I don't believe that we can get to the minimum of the 12%. And
we will need to do something because the next bianium is projected to be uh no new money once again. uh the inflator will still be there on the um on the
formula which is money that we can um project out but nothing above that. So that's what you would have to live on. So, if it's if it's a value to the board to get us back to that fund balance
policy or to that minimum of 12% by uh the fiscal year 29 because CAM's budget projected you out to uh fiscal 30 and that was far worse than the fiscal year 29 that I'm projecting here because
we'll be in the negative at that point. So, um what you see here on the far end of those scenarios is that um we will have to uh do some uh work in terms of
generating additional revenue. And the only way that a school district can generate additional revenue is to either go out uh you got you have one option and that's to go out and get the support of the people. uh and within that vote
you have two options of an operating levy uh versus a capital projects levy. Now the big difference in the impact is on a capital projects levy it includes all of your land that that would get um
that would be taxed. And if you were to do an operating levy that excludes anything that's classified egg. So, if you're a land owner, uh you would be um on an operating you would pay the tax on your uh house
garage in one acre similar to what we do as homeowners and the egg land would be excluded on the capital projects. um egg land is included and the impact is a little less but there are
restrictions on capital projects whereas operating has a has a lot more flexibility. So um here's the here's the scenario. If you as a board believe that uh we still
have fiscal year 29 as our goal and you saw what fiscal year 30 would look like. Um we need to generate additional revenue and if we don't uh we still have difficult decisions to make as far as
phase two goes. um we have the July meeting to call for uh if if there is the desire to do so uh we would have to call for that election in
July or sometime after that with a special meeting to meet the timeline. uh there's certain things that we would have to do like a review and comment uh would have to be submitted on uh for uh the capital projects levy. If it's an
operating levy, you do not need uh to uh submit the review and comment. So, these are the scenarios that we have in front of us and um I'll take any questions, comments that you have. But if we're
going to do something in terms of generating additional revenue to get us to that that amount, um we we would have a hard time reducing our way out of that uh without uh to get to the 12% without
any additional uh new revenue. And I would just say right now, a district of our size, uh, with the square footage that we've added since 2015, um, for our voter approved to still be at, uh, $22366,
uh, that is far below the state average of about 1,200 per pupil. Uh, so it's a tough position to be in, but um I think we need to have the discussion on what our thoughts are as we move into
phase two here. Keith had a question or comment. Yeah. The uh the second column there, the 4.3 is it 4.3 million, is that each year or is that just No, it's just a one time. The one time, but you'll notice it doesn't get us to the
12%. We're still about half a percent short. So, so would that be a beneficial to do that one if we did that option that 4.3 million sooner would put us in a better position than doing it in FY28? I presume that sooner the sooner you do
that, the bigger the impact it has into the future. So, so that would be essentially doing it FY26. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Cassidy, can you remind me um how many months of operating expenses 12% is?
Uh that would be between two and three months. Two and three months. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? Any thoughts from the board in regards to the operating levy or the capital
projects levy? Dave, um I think I could imagine trying to do 4.3 million in reductions. Um so I think we need to seriously look at generating some revenue that would
prevent I could imagine what our district would look like with 4.3 million cuts. Um I don't think it' be what's best for kids. So I think uh we need to look at some kind of avenue of generating some new funds. Matt
I would agree and and I would be in favor of an operating levy and and I think it's just a matter of of of being uh just being blatantly honest and say you're it's it's your choice. Either we do these drastic cuts and here's what those
cuts look like um or you continue the partnership with us to educate the children which we we all want to do. uh we'll just uh come back again and say here here's where we are and and I think be very honest that we're in this
position in because the the legislature has put us in this position and they and I'll I'll piggy back off that and it's true they did because they have not kept ke kept up with inflation
$1,400 per pupil basically what would that put that we'd put out another56 million probably. I think that's around uh I think when we were um out doing our presentations last year, I think that was about a $7 million
um gap. Yeah. And if we had 7 million, I don't think we'd have this conversation here anyway. So, and that and that's what you know, Matt just alluded to it and I I concur with him. And I also believe that the special education
that's not being funded by the state also plays into a factor with this and and uh they give us the money and then they take the money away. So um yeah, I think I think what what's difficult is they've they've got a it's very similar
to what we have to do here locally, right? except theirs is a is a much bigger number that they've got to um try to solve. And they've got, you know, they've got health and human services which for the first time ever has um
eclipsed K12 in terms of cost. So, um I don't envy what our what our state legislators have to do uh by any stretch of the imagination. Um it's no different than what what we need to do here. Um
but I but I think the you know when the when the average um levy is $1,200 and we're at $200 and some districts in our and even in our region can't pass an
operating levy. And so they they've um they've got it just as difficult. Um what I would challenge our legislators is that this zero levy target that they have on the back of
public education um probably can't continue down that path because it's very difficult for us as a larger school district to survive. And in Klay County, we've got a real um
good cross-section example of districts that are larger like us. And then you've got districts that are all the way down to 600 pupils that that can't pass operating levies in their community. And you've been given in 2014, the board
was given the authority of $724 a pupil. And that has not gone up since 2014. And I would argue that 724 bought a lot more products and goods in 2014 than it does buy you today in 2025.
Uh board member Volin was talking to Deb here talking about the cost of groceries and use that as your example. I think your cart would be a little more full at 750. um in 2014 than it would be today. And
we are no different than any other consumer. We are buying goods on on $724 purchasing power, which I think today would probably be the equivalent of $900 and some dollars uh per pupil. So uh we
we are also behind just like um and the struggle is real for us just like it is for for everybody else. So um we don't um I sit here as a as a community member in Morehead and I don't I don't want to
pay any more than anybody else does. But we also have a mission that we have to carry out and I think it's important to to understand that. So, I'm I'm hoping uh for your guys' support uh for the to make the call for the election in July.
Um I can have different uh scenarios brought to you in July that shows you tax impact. We we knew um that 4.3 million was supported at about 55%. Give or take 5%. So, I think we got to
try to keep our impact close to that. Uh but what really makes that difficult is the operating levy has a much impact than does the capital projects and we can we can take you through that as we as we um bring that
back if that's what your wishes are. Go ahead Keith. Um I agree with Matt on the operating having less restrictions. Uh part of the thing that puts us in a tight spot not only is traditionally being underfunded,
but we just can't make a change and and blanket, you know, I know city and state is very different um where we have to go to the voters for increases. There's much more restrictions from um legislative and laws and things like that. So, um, I think the biggest thing
is is making our point heard and the the education behind it and and getting out because I know we have if if this was to move forward, it would be a quick turnaround. I understand. So, um, but yeah, it just puts us at a tight spot because we have to then go to the
voters, educate them, let them know kind of the logistics behind it, and then get a, you know, get funding and get approval. So, it's very different than some of the other entities. It's very true. Anything else?
Well, look forward to seeing that in July. Okay. Uh item C, legislative updates. Dr. Oh, you got none. What's that? You have none. Says none. That was it. Was the one you just did?
Oh, I've got a I've got a slew of slides for you. Okay. Try to go through them. I'll try to go through them fast. Um, so as we You guys can monitor that. I'll just I'll just say switch and you can
switch it. Uh, if we could just go right to uh that page right there. Uh, this presentation will be divided up into uh what I would say five uh focus areas. Uh the bill that ended up passing as a
result of the of the special session was House File Five. And in House File Five, there are two uh there are two provisions, a finance provision and a policy provision. Um in House File 5 is also modifications to the Reed Act. Uh
but I pulled that out because there are some changes uh that I think uh would be important uh to hear. Uh Dr. Larson will take you through that. Um, we pulled out the facility piece because there are some LTFM changes there as well as some
uh special levy rules now that I don't think are necessarily going to benefit um uh Morehead. But I think the LTFM changes uh Steve will talk to you about those. Those re those are regarding um uh the roofs. Uh the special ed, we did
talk a little bit about that. I'll just take you through the um the transportation reimbursement. uh the blue ribbon commission and some paraprofessional changes and then the other items are the task forces that uh the legislature is hoping to convene and
then uh task force and working groups and then Kristen will take you through some bills of interest that aren't necessarily tied into house file five but they are laws that affect uh what we do here and how we need to to conduct
business and the cost not to the exact number but uh the the consequence of uh what those bills of interest could do uh to us. So, we'll move into uh House File Five. We'll first start with the finance provisions. We talked
about the compensatory um funding formula earlier. You can see there um that uh we will have a one-year hold harmless until fiscal year 27. And at that point, they will review uh and
figure out um that 14 member legislative task force uh will make some recommendations on how this program uh could potentially change. Um I do have to give um uh Kristen some some kudos
here as well as uh the superintendent of Alexandria. They went down and they testified with Jordan Rathson's support. uh the ability for schools outside of the metro to take part in the emergency
substitute teacher program. Uh they did a nice job testifying. Uh the House was uh a little more friendly than the Senate was. They got uh I don't believe Rick uh was with Kristen on the second time, but Kristen went down and testified twice and uh she she got the
job done for us. So now we and any other school uh outside of the metro can participate uh in this program and pay them what our daily rate is. The reason we didn't participate in it earlier was because the requirement was we had to pay $250 a day and that was much more
than what we would normally pay. Jordan Rasmmanson reci recognized that and brought that forward and um uh I think Sam Walsth got some testifiers and and that was uh done early in the session. So uh thanks to those two uh for helping
bring this change uh forward. Can we go to the next slide? So we talked you see there we have a student support personnel aid. Um as a result of special session uh this will be reduced drastically just as we were about to
receive the most amount of money. Uh in this categorical aid um uh so uh unfortunately uh they this this will um uh continue to decrease uh over time.
So, um, anyway, you can see where it was previously going to be, um, set to, which was that $48.73 cents per pupil. You can see what it's going to be at. Um, they did change some allowable uses for that um, moving
forward. And then they renamed literacy uh, incentive aid to simply literacy aid. And there's some uh requirements that have to be included in our local literacy plan for us to use the literacy
aid. So, if we could move on, we'll we'll switch over to the finance uh here. Um alternative attendance transfers. You'll see uh you'll see there uh how that is affected uh moving
forward. Uh we have a timeline that uh now for uh notification regarding uh referendum renewal. Um then this one I think is interesting. Cardiac emergency response plans. we as
a a district will now have to have uh are required to have a model plan on in terms of um how we would um I think it's having equipment available and some folks trained uh in case someone was to
go into cardiac arrest on our property during our events. Um let's move on. School meals, you can see uh those there. they're going to they're going to pull back on some of that reimbursement.
Um I still think we'll do okay on on the school lunch, but uh the the re the amount um that uh we're getting reimbursed will hopefully help uh the state save some dollars as well. And
then the school uh food service fund. You'll see there uh some of the flexibility now that uh is allowed in fund two uh that we can um bill uh for. Uh unfortunately though, this is still
limited to what goes on in the lunchroom and how we do that. where previously uh we had to use general fund money to um make any type of improvements to the kitchen, now we can use food service dollars to do that.
So you'll see achievement aid and achievement integration aid there. Um uh commonly referred to as ANI. Uh you'll see what um what the requirements are there. Uh school library aid. Uh this
was another new um uh categorical aid uh in uh as a result of the 2023 legislative session. Uh this is now getting pulled back as well um and uh drastically reduced uh moving forward.
Labor Day start. We do have some flexibility for the 26 27 27 28 school year um only uh where we can begin the school year on September 1st or later. So then you'll see there uh student
attendance they want they're requiring us to clarify they're clarifying who uh can ultimately excuse an absence. Uh they're redefining attendance tracking. Um and then uh we you can see down in the
last statement there the reference to other attendance in those related laws. Student academic achievement and growth reporting. Uh you'll see what's required uh there of us uh moving forward. And then the student bullying policy
updates, uh, local policy, um, parent notice flexibility. So, we'll have a little bit of flexibility in terms of, um, notifying, um, parents and it also allows the parents
and guardians to designate another individual uh, that we could potentially notify. You'll see there we have uh curriculum and instructional updates. Uh they really uh encourage us to do
something with healthy aging and dementia education. It's not a mandate, but it's encouraged that we do something for uh this topic in grades 6 through 12, and it uh needs to align with existing health education standards. Uh
you'll see some cannabis and substance use education uh and then some violence prevention curriculum. Again, not a mandate, but they're encouraging us to uh include that content in our uh curriculum and
those would be effective uh immediately. And then you'll see the online instruction act clarification. Um this has a little bit more impact to the charter schools uh just because they're trying to do some things to
support uh those charter schools as well. Um PSO access and updates you can see those uh there. um
surplus books. In the past, we were not allowed to um donate surplus books. Uh the change in this session will now allow us uh to do that. You'll see the uh student representation
there. They again it's not a mandate but um we uh encourage they are encouraging us uh to establish a process uh for student representation and I think this board has talked about that in the past. So
this is um again not a mandate but uh something I think uh we should look into uh especially if some of our uh students have aspirations of leadership it would be a good good opportunity for them. Um
you'll see the next one down there experential and applied learning. Um it just reinforces our local control over how we want to design and implement. Uh this was um this was quite a conversation uh last session as well.
Directory information. So this one uh I think is important as well. Um we must obtain parental consent uh in accordance with federal regulations before sharing uh personal student contact information.
So what this simply means is there have been one example that was given on one of the meetings is that if a legislator asks for the address of seniors so they can wish them a happy graduation, we can't provide them the addresses unless
the parent says they can. And uh the individual said uh if uh you do have one that asks for that, just tell them no politely and tell them the reason why because they put in the rule. So um and
then you'll see the uh FNF there in in schools. Um I I believe this is where they also say that uh uh the kids
are allowed to deliver this as well. I know they changed the auto injector term to the term you see there. Um but um I maybe I don't have it in here and maybe it's somewhere else but they
talked about having uh kids now have the ability to um give that to other kids which is a concern for me but if we could flip that. Uh here we go right here. Opioid
I'm sorry I was off one. Uh this allows uh to permit high school students to possess and administer um to another high school student if there's an overdose. I understand the the rationale behind it. I just I'm I worry on that one. Uh kindergarten entry
assessments. You'll see there uh you'll see the uh American education, Indian education um just talks about using uh the mascot uh if they get permission from now the geographically closest tribe. If you
remember when this went in originally, they had to get consent from all tribes in the state of Minnesota. So they've u made that a little bit more friendly. Graduation ceremonies. I I think we already do this one pretty well. If we
can move on. Uh dual language immersion supports. Uh Jeremy, this has to do with uh the read act. So if you want to comment to anything you see here. Yeah. So there's the few changes to the read act. Really didn't change anything we're doing. So that was pretty good. Uh kind
of solidifies the pathon. Uh dual language. We currently test our immersion students in both Spanish and English. Um FastBridge has that capability. Um so we are already uh doing that uh local literacy plan. Um we
submitted our local literacy plan uh June 15th. Uh we just got the state approval. So we will get that updated on on our new school website. Um they added a part to track our literacy aid and what we're using that on uh which right
now is paying for a lot of uh the mandatory training uh that we have to do for the read act. um training professional development. Again, it gave us a little deadline on extending some of the training. Uh currently, we should have 70 to 75% of
our staff completed by the end of the summer in phase 1. The remaining um 25% of teachers along with any new staff that we hire this year that aren't trained will get trained during the 2526 school year. Uh so we will have phase
one wrapped up at the end of next school year. Uh phase two um they still have not come out with the approved training for grades 5 through 12. Um so we are not even looking at that until 2627
school year. So we're on track uh to wrap up phase one. Uh again we will we have a quite a few finishing this summer. Um and then once we get uh what the agreement is uh the approved ones from MDE, we will start looking at that
for the 26 27th school year. Uh we did get uh theou uh signed off and agreed on with the with theou. It was just kind of an extension of what we already had created last year. Uh so that is moved forward and approved.
Teacher lensure updates. Again, it's just uh as this gets approved and we get the final training done, this will be requirement now for Minnesota lensure uh tier 1, two, and three. Um teachers refusing to comply may face district
level discipline. We have not had that. So, that's good. Um you know, we have uh some cohorts this summer to try to catch some people up that maybe missed some staff development days where we provided the training, but uh we're providing that all summer. Uh so we will get them caught up. Uh assessment intervention
tools again they have not approved what the intervention tools are uh for grades 5 through 12. Um so we're moving forward with kind of some district plans. Um our K5 intervention tools are approved. So we
approved uh really great really great reading for kindergarten and magnetic reading for grades one through five. uh those programs have um intervention materials built into them. So they are approved by the state. So K5 we have the MDE approved uh intervention tools that
we are using. Um and so we're just kind of still waiting again 612 until MDE kind of gives our recommendation what it is to see where we want to go. So um we have interventions uh occurring at the secondary level. Um, we'll just have to
see once they are uh recommended how it changes. We do have to switch our secondary assessment tool based on a new requirement uh from the state starting next school year. Um, so we had all of our students grades um 7 through nine
take the NWA assessment that will now be changed uh to a new one that MDE is approving. Uh so we are working through that process right now to get that um changed and updated. So, um that'll be some new staff development for uh some
of our secondary teachers. Uh but that one is um set into there that we will do for next school year. Um and then funding changes. You could reduce an instructional day. We did that past year. Last year we only had 170 days because we needed a day for training for
the read act. We do not feel like we need that next year just with almost being wrapped up with phase one training. So our calendar again next year goes back to 171 student contact days and we don't have that extra redact training day. So the flexibility is there. Um we don't think we need that.
Um and so we are going back to 171 instructional days. The long-term uh facility maintenance. This is one that uh will be in our benefit, but we'll have to do some changes to the way we look at roof replacements. Um but it's timely because
basically what we can use um we can get additional funds if we bundle and look at our roof repairs um over our 10-year plan. That wouldn't take it out of our LTFM allocation. So, um, we got about 6
to 7 million, uh, in replacements identified over the next 10 years, but after I get the analysis done, um, with the, uh, infrared analysis that we're doing, I'm going to rehack and relook at the 10-year plan. But then this is a tool that we can use in the future that
will help, uh, extend our LTFM dollars. Um the next this one and the next one are basically uh just an increase in if we exceed 200 $2 million we got to go back where we got to go and uh through review and comment processes. It doesn't
really change doesn't give us anything more just adds bureaucracy. Um and then the arena Ice levy uh doesn't apply to us because we don't operate our ice arena with another school district. Okay. So, uh, on the special ed
transportation, uh, just note there that in 26, uh, they're going to lower the reimbursement 5% and then in 27, uh, they'll do another, um, 5%. So, they'll be down to
90% of the cost, whereas it used to be, um, reimbursed at 100% of our special ed costs. So, um, stay tuned for that. Uh but at least it wasn't uh to 190. They they stepped it down for us over the
course of two years. And I I hope that uh once they get that resolved that they they hold that at uh 90 u 90% or bring it back to 95%. Uh no change for homeless and uh high mobile student
reimbursement that would uh remain at 100%. Uh this one uh they're going to form a committee like we said earlier uh to try to identify 250 million in cuts. If they can't identify those um by October 1st of 2026, then that next
legislative session, they'll go into the cross subsidy and pull that money out um uh for districts uh that are that are receiving some of that cross subsidy aid. So uh that's where they would identify the 250 Again,
you'll see it there. Uh you'll see the timeline and so on. And then here the this was the the one uh the one positive uh that uh changed was the par profofessional requirements. Uh you'll
see them there. I know that uh Dwayne felt good about about these changes on this. uh you can keep going. So the task forces and working groups, I won't go into every one of them here. They were just listed uh that they were
uh formed. Uh we have the compensatory revenue working group, the blue ribbon commission on special education, uh the seclusion working group, uh the developmental delay age limit working group. I believe there's some um
if we can go on and then we have those other bills of interest which I'll let uh Kristen talk through some of those concerns other bills of maybe interest. Um first one is Senate file uh 3045. Um two um ways this
applies to us. One is open meeting law. So public bodies including school boards can now participate remotely from an um a location that is not open. um to the public, which is a change from past, although you still have to have a a meeting to the public. So, you still
have to hold um a meeting in a location that's open to the public. And then public posting uh for a qualified newspaper as as local newspapers are discontinued, it just sets a lot sets um a standard of what can happen when that happens. So, when your local qualified newspaper ceases publication, um what
you can do in the meantime until another qualified newspaper is identified, um which means posting notices on the official website and then the Minnesota newspapers association statewide public notice website. House file 1143 is about um unemployment
insurance. Um so another hund00 million was found to fund unemployment insurance and that was achieved by um what is listed below um pension reform bill um a significant reform to pension um to TRA specifically
that moved to um a lower early retirement age of 60 with 30 years of experience and um a reduction in penalties. uh bill uses $80 million in pension budget target to help offset increased employer contributions. Um there's a lot of actual information
interesting information on the pension bill um if you wanted more on that with just this uh summary here. And then House File 2563 talks about art education allocating a certain amount of uh $6 million for the first year and 6.6 for the second year for high quality age appropriate arts education in Minnesota.
And then uh secondarily the the department of education um with another 2.7 in the first year and 2.7 in the second year for grants um to the Minnesota regional library systems to provide educational opportunities in heart history literacy arts and cultural heritage admin
um house file 2432 Minnesota government data data practices act request for access to data. So um some significant uh data access requests have continued to come in and this was to address some of that. So allows a government entity to suspend ongoing response to public
data request if after five business days the requesting person does not appear to inspect requested data or collect copies as requested. Um which also allows part of the data to be requested and then offering that individual then to and if they don't um to cease that. Um Brandon
talked a little bit about uh director information um in a previous slide. Um this is about reinserting private classification classification specific for data on parents and a new restriction on personal contact information that cannot be treated as
directory information. House File 1346, training requirements for mandated reporting reporting, says that the bill um this requires that training be offered in at least half of that training has to identify signs of child child malreatment or abuse including the
definition of each type of malreatment under chapter 26E and then earn sick and safe time. Um so uh the modifications to this bill um allows some more support for employers in u managing the bill. Um so requiring
that ESST is used um as reasonably required by an employer instead of as soon as practical practicable. So letting an employer know when you need to use ESST as soon as possible. Also allows um employers to ask for reasonable accommodation for the need or
to to request reasonable documentation for the need. um for ESST after two consecutive days. Previously that was three con scheduled consecutive scheduled work days and allows um allows employees to find their own replacement but doesn't mandate. So that specifies
that um but it isn't really a requirement. Just says they can but districts cannot make them uh voluntarily trade a shift for coverage if they choose. Um and then just some um specifics to how you give it that it can be frontloaded before it acrewed. Um and
then how to look at if the actual hours exceed the anticipated amount. Um and then this um this is actually quite a significant change um to employee employer um rest breaks. So,
um, in this, uh, bill, an employer has to provide a two 15-minute breaks, um, in a shift. That has to be as long as being able to use a restroom or 15 minutes, whichever is longer. Um, generally those breaks are not paid. They're a part of your time. Um, and
then also, um, right now, previous laws stated that you had to provide a 30 minute or 20 to 30 minute lunch break for eight hours. they've now reduced that to six or more consecutive hours and has to be at least 30 minutes and if it's at least 30 minutes does not have to be paid. Um
so um one thing for ESST and this break time if in violation um then identifies how an employer will remedy that. Um there was a paid leave premium cap um right now the cap is at 1.2 um and it was reduced to 1.1. Right now um
employers are expecting the 888 uh which Cam uh discussed in the budget um presentation on as it's stated employer employee split that premium but it can be moved up to 1.1%. And then the teacher apprenticeship
information 3.5 million each year for a workforce development fund for registered teacher apprenticeship and this um this is a competitive grant process. And then the tax bill repeals the ability for taxpayers to assign Minnesota education credit refund to a
lender. Um, and what happens if that's already been done uh prior December 31st, 2025 and that without questions is the legislative update. Go ahead, Chief. I just in honor or in
in uh memorance of the stuff that happened recently with the legislature folks, the House and Senate, I just wanted to let our folks know that, you know, we appreciate the efforts that they continue to do and we're we support them and uh we thank them for their continued service uh for the community
and for everybody. So, I just wanted to put that in. I thought that might be fitting to put in here, too. So, thank you. Good point, Keith. Thank you. Anything else? Anything else from administration?
Okay, we'll move on to item D, resolution accepting Dr. Damer. Um, thank you. We have two identified donations to recognize tonight. Acme Tools, a monetary donation for Morehead High Skills, uh, Morehead High School Skills USA, and Dakota Medical
Foundation, a monetary donation for Ellen Hopkins sensory room. Thank you, Matt. Move to accept the donations presented and direct administration to send a Thank you, Matt. Cassidy. A second. Have a motion by Matt, second by Cassidy.
Move to accept the donation donations presented and direct administration to send a Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, same sign. That motion carries. Item E, school
board compensation. And this is myself. Uh we're looking at keeping the school board compensation at compensation at what it is. And uh is there any thoughts or discussion from the board on that? Okay. This is an action item.
Keith move to approve $11,760 of compensation, $980 a month for each school board member for the FY26 school year. Thank you, Keith. Dave, I'll second. Motion by Keith, second by Dave. Move to approve or move to authorize
$1,76 of compensation, $980 a month school board member for the fiscal year 26 school year. Any further discussion from the board? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those
opposed, same sign. That motion carries. Item F, second reading of policies. Dr. Lunik. Yeah. So, second uh reading of policies. There were no uh corrections. Uh just draw your attention to policy 542. There were some questions on that
at the last uh board meeting. Uh so what uh what we would uh recommend is that that remains a policy uh and not be moved to procedure as recommended at the first reading. And this revision uh as it was requested by the school board uh
will retain a policy number of 510- A moving forward. Thank you. Can I get a motion Dave? I'll move to approve the policies as presented. Thank you, Dave. Keith, I'll second. Have a motion by Dave,
second by Keith. Move to approve the policies as presented. Any further disc from the board? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, same sign. Then motion carries. Item four,
closing the meeting. So Keith, go ahead. Move to close the public meeting at 7:38 p.m. pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13D.05, Subdivision 2A for the purpose of discussion of non-public data. Thank
you, Keith. Melissa, I second. I have a motion by Key, second by Melissa. Move to close the public meeting at 7:38 p.m. Pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 13D.05, subdivision 2A for the purpose of
discuss discussion of non-public data. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, uh actually I'll say we'll close the meeting for about five minutes with everybody break and then come back. All those in favor signify by saying I.
I. Those opposed, same sign. This meeting is closed. I wasn't sure how long he's ready. You ready? Well, item five, open the public or open the closed meeting. Keith move to open the public
meeting at 8:06 p.m. Thank you. Melissa, I second. Have a motion by Keith. Second by Melissa. Move to open the public meeting at 8:06 p.m. Any further discussion from the board? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed, same sign. This
meeting is now open. Move to item six to close the meeting. Neighbor Dave, go ahead. I'll move to close the public meeting at 807 pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05
subdivision 3A for purpose of discussing an employee evaluation. Keith, I will second. Have a motion by Dave, second by Keith. move to close this public meeting at 8:07 p.m. pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D
subdivision subdivision 3A for the purpose of discussing an employee evaluation. Any further discussion from the board? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed, same
sign. This meeting is closed. We good? Okay. Item eight, 2024 2025 end of school or endofear superintendent evaluation summary. This is the end of the year summary from the school board for Dr. Lunik where
area public schools board of education conducted a 2024 2025 endofear superintendence evaluation during the closed session on June 23rd 2025. Three performance areas were
reviewed included one maps will create a 10-year capital projects levy plan. Two maps will determine a plan to achieve a K5 elementary and 68 middle school construct and to
recapitalize and improve existing aging facilities includes bonded construction and the capital LTFM program. Three, MAPS will support employees in being engaged in and invested in student staff and
district achievement. The Morhead Area Public Schools Board of Education has concluded the expectations have been met in the 2024 2025 endofear superintendent evaluation. The school board agrees with Dr. Lunik's assessment of his strength
in the preparing and completing of the 2024 2025 capital projects levy plan. Dr. Lunik is a strategic planner who brought every asset to the table in the planning process. The school board will support Dr. Lunik's efforts in to
continue re-evaluating and exploring the K5 elementary and the 68 middle school configuration and will continue this goal as funding allows. The school board looks forward to the continued growth in Superintendent Lunik's work in
supporting employees engagement and investment in student, staff, and district achievement. Dr. Dr. Lunik is active act actively involved in the community and attends events within the school district. The school board would like this goal to
be continued in the 2025 2026 school year. Thank you Dr. Lunik for and your staff for all the work that you guys do for this. It is very much appreciated. Okay.
Anything else? We'll go to item number nine. You don't have anything to add, Dr. Winnick, to that? Okay. Thank you. Item nine. Keith likes to do the adjournment, so we'll go there. Yes, sir. Move to approve the adjournment of the June 2020 20 June 23rd, 2025 school board meeting
at 8:17. Thank you, Cassidy. I'll second. I have a motion by Keith, second by Cassidy. Move to adjourn the June 23rd, 2025 school board meeting at 8:17 p.m. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I.
I. Those opposed, same sign. This meeting is adjourned.