Okay, we're going to get started. Uh, we'll start with introductions and we can start with you, Miss Sizzle. Good afternoon, Rebecca Zizzle. Sherry Brown, Heather Frederick, chief financial officer. William Drain, uh, budget
operations manager. Leanne Evans, treasurer. Patricia Morales is from the general counsel's office. Thank you. Sorry. And then and then online, she's here in case we she's our phone a friend in case we have any questions from a legal perspective. We always have a legal
representative on each of our advisory committee meetings. Um and then we have Miss uh Carmen Campbell who is virtual. Uh Mr. Steven Fe uh who's virtual. Um Mr. Parks is virtual. So those so we have a total of five committee members
in attendance and then we have board member Miss Gloria Branch is on as well. Okay with that we'll get started. Um is there any I don't know if there's anyone from the public online but we do public
comments and seeing none we'll move it on to Heather for our presentation. Okay. So, in our our last um budget advisory committee meeting, we were still waiting on the House and Senate budget proposals to be
released. Uh right after our our meeting and and prior to our board workshop that we had on April 2nd, uh the both the House and the Senate released their budget proposals. Um so, I went through uh both of those proposals with the the
board. So now I want to also walk through those budget proposals uh with the budget advisory committee. I wanted to start with uh looking at our enrollment history and just as a reminder because I've gone over this with the committee
but I think it's just an important to highlight. Uh so you see the blue bar is district operated school enrollment. The yellow portion of the the orange portion of the bar is charter school enrollment and the gray portion of the bar is family empowerment
vouchers. Uh the voucher program really started in 2020. There were a lot of income eligibility requirements. Um and then once those income eligibility requirements uh were eliminated, you can see that exponential growth in the vouchers prior to 2020. that represents
just the McKay uh participation. Um and so those were the um special needs ESSE students uh who were able to take advantage of the McKay scholarship. And so FES was uh McKay was added into FES. So that's why you see
there were some numbers prior to uh 2020. Uh but when you look at the uh the blue portion of the bar, you can see that we did have a drop from 2020 to 2021 in in district enrollment and that was a result of COVID. Uh we're still
not back up to um precoid enrollment from 2020. Uh but we've had a steady increase and we've been able to maintain each year. Looking at FY26, uh the Florida Department of Ed is and and
edr economic office of economic and demographic research is projecting that we're going to see a decline in enrollment of approximately 800 students in FY26. When you look at that orange part portion of the bar, um charters also had a drop from 2020 to
2021 and then they were having, you know, steady increases each year. But then as the vouchers started to grow, you could see that charter schools were actually impacted more than district operated schools. And they had two years in a row of declining enrollment. And
we're looking at another year in 26 of declining enrollment of about the same as what they've been having in previous years, about 400 500 students. But then when you look at that gray portion of the bar, it's just an exponential increase in growth as a result of the
the voucher program and the elimination of the income um eligibility requirements. Where in FY26, the projected uh voucher enrollment in Palm Beach County is projected to be 30,000 students, which is higher than uh
charter schools. Um and vouchers in total statewide would represent 14% of the total state budget education budget and looking at the the three proposals. So I thought u that you know
in looking back historically that the governor um if we were to look at last year the governor came in with 1.4% and house and senate both came in at 2 and a.5%. Um, I thought that with a governor coming in at 2.5% this year, with the
negative uh budget outlook at the state level, that the House and Senate proposals would come in at about the same as the governor's proposal. They both came in significantly less than the governor's proposal. And they're also different in how they treat vouchers. Uh
so the House proposal is including vouchers just like they've been in the past uh with no u including them within the FFP, including them within the um uh Palm Beach County enrollment. The Senate
proposal is pulling the vouchers out. Um and so that's that's a a difference in um presentation. At the district level, they're pulling them out. So, in the numbers that you see there on the top, I have them blended in, but at the individual district uh FFP amounts, the
you'll you'll see the difference when I go through uh the the line by line detail. The other difference between the House and Senate proposals and the governor is in that weighted FTE number. So, when you look at that weighted FTE number, you can see the governor was
adding in 55,000 additional weighted students. And that's because we get funded based on uh different students have different weights. So if you're a kindergarten student, you cost more to service than a
high school student. So each student has a different weight. And then that results in what we call a weighted FTE. And then on top of that, we also are receiving additional funding for um additional advanced coursework we perform. And so the governor wasn't
making any changes to the additional add-on FTE. He was they were making some changes to those program weights because they are adjusted each year, but he was keeping it, you know, relatively the same at 55,000. Both the House and the Senate proposals decreased the are proposing to
decrease that add-on FTE and I'm going to show you that has a very significant impact in Palm Beach County. Um, and they're reducing that add-on weight by 50%. which in Palm Beach County is um 32 million under the House proposal, uh 27
million under the Senate proposal, um and that's including um uh charter schools. So, it's a significant loss um in funding because our district has been one of one of one of a handful that has really pushed um advanced course work.
uh you know with also within the governor and uh the house and senate proposals uh they're setting aside a certain amount of funding for teacher categoricals. So of that increase in the base student allocation that you see that's proposed in the house version of
$50 per student in the Senate of 66. Uh a a large portion of that is set aside specifically to fund um teacher raises. uh no increase in u safe schools allocation and no u change in the mental health allocation and they're proposing
to maintain uh the required local effort or the the military um which would which so then they'll you'll see an increase in the local property taxes which is going to help them to fund they're using that additional money to help fund um the increase in the vouchers because
when you look at that increase in enrollment growth of 60,000 in the House and Senate proposal That's all driven by vouchers because the total increase in vouchers protected projected for next year is over 80,000 students. So the net increase in um in
students that are going to be funded as part of the education budget is 60,000. So meaning all of that is related to voucher growth. So the increase in per student funding is is is minimal, you know, less than 1% for the house proposal. you
know, $62 per student, 135 under the Senate proposal, 1.5%. You're going to see it's actually less in Palm Beach County. Um, so with the comparison, this is a comparison that I I normally
present, but because of the different ways that the House and Senate are are are how they're proposing you treat the vouchers makes it a little bit harder for comparison purposes. Um so you can see the third calculation that the
column on the left hand side is our funding right now um is our most recent uh release of funding from the Florida Department of Education based on our October enrollment and we have 210,000 unweighted FTEEs which includes
voucher students. So jumping over to the House column, you can see they're projecting 215,000 increase in unweighted FTE because they're including vouchers within that 215,000. And then the Senate you see is
185,000. That's because vouchers are being pulled out of the the individual uh district funding. Um so that's why the comparison there doesn't really doesn't really work. Um, moving down to the base student allocation under the house
proposal, uh, we would be getting, um, statewide getting $50 per student increase under the house proposal in the, uh, base student allocation, the Senate is 66. But when you look at the comparable wage factor, which is that
row four, that's an adjustment for the cost of living. So in Palm Beach County, the cost of living adjustment that we received was 4%. In 2026, the cost of living actually went down based on the state's analysis
that was performed. It's based on a three-year average. In the last two years, it's gone down. So, the average of those three years is actually 3.55%. So, as a result of that reduction in the cost of living, we're not seeing
an increase of $50 in our base student allocation under the House proposal. We're only seeing an increase of $24 under the House proposal and $40 under the Senate proposal. So 43% under the House and 74%
uh under the the Senate version. So that reduction in cost of living has a pretty significant impact and uh it results in a loss of if that were to stay the same, we would have $6 million more dollars in revenue. So, it's taking it's pulling
out $6 million from what we what we received this current year just based on a change in the cost of living. The ESSE guarantee and the educational enrichment, those those two types of funding categoricals are also
allocated to um the voucher students. So, that's why you see that difference between the House and Senate versions because the House version is including the allocation to uh the vouchers whereas the Senate is not. So it's not really a true um comparison there when
you're looking at it. So when I talked about earlier, you can see that changes within the FFP formula and how um numbers are calculated has a significant impact. So that comparable wage factor, which is
what I was just talking about, the change in the cost of living, that results in a reduction of $6 million. If everything were to stay the same, we would have had a budget that was $6 million higher. And then when I talked about the weighted funding and the cost
factors, when you compare the cost factors from FY25 to FY26, there was a reduction in all the cost factors except for two, which is the uh 255s and the 300. uh 255s are our
highest uh needs ESSE students or special needs students and then we have um career ed there was a slight increase as well the cost factors are based on a three-year average of cost information that's reported to DOE on an annual
basis I do not have any explanation u for why the cost factors are decreasing because our costs have only increased my only thought is that um maybe ESSER funds had had unintended consequences because we were shifting um different
expenditures into that ESSER the federal ESSER funds program and potentially it might look like the costs of the programs have decreased when they truly haven't. Um the change in those cost factors is pulling out $8 million from
what we would have received if those cost factors would have stayed the same. And then the other piece of that weighted FTE is the uh the portion that's add added on related to advanced coursework. So in Palm Beach County uh
we have heavily invested in advanced coursework for our students in high school. Uh so with AP ACE IB and industry certification when a student passes the test and you know receives the certification we receive additional
funding. when we receive that additional funding, we allocate per statute 80% of that back to the school that generated that funding. So based on FY25 what was generated uh we earned an additional
11,461 additional FTE that was added in and included in weighted FTE based on and I'm using the Senate proposal um just because you know that proposal is not including the um the voucher students as the example but
under the Senate proposal they're proposing to cut the AP ACE and IB be they they're they're the only difference between the House and Senate proposal is that the Senate is holding industry certification harmless, but they're taking the add-on FTE for AP Ace and IB
and cutting it in half. So that would mean this year we would only receive 6,622 additional weighted FTE. So that's an that's a loss of $27 million under the Senate proposal. um taking into
consideration um reduction of industry certification in half, that would then increase it to $32 million loss that would be coming out of the um uh that is coming out of our potential funding. So those changes have a
significant impact. So this this chart I know it's busy but it it does you know show the difference between the current proposals from the House and Senate based on the the weighted FTE. Uh so you can see in red under the House it's
235,000. Um if we were not to make any changes it would be 242,000 and then under the Senate proposal 204. Um, if there was no change uh to uh that add-on FTE and to the
program cost factors, it would be we'd see a weighted FTE of 210,000. You then take that weighted FTE, you multiply that times your base student allocation, which is how you get to your
uh what we're receiving from the base student allocation. And if that comparable wage factor were to stay the same, so instead of being reduced by to three and a half% and stayed at 4%, we would be receiving um $47 million more
under the House proposal and $41 million more under the Senate proposal and our base student allocation. So those changes result in a significant amount of loss money. the the red um you know the change in
the um uh or the the change in the program cost factors and the change in the comparable wage factors those are built into the formula. So there's nothing that we can really do other than to every year monitor what the changes are based on the information that's
reported but there's nothing they can do at this point from a legislative level because that's built into the FFP formula. the reduction in the add-on FTE that is something that's new that they're proposing which is having a a
very significant negative impact with a majority of that being passed through directly onto the high schools. So in looking at um you know the total funding uh from a uh state and local level you can't use it as a comparison
purpose you know again just because of the the different presentation between the house and senate. Um but going down to uh you know what is the the bottom line uh we're looking at a decrease in district operated schools of 822 you
know based on both the the house and senate proposals. We actually budgeted that enrollment would stay flat and we actually saw an increase within our enrollment of our ESOL students um and also our um ESSE students. So we're
actually seeing an increase in our teacher allocation as a result of those um an increase of those two student populations. Um even though um the revenue proposal is is actually projecting a decline in enrollment.
um charter schools projecting on that row 31 a decrease in enrollment of 500. Um and then the growth within um the voucher program is 6,000. So it's a a significant u
projected increase in in um the the voucher population. Um in looking at the bottom line, that's row 38. Under the House proposal, we're looking at it starting with a decrease of 11.5 million. In the
Senate proposal, a decrease of 5.3 million. All right. And then under both the House and Senate proposal, the House is saying, well, you need to still set aside $6.9 million or $7 million for teacher raises. And under the Senate
proposal, um 16 uh $17 million under the Senate proposal, including of charter schools, if there were no changes and the program cost factors had changed the same and the add-on FTE had stayed the same and the comparable wage factor had
stayed the same, we would be looking at a bottom line increase of about $30 million. So, we're looking at a very different place um uh by the the changes that that um were implemented this year. So, under the House proposal, we're
actually looking at a loss of $5.21 per student and under the Senate proposal, an increase of $96. So, what does that mean? What does that mean to our district? So, starting under the House proposal with an $11 million decrease and under the Senate 5
million, we have to set aside um $5 million for an increase in FRS. So, the F FRS rate went up. So, we have an increase u when I calculated in our district a.5% um it's a million dollars for each tenth
of of a percent. Uh so, that equals $5 million we have to set aside. we have to set aside funding for the teacher compensation that we're required to that um that I showed you under on this slide. This that specific amount of 6.9
and 17 million um is required to be set aside at district and charter schools specifically for teacher compensation. So we have to back that amount out. We also have agreed um to uh increase premiums uh next calendar year. Uh, so I
had already budgeted for a full year this current year, so had additional funding available to help offset the increase. So we're looking at an increase of about 8 million in health premiums that we have to cover. Since the House proposal is
including the voucher revenue and we're seeing an increase in revenue, we have to increase the board contingency in order to remain in compliance with our board policy. Since the Senate is pulling those vouchers out, uh we
revenue is actually declining. So, we don't need to increase our board contingency. Uh we know there's going to be an increase in FPL rates. We've already been notified by FPL. Um they are working on the calculation of how we will be impacted. Um and so I expect to
have that within the next uh month or two. It still has to be approved at a state level. Um, but we will plan once we're given the the dollar amount, we will build that into our budget as well. Um, even though we have a projected decline in enrollment at the state
level, we did project enrollment to be flat. And like I said, we did um see an increase in our um English language learners as well as our ESSE students, which resulted in an increase in um teachers allocated out to the schools of
$3 million. um the change in departments. I'm going to walk through those uh with you today before I add them in. But we the goal was to keep those as nominal as possible. After I re we received the budget, we went back reassessed to only
those things that we needed to add um on a as a result of a contractual uh reason. So we're down to about $400,000 um change in departments. I also recommended, this is um something that I had brought to the
committee um uh previously um expanding our athletics pilot um as well as our um implementing the BAM pilot. Um that would be an additional cost of 1.4 million. We did have a a board member
that did express some concerns with this uh pilot program. Um and so we can uh walk through that um if the committee has questions. Uh the purpose of that there was an audit that was uh performed by the inspector general who raised
concerns about fair share um being charged at different schools and and the different dollaring dollar amounts of fair share. Uh we agreed to go look at other districts and how other districts implement athletics. And uh we one of
the districts that we went to was Hillsboro and we felt that they had a really great program in place um and it was more of centralized approach than what we have um in Palm Beach County which is very decentralized. Uh we
noticed when we implemented the pilot last year, there was a lot of inequity between the title and the non-title schools in terms of the equipment that they had, the uniforms that they were using. Uh we even noticed, you know, internally, you know, some schools were
raising money to put in a batting cage. And when I when we when it was brought back to us and I was speaking with, you know, Miss Evans, like that's something as a district we should be covering for each school. you know, it shouldn't be based on funding that can be raised, but that is something that should be provided to high schools. So, we've
taken back a lot of that input and things that we realized that we had missed because so much has changed over the years and and we haven't necessarily necessarily relooked at the allocations from a a capital perspective. Um that we wanted to make sure to build in some of those items into the the capital plan as
well. Um we notice with the um so the this is the first year of the athletics program the athletics pilot we keep the gate fees for the schools and then we al then we fund and cover a basic minimum amount
um for each of the schools to ensure like I said they have a standard uniform standard set of supplies for each of the sports. um especially in this environment now with the competition with private schools. It's also important that we um have strong
athletic programs so that we can help to compete uh with the private schools. Um and it also helps from an academic perspective as well. It gives students the um the incentive to want to come to school and you know want to learn so that they have grades so that they can
qualify to be on the teams. So I in this envir even though we are facing a budget reduction, I am still supportive of um including this change um and expanding the athletics um pilot and then actually starting the BAM pilot because I do
think it will be beneficial to the students and beneficial to the district in the long run um to help recruit and retain um students. And then the last item is the salary settlement um which is we have certain uh bargaining groups
where they're effective January 1st. So even though we're bargaining with currently still bargaining with SEIU which is effective uh January 1st, I have a built-in the built-in impact of the of since in FY25 we're only going to have half of the impact. I have to
recognize the other half the full impact in FY26. Um, so that totals $4 million. So after all of that, we're already starting with a loss and then I had to add a whole lot of other stuff in there. We're looking at a projected shortfall of about $40
million with approximately half of that going back to directly back to the high schools because 80% of that loss in FTE is allocated directly to the high schools. So the high schools will still have enough money to purchase their
exams. they will still have enough money to pay the bonuses that they're required to pay um to teachers, but they used that money to help supplement programs at their school. It was that money was being allocated the schools that benefited so that they could then use
those funds beneath that school. So, it is going to be um a s significant loss um to each of the schools. I did go through uh the legislative update last time and I did get something
hot off the press this morning or I guess at 10:40 today from um some one from one of our um from one of our lobbyists to say that it does look like uh the budget will not go to a special session. Uh the legislature might need
another couple days. Um but it does appear that they will be able to settle because there was a concern that with the education uh budget between the House and the Senate, it is very different in how they're treating vouchers and some of the other different programs. You know, especially the House
side wanting to cut sales tax, the Senate having a different view that they were almost so far apart, they weren't sure that they would be able to to finalize something without a special session. But it does look like at least as of today that it's the potential is that there should not be a special uh
session and they'll begin conference meetings on the budgets next week. Um Florida retirement system rates those those have been um passed. The change in sovereign immunity most likely is not
going to it's not impossible. Um, it is possible that it could still move on, but as of right now, it does look like more likely than not, uh, we won't have to be concerned with increases in sovereign immunity this year. They bring it, they've been bringing it every year for the last few years, so it's just a
matter of time before they, um, that ends up getting processed. Um so then with um you know the the IB bonus funding that was just adding in an additional course that hasn't been included for IB funding in the past and
they just wanted to uh make sure to include it. It's um theory of knowledge and whether it's Senate Bill 7030. This this I don't see this one passing. It's breaking out fees in a completely separate categorical. I don't see the House and Senate agreeing on that, but that's something that will
come out of the budget discussions um next week. The administrative efficiency, um this is the the old bill from last year that was deregulation. Everything that didn't get passed last year um was put into this administrative efficiency bill. There's just a whole
bunch of um stuff in here. Uh so we'll just have to wait and see if if this ends up getting any traction. High middle school high school start times. there was a a concern that um uh this would have caused significant issues. We would have had to change the start time
of schools. Everybody was against it. Parents were against it. Students were against it. School districts were against it. Everybody pushed back. And so they did um repeal that there there is no longer their requirement um to have specific start times for middle school and high
school. Local option taxes. Uh this bill uh so we just passed our sales tax for a 10-year term. What this uh what this bill does is it limits any uh sales tax to no more than eight years. Um unless
there's uh what was the change, Leanne, because there has been some changes on this one and our right. I I think what I've been told is they've changed this to where the 8year duration is is put in place to make sure um that taxes have an
end date because evidently there are a few throughout the state that did not have an end date. Um they have grandfathered in taxes that were already approved. So, our tax that was approved for 10 years, I've been advised by outside council that's involved in this that that's going to continue, but the
next time we go to the voters, it would probably be limited to eight years. And if there was no limit, an 8-year end date will be imposed on all those taxes. I think that's still in flux, though. I'm not sure if it's all done. Yeah. So, that's that's a problem with a
lot of these. They are still um there's all there's a lot of uncertainty and there's there are significant diff um differences between the House and Senate proposals. So, within 1708 and House Bill 1267, they're still working through their issues on
this one. Uh under the Senate proposal, um it's the the Senate proposal only relates to Miami Dade County Schools and that's it. It doesn't relate to any other district. The House is not limited to any other district. the information
within the bills other than that is the same. So if a school has utilization below 50% or surplus of more than 500 students then you could have a school of hope say I want to colllocate in one of your school facilities, one of your buildings. The Senate does allow
districts to charge a per student amount. The House proposal does not allow you to charge a per student amount. the district would be the one responsible for paying all the operating costs and even providing um uh school meals, which the district would have to
provide the school meals anyway, but you would want to have still be able to negotiate a contract. And that's the whole, you know, point of it. Uh Senate Bill 1702 and House Bill 11:15 is just saying that this sponsor needs to use a standard monitoring contract for charter schools,
which we do. So, I I don't see an an issue with that one. House Bill 123 and 140. There have been some changes with this as well. I believe that they removed the requirement um that was having an impact as to what facilities
we could purchase. So they're this one is still um uh they're still working through. And then with the conversion um charter portion of it, uh they're proposing to remove the requirement where it would require 50% of teacher
support. um it would only require 50% of parental support u to request a um to convert a district school to a charter school. Um the the last bill um was uh related to uh potentially charter schools, a way
for charter schools uh to be able to be eligible for impact fees indirectly uh because the uh the developers would be able to get a credit uh which would then go against the impact fees that we would receive as a district.
And I'm not sure. So the the issue that we have with a lot of these bills is they're running on two separate cycles, the House and the Senate. And they're really not aligned at all. So the Senate is going along approving stuff that you know, House is approving stuff as well,
but they're very u they're very different. And so you know what they're going to end up agreeing to at the end of the day. That's where there's a lot of uncertainty. And then with the there are still some proposals on changes to the homestead exemptions, but they'll probably end up
on a study of of what will what would happen if they were to eliminate property taxes. And that would be due October 1st of 2025. All right. So budget con conference we have confirmation should be start middle of next week uh based on
the information from today that change that both the house and senate are proposing of a reduction of funding for add-on FTE ranges from 27 million to 32 million. There's so much rhetoric out there that this is not going to have any
impact that they took the money and the legislature took the money and they put it into base funding to make it more flexible for districts. You can see we don't have more money in base funding. So, if I were to hold high schools harmless, I would then have to fi find a
way to come up with $20 million someplace else, which would mean removing 264 teachers out of out of elementary and and middle schools in order to hold the high schools harmless. So, it is a reduction in funding for us. It might not be a reduction in funding
for everybody depending on how much they participate in the program. Uh but to put it into perspective and context, there was an increase in the total education budget of $747 million. So you'll hear that message. We're putting
$747 million into the program, into education, but over 500 million of that is related to the growth in vouchers. So they're really only putting in $200 million into education this year. you know, it's I guess all in how you you
you say it, but there really has not been a significant increase in education funding. And they took that add-on FTE um which is $300 million and they just diverted that um to help offset the additional costs within when within the
the FFP formula. um that change in the program cost factor, you know, it was $8 million to us, it was $120 million statewide that they were able to change uh by having a reduction in those cost
factors. So now we're facing a pretty um you know significant shortfall. So we had already gone through and had all of our meetings with the the super the department heads as well as the superintendent on what their budget needs were. And then we re and we made a decision as to what we were going to
propose as to specific ads and we were at a at $1.4 million of what we were going to propose as additional requests and needs in the department. Then the House and Senate budget proposals were
released and we knew that that was truly just not an option. So we went back looked at you know what the requests were within the departments and we said we cannot have um an increase. Uh so we're proposing only making changes um
that are are are budget neutral within departments. Uh so within the uh HR department the HR department we've been using and this is something we implemented during COVID um EPI which are the international teachers because
we had a significant number of vacancies we were having trouble hiring teachers and although our vacancy rate continues to decrease each year we're still not exactly where we were pre-COVID uh but we were utilizing um part of what we
were using to help was um these international teachers. Uh we're not proposing to eliminate the international teachers. We're proposing to decrease um the amount that we're using. And then we started a pilot program which is a um what we call homegrown teacher
initiative. So we take um um employees from other u jobs within the district that might be a pair professional um any other job in the district who want to be a teacher and they're able to actually work as a teacher earn their
degree while they're working as a teacher and and then they're going to you know that's us supporting our own our own uh employees to grow um within the district. And so we want to shift that funding to this uh homegrown
teacher initiative to help support that and grow that. So we're still we're not eliminating the international teachers. They're still in need uh but we want to continue to grow the homegrown teacher initiative, but they're going to need additional supports, you know, as well as uh
helping with recruitment and just overall um marketing so that we can continue to attract uh more teachers. uh we made a slight change uh within the ESC SLP allocation and within that
uh there was a change there was um savings uh that was generated. Whenever we're making changes within ESC or um our English language learner um allocation, we always set those funds aside so that they can be reinvested you
back into ESC or um ELLL. And so we're taking a portion of those funds that were set aside, adding five additional resource teachers to help support um early implementation of early literacy uh curriculum. Uh then with mental health
and uh with within um our mental health area we have had uh difficulties um hiring within our colllocated service providers and u they because the colllocated service providers who provide a mental health prof
professional on um I believe it's about 50 of our campuses across the district they've had some challenges some of them have had some challenges in filling those positions um So we've had, you know, year after year of, you know, um funds available. So we wanted to shift
some of those um funds available that have been meant to have some mental health um providers, additional mental health providers at the school site and and um transfer those into four mental health positions, four psychologist uh positions to help support our crisis
resp uh response teams. And then finally um adding a afterchool liaison to support the middle school afterchool programming and they have funds within their budget um to help uh offset the cost of that position. So those changes have no
budget impact at all. Uh the ones that do have a budget impact and these are increases in um contracted software for instructional software. Uh the school internal account software that we use. We're going up with uh uh
negotiations and most likely is we're going to still hard try hard to negotiate no increase uh but we wanted to make sure uh that we were being conservative and we set something aside um in case there's an increase um an increase in our west law um and then we
have some other programs um as well and the other programs are are much smaller but we have class wallet uh which is what we use for teacher lead um debt and investment software and B2G which is what we use in our um uh small business
enterprises or SBE program and those are all contractual increases in software those total $33,000. We then have increases in contractual costs and dues and fees. Uh so we have our huddle program huddle uh which are um cameras that we have on the
fields um for on our football fields uh to it it it's for recruiting purposes training purposes of the um the football fields um so it's adding it to uh baseball uh so we have a cost there um
we have increases in americanore we're not um expanding americanore but increases in americanore Uh we have increases in court reporting costs. They seem to go up every year. Um and we checked to make sure that they actually did the legal did spend them
last year before um asking for another increase this year, but it looks like need another increase this year. Um Starlink is a new contractual um uh uh cost uh that we had planned on uh for
hurricane purposes to make sure that we have connection. if for some reason we don't have internet and don't have access to cell phones. Um and then some other uh smaller costs uh related to uh title
9 u uh support um additional support access um that's necessary for title 9 compliance and business development board um dues and fees. So the total of those are $129,000. So we were able to bring down
the original 1.4 4 million uh four $1.4 million down to truly what was needed which is a little over 400,000 within capital maintenance transfer. It's almost the tale of two budgets. Um because our general fund has
no budget um you know we're looking at you know at least a $20 million shortfall. But on the capital side we just had a sales tax approved. We have a capital plan um that we went to the voters with to say this is, you know, we're going to use this money for
deferred maintenance and not deferred maintenance, plan maintenance to make sure we don't get into the position of being in deferred maintenance. So, we're going to have to add um positions uh in order to help support the needs of that program.
We also have positions within IT um additional supports within IT, but the majority of the positions are on the um capital side um the capital program side in order to help facilitate the um the implementation of the the um sales tax
that was just approved by the voters. We also have a people soft specialist position and that one is com u we are reducing wherever we can we try to reduce consultants um and so we want to um to attempt to try to to hire um a
staff versus use consultants. So we're going to reduce the consultant line um and add a uh peopleoft specialist position. And then we have uh just additional increases that these are the ones funded on the capital side. So
additional software increases and uh other outside uh vendor costs that we know are going to increase for next year. So the total increase in capital maintenance budget is $9.9 uh million. We can we are not able to use
capital funding in order to fund teacher raises. So it really truly is, you know, the tale of the tale of two budgets. So where we're at right now, you know, now I'm just waiting to see what happens with budget conference next week. Uh there is a 3-day cooling off
period. So by the end of April, we'll know, you know, should have a we should know what the budget is. We're working now in order to balance um that shortfall that we're looking at of about $20 million. Um, so we're going through
the budget and by our next meeting um I will have proposals as to to what to do um in order to uh uh to present a balanced budget to the board. Uh we're going to at the same time continue to monitor enrollment because we're budgeting for uh that enrollment is to
stay flat. The revenue projection is based on a decrease of 800. Um, so if come count day, which is the 11th day of school, if enrollment is down, we will reduce our positions in order to align with enrollment. If enrollment comes in at what we projected, we'll end up
having additional revenue. Uh, we continue to monitor the legislative changes because really it's changing on a on a daily basis. So we so we'll you know by our next meeting we'll know we will know where they settled on on most on most of the bills whether the
house won or the senate b won or they end up just dying and when looking at salary cons uh considerations it's truly dependent on the funding we receive um from the state. So it is um right now we're only looking at being able to
provide what we're mandated to provide under the teacher compensation. Um and so looking at um and considering salary considerations next year, it's going to be um challenging. Cost of health care, we did
negotiate a three-year deal. Um so the impact in 26 is 19 million, 8.6 million in 27, and 2.6 million in FY28. Um and we're working hard um to come up with um proposals and and and because we're
going going to still continue to ne negotiating not on premiums but on potentially changes to the plan to help reduce our claims. So by the time we get to um you know calendar year 29, right? Because it's 26 27 28 that we won't have
to have a significant increase in our health premiums. It should just be a nominal increase if we're able to reduce that um increased trend rate that we're seeing in our health claims. Um I won't have the increase the exact increase of FPL by
our next meeting most likely, but I can at least provide I'll at least have an estimate of what that increase will be. Um and just overall just monitoring to the the changes at the federal level. It looks like we're we're good for FY26. So for FY26,
um our funding is going to stay flat. Um for um all of our grants, um we only had very minimal impacts. We had a small food service program um that was eliminated, but all in all, it looks like we we were not targeted in terms of
losing any u federal funding for FY26. I can't guarantee that for FY27. So, we're going to continue to monitor um to see whether there are um any potential, you know, if there are any potential grants that are going to be eliminated and at that point, we'll
assess them and what the impact would be. Uh so, today is um our budget com advisory committee on the 18th. Um our next budget advisory committee, we have one scheduled on May 1st and then we have another one on May 16th. Our final
board workshop u just because of the way the board meetings fall this year is on May 28th. Um so I'm I'm doing as we're working as hard as we can and um in order to uh finalize the budget in May
um so that it it's finalized for those uh our next u meetings when we come in on the the 1st and the and the 16th. Um otherwise we'll have to I mean we could still meet as a committee in June but we wouldn't be meeting with the board until
um our uh tenative budget adoption you know most likely. So that's why I'd really like to try to get everything to the board um by uh May 28th. Um because tenative budget adoption is July 30th and final budget adoption is September
10th. All right. So, uh, with that, um, are there any questions that I could answer? All right. It's somewhat of a grim grim outlook. Um, and unfortunately, I don't expect it to get much better over the next few years
either. Okay. All right. So, um, with that, if no one else has any questions, we'll move on with the agenda. Or did you have another? Well, I was just thinking that we did also attach Miss Evans is like, "Oh, you just left me out al together."
Um, I think I got the afternoon off. We do have the capital plan as well. So, the capital plan is attached for those that are you that are in person. I do have a copy um for you. Um, but Miss Evans was going to walk through the capital plan, so I'm I'm sorry about that. I was supposed to stop what I had
at capital. Okay. Do you want to put it up on the screen or you just need to just talk to it? Okay. And I'm not going to take a lot of your time. In years past, I have gone through this line by line. Um, we I think we did a pretty good job back in January talking through what the capital
plan was comprised of and gave you the old version of it. So, we've updated revenues based on the latest projection. Our last capital plan was for FY25 through 2036. um it was 12 years to encompass the entire sales tax. So this year is 26
through 36. So we shrunk a year. We did not add another year. We want to shrink it down to back to 10 years. So there was no new year added on. So this was should have been and it was basically a very quiet year for the capital plan. We've made slight adjustments to um what
we think the projected fund balance is going to be. We won't have that final number till we're done with the fiscal year. Um, I think we'll still be tweaking impact fees a little bit. We'll probably tweak the local capital improvement once we get final taxable values. Um, we may have some some shifts
with the certificates of participation, but I don't think so. So, revenues are are close to being done. There'll be some slight increases and hopefully that just if we end up with extra money at this point, we would move it into reserves and not try to rebudget where
that's going to go. Um, it is possible the board or somebody else could bring up something that we've missed and need to add it. I know that a lot of people are reviewing the document now that it's finished. Um, but this is a balanced budget. It's ready to go. And Heather, if you could go to the next slide, and I'm going to go through these pretty
fast. So, this is all the construction projects. The only new project added here was for DD Eisenhower and that was um taking an old building that was not part of the modernization project and moving it changing into ancillary space.
Um so that that was planned and we talked about that at the last meeting. Um one project that's not here that may be a change as we come through is a project that would potentially move students from Crossroads into the building at West. I've not received
budget projections for that yet, so I couldn't put it in here, but I believe that is a priority and we will see that added in um before this goes to the board at final. But there were no other changes here. Um there are some slight changes in the budgets for some of the
projects. Um the transportation centers did increase in value. Um, and if you go down a little bit further, the new schools, some of those went up and we did move up the Westlake project as we discussed at the last
meeting. So, that's the new construction projects. Um, really nothing big change there. Um, then we start off with other items. Um, we have debt service, site acquisition, some with the ex the plan to purchase land was pushed out. It was
related to a school project that's also been pushed out. So that was moved back. Um contingency is the reserve main reserve for the capital budget and things will shift back and forth with that as I balance the plan. That's that's where any last minute increases
would go there. That's a reserve of money that can be used for future years. So you see there there's a there's a pretty large amount there right now. Part of that is set aside to help balance FY26. So, it's not as big as it looks there. Um, at some point I may break that out to make it clear, but there's
49 million set aside to help balance FY26. The rest of it is truly reserved. And then the biggest portion of that is really in the last years 2031 through 36. That's beyond the 5-year window. And so many things can change between now and then. The fact that I see a big
reserve there does not bother me at all. There will be other legislative changes, other needs that come in. So every year that last five years always has a big reserve. It's just harder to get really good projections when you go out that far. Um sales tax reserves that is um
the money set aside to help finish up the projects that were planned back in 2016. So in 2016 we came up with really good projections on how much things were cost and then inflation came into play. So we did a lot of shifting around of projects and moved some things from
sales tax to other funds to free up money and interest earnings also goes there and that money is there to make sure that we finish every project on that referendum list. Um that does include the extra money that's needed to um fund the transportation centers
increases. So I expect all of that will be used and we'll see most of that used in the next year or two as the last projects are contracts are lev let and we see how much the prices have gone up and only on the one other thing I want to mention on this page is the charter
schools capital outlay and the charter schools ST2 the SC2 whenever you see that that's the new sales tax and with the new sales tax we are required to share that on a per student basis with charter schools so that's a new line that we have not seen in the capital plan. It was there last year but it's
specifically rated with related to the tax that starts in 26 and the transfer for chart charter school capital outlay that is the funds that we're required to we're sharing our capital outlay millillage with charter schools on a percent on a per student basis but it
was rolled in it was 20% last year 40% this year then it goes to 60 and 80 and 100%. There's also a factor we get to deduct um the value of debt service payments for debt that was issued prior to March of 2017. That debt all rolls
off in mostly in 2030 and the last of it in 2032. So that amount increases significantly as we get further on in the capital plan. So that number continues to grow. Um really no changes for the equipment section. Facility renewals is the last of the sales tax
projects for the 2016 sales tax. Um it's a lot of money there and there's a lot of them underway and a lot still coming. Um so we still have quite a bit to spend there and they're trying to speed those up. The projects still to be done are very small. Um they're usually under $4
million and it's a lot of painting and um the building envelope making sure it's um sealed. So, painting, caulking, sealing, that type of thing. So, it's not replacing as many roofs and air conditioning systems. It's smaller work.
It's the work that's being done on the newer schools. Um, and then the section for plan maintenance. Last year, this was all in a single line because the facilities department still had a lot of work to do in how they were going to break it out. So this year they have
broken this out into a lot of detail and I expect we'll see some shifts in that next year as they get into the weeds with the facility condition assessment going school by school and looking at every piece of equipment. So this is their estimate and
I expect the numbers within plan maintenance will change over time. But this is a a new section of the budget that was added last year and it's really following guidel guidance from the council of great city schools that indicates we should be spending 2 to 4%
of the replacement value of our facilities annually for maintenance. So we're trying to make sure this ties out annually. It is a little tricky to estimate what the value of our buildings are on. And so we use inflation factors from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, but we
try to match that up and make sure we stay in that range. And that's where a lot of the new sales tax is going to go to make sure we have enough money to do that. The next section is the facility improvements. So plan maintenance is the basic air conditionings, windows, doors
to make sure the building works. The improvements are things on top of that. So you have media center upgrades, minor projects. Those are the things that are unforeseen that we don't know what's going to happen annually, but there's a lot of it and it happens every year. Um
playgrounds, um putting in artificial turf at all the high schools. Um increasing the spend for athletic facilities and playfields. Some of the equipment Miss Frederick's talked about for athletics would be coming from this section. Um new mares at all the
schools. a lot of work like that. There is also the line called historic property improvements last year that was called TDR which was a transferable development rights. It was money that we got from the city of West Palm Beach um related to Drifus and the board has said half of that would be sent spent at
Drifus. The other half would be spent at other historic properties. So based on feedback from just about everybody, we changed the name of it to where it's a little more descriptive. And so that's the facility improvements. And if you continue scrolling down, Heather,
um we get into security. Um nothing new there. That's just continuing on the with the plans that we have in place. Um same with education technology. I think the newest thing there is the Epic intercoms. We're really honing in on that. the intercom system in our schools
have we're wired we're hardwired in and a lot of them are failing and we're replacing that with new technology that's a lot more flexible and a lot easier for the schools to use and so instead of that being a maintenance item it now falls under education technology because it's filtered in with all the
other technology in the schools and then the regular technology um which includes buying computers the routers and switches and all the infrastructure that it needs to make sure that all our data is safe and the school students have
access to highspeed internet, our phone systems, the whole wireless infrastructure, all that that infrastructure for it is in this section. And then there's one more that is transportation and there was no changes in transportation whatsoever. Um it stayed con I think there was a about
a $50,000 increase for them, but um there they they had a plan on what they're buying and and that's all set. So, that is the capital budget in a nutshell, a very fast nutshell. If you do have any questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I I've learned over the
past few years, you all really don't want me to go line by line through this. Happy to do so if you'd like it, but um we'd be here for a couple of hours. But the capital plan, at least a draft of it, is balanced. Um there probably will be a few tweaks and changes before adoption, but this is a a balanced
capital plan that we're comfortable with. And the sir tax is for 10 years, the new one, right? Okay. I see. That's why the capital plan went out for 12 years and now it's going to be 11 this year, right? Um, next year it'll go to 10 and we'll keep it at 10. We like having that extra 5 years of projections
of what we think is coming. I think it's very helpful for the district to do that extra long-term plan, right? And that's why that one proposed bill when it was initially it was going to end at eight years. And so it was even for existing. And so now now that's changed and
hopefully Yeah. And hopefully that that it will it won't revert back. Yeah. Because we would then have to go back and revise. Yeah. I know. There's talk of another one. So that's
why I'm like not eight years. Yeah. And that change on the the eight years is on all sales taxes. I know. That's why I'm like, "No, the work it takes to get it on the ballot and things." So, yeah. So, we have our minutes. Um, I
don't know if you had a chance to look over them. I didn't see anything um comments personally, but um does anybody have any comments on the minutes from the last meeting? Can I get somebody to make a motion to
approve the minutes? Can you approve the Mark Parks? Okay. Um, I'll take the motion from Mark Parks. Will you second it, please, Rebecca? Yes, I'll second it. Thank you. We have a motion to second. All those in favor?
Those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And then we put it off at the last meeting about um our election of our chair and vice chair. And it looks like we have two people online, two people here um in person. Do we want to try to
make a nomination? Do you want to are you okay with it or do you want us to Well, we can we can see whether we can we can do it with the virtual. Sometimes it gets difficult with the virtual. Um so with the uh the next item is the the
selection of the chair and vice chair and um and so you the chair is limited to four years. U Miss Sherry Brown has been the chair for more than four years but if the committee selects that um that they would like Miss Brown to
continue that is just something that I would have to present to the board for approval. Um so I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. And so now I will take uh nominations to nominate a chair. So do we have any
nominations for a chair? Do we have any volunteers? Yes. Do we have any volunteers? I know Carmen has probably been on the committee the longest and then maybe Mark and Rebecca's new so. And I I I don't mind
doing it, but I'm also happy to turn it over to somebody else if they'd like a chance to Jerry. Uh what what does that involve? I mean, what's the commitment? What what is involved with as the chair? Um mainly just running these
meetings. I mean that that that is all. And then if you have any, you know, questions, you know, prior to the meeting, you know, we we get together. Um and then also helping to draft the report, the final report to the board. Uh normally that's the the chair as
well. Uh you know, I help to draft the report. We bring it to the committee and that's what we'll be doing on the um the May 16th meeting. Um and so th those I guess would say would be the main duties of the chair, right? And Heather does
write it and I might just give her a couple of comments before we meet. So, so do we have any nominations or volunteers uh for chair? Volunteers. I'm going to volunteer then if nobody else is.
But like I said, I'm okay if somebody else wants to volunteer, but I don't mind doing it again. Okay. All right. So, all in favor of electing Miss Brown again, subject to board approval for uh for chair of the committee, please say
I. I. I. Okay. Um All right. And now I'll take nominations for the vice chair. Our current vice the vice chair we had um had to resign unfortunately from the committee. U so I would like to take u
and there is no term limit on on the vice chair. Uh, so I'd like to take nominations for the vice chair. Well, I'm going to nominate Rebecca since she's sitting here beside me. Sure. Okay. Accept nomination.
All right. Any others in favor? I mean, any others who would like to make any other nominations? All right. Hearing none. All in favor of electing Miss Sizzle as vice chair, uh, please say I. I,
um, Mr. Parks, did I? Uh, yes. I Okay. All right. Thanks. All right. So, um, I want to and then all of any opposed say nay. All right. I want to thank you, Miss Sizzle, for for agreeing to be vice
chair. All right. And so our next meeting is May 1st and we're back to 9:00 a.m. We did have an audit committee meeting this morning. So that's why the room wasn't available earlier. And then we will most likely need the May 16th meeting in order to in
order to finalize the report. And if for some reason the budget isn't finalized, I will add additional meetings uh onto the agenda. I'll actually start I've already started putting placeholders out there just in case, but I'm trying to be hopeful that that we will be done and finalized by
May 16th. Great. Any other comments? Then we're adjourned. Thank you so much for coming today. All right. Thank you for joining. Thanks. Thanks.