education to order. Welcome to th those joining us in person and online. Please rise as you're able and join me in the pledge of 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. All right. First up this evening is a special Laker Pride and I will turn it over uh to Dr.
Thomas for this. >> Thank you, Chair Bullan. Board directors, I'm actually going to go to the podium if I may. Okay, we've got uh a very special evening um this this evening to
recognize um our retirees who have uh committed so much of their time and their talent to the betterment of our community and our students. And uh we are going to uh give them as it's uh
kind of labeled cheers to many years. Um not everyone is in uh attendance this evening, but we will make sure those who were not able to be with us physically will get them their certificate. And each um uh retiree will receive a Prior
Lake Savage Area Schools u medallion. And on the back of the medallion, it states, "Thank you for helping all learners reach their full potential." Now, I know the mayor has medallions and maybe you can get discounts in Prior Lake with that. I don't know if this will do the same, but uh you know, you
can try. You can try. It doesn't hurt. Um but we want to say thank you to all of our retirees and um you have truly made an impact and a difference in the lives of so many in our community and we are forever grateful for that. Um so I
will uh read off the names of the individuals and uh those who are present, please come forward and I will get you your certificate and your medallion. Um, first is Trudy Atterly. She is an ECSE teacher at Edgeward
Edgewood and she has 19 years in uh, Prior Lake Savage Area School. She will not be with us this evening, but uh, congratulations to Trudy. Um, next I would like to call Sarah Bowman forward, fourth grade teacher at
Five Hawks. 26 years of service to our Prior Lake Savage AREA COMMUNITY. AND THOSE OF you who are here, I'm going to ask that you just hold tight. Afterwards, we'll have all of you just go right around the corner here and we'll do a group photo. Christy will get
a Laker Pride uh backdrop with all of you. So, thank you. Congratulations, Sarah. Um, next we have Andrea Karen, uh, social worker at HRE. um 20 years of service and she is not able to be with
us this evening. Uh we have Pam Der, fifth grade teacher at Redtale Ridge, 29 years of service. Please come on forward, Pam. Congratulations to you. >> All right. Uh, next we have Rebecca
Fonder, early childhood teacher at Edgewood, 26 years of service here in the district. Um, was not able to be with us this evening. We have Pam Geer, who is a communications teacher at Hidden Oaks, 20 years of service, also
not able to be with us this evening. Kim Ke, social worker at Hidden Oaks. Come on forward. 20 years of service and uh, really proud of the work that you've done for us in THE DISTRICT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
UH, next we have Heidi Murray, third grade teacher at Glendale, 20 years of service teaching our young ones. Come on forward, HEIDI. Uh we have Karen Russell who is a speech language pathology teacher at Jeffers
Pond. 30 years of service in Prior Lake Savage Area Schools. Fantastic. She's not able to be with us. >> Oh, she is she here? Oh, she is here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Let me make sure uh you didn't get snuck
to the back of my sack. Yeah, I had you down differently. Sorry about that. Yeah, we will get your certificate. Okay. Jill Selchow, fax teacher at Twin
Oaks, 23 years of service. And uh then we have Allison Zach who's a peer coach at Hidden Oaks, 20 years of service not able to be with us this evening. Um and then I don't know, let
me see if I have is uh principal Sherman Katie, is she here tonight? There she is. Come on forward. building principal, five Hawks, six years and many years in education and congratulations to you.
>> Okay. Uh we have Joy uh Joan. Now we're going to uh look at support staff. Joan Freriedeland uh is a child nutrition site manager at Red Tail Ridge. um 26 years of services uh uh here in the
district, not able to be with us this evening. Brenda Get ECF teaching assistant at Edgewood, 23 years in the district. Um not with us uh this evening. Cheryl Hogan, finance student
support admin assistant right here at the DSC. Cheryl uh had 18 years of service with us here at the district and is not here. She had a little early retirement, so she's really been kicking it really nicely already, but we roasted her across the parking lot over at the
pizza spot. Um, and Renee Kaiser Mullikin ESC ECSE parah at Edgewood. She's been with us for eight years, not with us this evening. Um, Carrie uh, get this right. Kimage Kimik, child
nutrition assistant site manager at Westwood. Um she has seven years of service here in our district. Um next we have Lisa Craft uh admin assistant to assessment and academics here at the
DSC. 14 years of service. Um she's not able to join us this evening. We have Michael Mahoney uh custodian at Hidden Oaks Middle School. Seven years of uh experience here in our district and uh will be retiring not with us this
evening. Deborah Maxfield, early childhood teaching assistant at Edgewood, 14 years of service uh here in our community and we thank her for that. Um Deborah Prazik, uh child nutrition site manager at Westwood, 32 years of
service here in Parlake Savage Area Schools, not able to join us this evening. Uh Steve Rabby at the high school, come on down. Custodian, 20 years of service at the high school. He didn't make it this evening. Okay. Well, I have him that he was going to sneak
by. Well, we'll make sure that we uh congratulate him when he comes forward. Um Terry Shonbower, come on forward. Benefit specialist here at the DSC and she has 16 years of service here with us. Yeah, Terry was twinning today, too.
She goes out in style. Make sure that she's not forgotten because her twin was all with us with the shirts. Same shirts almost today. Um and we have Sher Sorenson, child nutrition services at Westwood for 20 years. Um serving our community. Uh not with us tonight. Lisa
Ty, health aid at Glendale for 20 years of service to our community. Thank her for that. Diane Tori, lead custodian at Hidden Oaks, 21 years. And we really appreciate you for that, DIANE.
Uh then we have this other person, Martha Walls. And uh she uh has spent 33 years here at the DSC supporting pretty much everyone in this entire district. And uh um she's not able to be with us. She's already enjoying retirement in Colorado Springs,
so good for her. Um Joanie Went, uh lead custodian at uh Twin Oaks, uh spent 5 years here with us and not able to join us. And then lastly, we have Carlen Needm, um admin assistant and special ed at Westwood for 15 years, um not able to
join us this evening. And uh those are the uh retirees that we want to uh say cheers to the many years of your service in our community. We thank you so much for everything that you've done and may you all have an enjoyable, relaxing and blessed retirement.
And may we all see you back here as volunteers. >> All right. Uh uh chair, I have one more. Uh yeah, those of you want to pop out and Christy will get your picture. And just uh I want to say uh thank you uh to
Obioma um Osuji, our student board rep. Uh just a couple of weeks ago, we celebrated uh your leadership uh within our district, also within the state of Minnesota for being recognized and awarded a MSBA board scholarship. And so
congrats to you. That's a testament to the type of caliber and and man you are. And so thank you so much for for being that leader in our district. And also we want to thank you for a wonderful year of uh meaningful leadership and service to our school board and to our
community. Um we are just always impressed um with with the caliber of folks that we come uh that come and and help us support us. So Obama, I would like to present you a certificate as well as a medallion. Um congratulations.
CHAIR BULLION, THOSE ARE the recognitions that I have for this evening for Laker Pride. >> Very good. Thank you so much. I'd just like to say on behalf of the board uh and extending our gratitude to all the retirees um for their dedication, the
years of service to the students and the staff and the community. It's it's incredible the relationships that have been made over all those years. Um and then Obie has stepped out to get his picture taken, but really a special thank you to him. It has been such a
privilege um getting to know him. Uh having uh the opportunity to do my very first um recommendation, scholarship recommendation was to Obie and uh he sat with me and we did that together and it
it's I'm so grateful and so um happy that he was awarded that um he'll do that that scholarship proud. So um next up is the public forum. Do we have any speakers today? I didn't see that,
Danny. Okay, very good. Um, we'll move on to the next thing in our agenda, which is the purpose and agenda, and I will turn it over to you, Dr. Thomas, for that. >> Thank you, Chair Bully, board directors. Um, this evening uh for our study session, we have a variety of topics
that we'll um uncover and and dig a little further into. Um, first and foremost, we'll talk a little bit about um the bus contract uh discussions and where we're at with that. Um along with Prior Lake uh bus company and collaborative student transportation or
you'll hear the acronym CST. Um and then we'll also walk through some preliminary budget reviews um prior to uh the board taking action in June. And then we will extend our conversation from our last meeting uh where we will share with you
sample ballot uh question language um that based upon the determination of uh the dollar aotment that we would then craft um what that campaign would look like in terms of making um strategic investments around um core academics etc. And then um a brief uh uh sharing
of our major magnitudes uh field trips that we uh have taken this past year. Um uh director Chuku will talk a little bit about our language access plan for MLS uh ensure that we have access to the content. Um uh superintendency evaluation and then a close with the
update of the superintendent search and there will not be any policies tonight. >> Very good. So, uh, the the next item for discussion regarding, uh, the Prior Lake School Bus Association contract, um,
discussion only with board action scheduled for June 8th. And I will turn it over to you, Dr. Thomas. >> Thank you, uh, Sher Bull and board directors. And uh I I'll be turning this over to Director Ryder in just a moment, but I just want to thank our internal team um for their leadership and working
through um some negotiations with um our transportation um uh providers. And I also want to give a a special thank you to our Prior Lake um school bus association. um they have been wonderful to work with and I know that uh they are
committed to supporting high quality um transportation in our district and I think we've had a really uh good ex uh insightful conversation in negotiations process as well as looking at some additional opportunities um with collaborative student um uh transportation uh with some auxiliary
transportation needs that would come outside of our general u busing contract and special ed contract as well. So with that, I'm going to uh turn it over to Director Ryder. >> Thank you, Dr. Thomas. Um we have began the process of um having conversations
with the various different vendors as you recall. Um last meeting you heard from us regarding the routing side of things. Tonight we're talking about the service contract for our transportation. And there were um two of them that we asked to be able to go to the table with
and have conversations around. Um, in the process of doing so, I think that we have found um some nice um nice blending that might be able to help solve some of the issues and concerns
that exist. Now, with the timing of things with three tiers, it can get kind of tight to be able to accommodate all of the needs, particularly when you get midway through the year and then you have some additional, um, you know, a some ads to the list of needs that
weren't necessarily planned on at the beginning of the year, right? And so, um, that's where the collaborative student transportation contract will most likely come into play was is going to be in those areas of, um, how how do we accommodate maybe that McKini Vento student or a care and treatment student
that needs to go? Um, and it's the timing of it throughout the day just doesn't necessarily fit well with our current routes that are already established with um, with Prior Lake School Bus Association and can they assist us then in that process? So, um there are rates and what we found is we
actually have a contract that has been in place with them and um we've just not used it um more recently and so the fact of the matter is moving forward this would be something that is intended to be out there also for um a 5-year
agreement. Uh the details of which I think board members have been able to see, but it's under legal review. So, at this point in time, we're really not sharing that with the public until it is more final. At the June 8th, that will be public. Um, I guess I'm open to answer any of those questions, but just
to try and help you understand how are we going to utilize the two of them together. It'll be a blend, but the primary uh source of our services for all to and from school for gened students as well as the majority of our special education services will be with
the Prior League school bus association. Good. Um open it up for any uh questions or discussion. Board members, can I start with you? >> Um sure. Yeah. I just have a question. One thing that I was can you help me
understand it says outofd district transportation in both of the contracts. >> What is our legal requirements for providing I was I was not aware that we provided out of district um transportation. Can you help me understand that what that means?
>> When we have students who are um like Mckin Vento is all about students who may move from they're they're in our district. we're serving them, but they may have something that occurs within their their um life that requires them to be outside of the district for a residence and yet they are going to
attend our schools. And so there is um when that's the case then there is Mckin Vento um statute that then tells that we can we can go ahead and um arrange that transportation transport that student so that they are able to
continue with their year with us so that there is um um continuation and what's best for the student is always what's looked at. And so when that's the case then that is special transportation and it is coded uniquely separately and is reimbursed then 100% at this point in
time um from MDE. So that's how that kind of works. Similarly, you might have something like a care and treatment where a student needs to go for a period of time and that falls into that same kind of similar category. >> Okay. So it's very special circumstances. It's not it's not that
we're transporting all out of district students. >> Okay. That that's unique circumstances. >> That makes sense. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Can I go down the line? Director Mason, do you have any questions or discussions? >> I think I'll answer. Thank you. >> Okay. Director Olen, >> I don't have anything.
>> Dr. France. >> Um, yes. Thank you very much. And I And by the way, I love the simplicity of the contract um that's before us and hopefully this this goes through. Um we had a couple um surprises in the last couple years, particularly like with the
cost of field trips, um transportation during high traffic times and things like that. And this contract um seems to simplify that down and make the cost very very um transparent, which I like.
Um but you made a comment in your opening statement about we already had a contract, but we weren't following it. I'm a little confused by that or we weren't using it. >> What I mean is there is an um a standing contract with collaborative student
transportation that the district had out there. >> Um and so we just haven't utilized them for many services if any at all. And so therefore it wasn't ever needed by us. >> Not with the Prior Lake Bus association. Okay. >> No, I didn't mean for that to be that.
Mhm. >> So, um, from what I'm seeing here, um, you know, in and what I heard over the last couple years was that, um, that there were some surprise costs that were coming up, not only with fuel uh,
costs and the increase in fuel costs, but also uh, there was something about, and the only reason why I know this is because I was sponsoring a couple of field trips. uh my company was and I was and there was something about trying to get the bus out of there during uh rush hour and how that was going to cost so
much more. This does not the wording in here has nothing to do with rush hour. It has everything to do with the amount of hours, >> right? >> And it is so I assume that's a change and we're not going to have those surprises. >> I I don't believe that we will find
ourselves in those predicaments as much. I think I mean there's always exceptions, right? So I can't say that for sure, right? But I would say that we have taken a very um slow approach to the conversations around every bit of this contract with the parties and with
um Michelle Chuka and Dan Powers and myself and at times Dr. Thomas as well representing the district. I mean it was like we wanted to understand this um exactly what does this mean? how does this really work from your perspective um at the bus company and what does it
mean to our you know our students our families and even our administrators right and so there was a lot of dialogue a lot of conversations around well this is the issue we've run into at times and that's what we need to try and solve so a lot of solution finding I think was
what we were trying to really strive for in the creation of this this contract and we did start from a master contract contract from MDE. We en um enveloped the RFP requirements that we had and then also our current contract making
sure that we understood. So we were using three different documents to make sure that we were kind of having something that in the end kind of addresses all of our needs and um it currently is in for legal review between both both attorneys. So I think we're we're feeling pretty good about what we
have before us at this point. It >> it does look a lot cleaner from what I had seen a few years ago. Um, and the other thing that I I just wanted to point out because I think it's really important that people understand that the bus company requires the district to determine if there's going to be an inclement weather day by 5:00 a.m. and
let them know which um which I'm hoping we can communicate to families who then when the weather forecasts the night before don't turn out exactly as planned either for or against that there's a lot of dependencies that need to be done and
and and um so when they're when they get that call in the morning say school's canceled and yet the the weather doesn't turn out so bad that we had to make the decision very early on before we knew. So >> no, and we also have other employees within the district that are here by that point in time too in the morning or
leaving home to get here. >> And so it's important that those hours are I mean it is really early in the morning. Many many districts are moving more towards making that decision as much as possible the night before. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, director.
>> Nothing for you. >> Um Director B, I actually have one other question. >> Sure. Um it looks like we'll be making a like a rolling a roll out of cameras on all the buses. Is that correct? >> That is a a requirement we did ask for in the RFP. Um currently not all of our
cameras have that and so we are looking for a plan. >> Yep. >> No buses. >> Say again. >> Sorry. >> Okay. I understand them do. Sorry. >> Yeah. No, I say so as far as what what can families expect? What will that look like from a from a parent standpoint? We hear about
>> Yeah. So I think at this point in time our our buses do not have them at this moment, right? Um but what is typically seen on school buses would be one in the front, one in the back and um and the the purpose of that oftentimes is really
just for ability to be able to really understand what may have occurred if there's an issue, you know, and so when something comes up um that needs to be addressed, the contact will be made to the bus company. They'll take a look at the information. they'll share that information with um administrators
within the schools and if there's any further conversation or dialogue that will be determined and addressed at that point in time. But it just kind of helps to kind of understand um you know what exactly took place. >> Okay. So that but just from expectations
it'll be a rolling change. It won't be all buses the first year. Sorry. That's okay. I'm just like I said what? >> Yeah. Initially, I think um I think initially we already have some cameras on the vans and those will be made audible as well as the the camera.
Beyond that then it will be a a rolling cycle as to the buses. Then that would be um we have added in appendix B of the contract a list of all of the buses and um anything that comes in in new that is purchased that will come already
prepared because oftent times the nowadays the easiest way to get those things in place is to have it right from the get-go and it's just kind of made a part of the bus. >> Are there any other things that um our parents should know about that would be enhancements um made with this contract?
I think that they will find um not so much with the contract itself, but our whole process in um moving forward with transportation and including the the opportunities with the new software will afford us greater communication ability
with our families um both from a perspective of them being able to know where the bus is as well as then us communicating um if there is something they need to know much more easily. >> Right. Thank you. Mhm. >> Anything else? All right. Going on to
the next uh agenda item is the collaborative student transportation discussion. Um board action is also anticipated for June 8th. I'll turn it over you to you, Dr. Thomas. >> Uh thank you, Chair Boling. We kind of talked about both of them all at the same time just now.
>> Oh, sorry. Nope. >> That's my bad. Okay. Next then is the final pre preliminary budget review. Um, this is report and discussion. Uh, final board action will be will be requested
at the June uh, 8th board meeting. And so I will turn it back over to you, Director Ryder, for that. Thank you. I'm just going to there. So, I would like to walk through this
memo. Um, attached within the in the board packet is a list of all of the adjustments that were included in our our what I'll say our budget adjustments that in most cases reduced our
expenditures for certain areas and um totaled around that $4.1 million in total with some revenue and expenditure combinations. that list is now highlighted um as was suggested in the area here. I'll pull it up so
people in the public can understand what I'm talking about. Um, so this was our list and we highlighted then and shaded the areas in yellow under the category for those that were non- studententf facing and everything
that is white is considered studentf facing and at the bottom of the entire list and the list you've seen in the past few meetings. So there's nothing new added there except for the highlighting. And then you can see at the bottom a breakdown of the non-
studententf facing reductions and adjustments um compared and included with these studentf facing adjustments with a $4.258 million um included there. So taking that list, we applied it to
line items within the budget. We've gone through and double checked the um comparison of those and um you know making sure that positions in the departments are are all listed and identified and in that
process then we have now a sum total of everything in our general fund all of the funds. what you're seeing at the very start of this memo that we have for a narrative for the entire budget process, the preliminary budget for and included the five-year financial projections. So, we have the funds
listed here with the general fund, food service fund, community education fund, debt service fund, trust fund, custodial fund, internal service fund, and revocable trust. the resolution that is also attached in the packet basically shows the total revenues that you're
seeing there and the expenditures those two columns and that's what's in the resolution that is what the board takes action on I did add a column here for the purpose of the memo to show the increase or decrease to a fund balance so you can see what is is happening
there in um all but two of the funds you see an increase and on the community education fund and we'll talk about that in a little bit, but it's a planned spend down. Um the revocable trust for OPED and fund 25, that's typically where we
spend more than what we're bringing in. And um that is something we have to then levy for some of those dollars as well. The general fund overview, um this is an attempt here for me to show kind of what are the what are the points that were
used or the uh what do I say assumptions used in the various different areas. that um we want to make note of. And so a couple of things that as the week has gone that have come up to my attention is in talking with our principles, I
think that it's um probably more appropriate for us to utilize uh the averaging. And so, you know, we have the gen formula number one, but number two then is the class size district-wide average for elementary is 25.98. That's
easy for us to calculate because it's all on a spreadsheet. We've got that all laid out. When it comes to the secondary class sizes, that's a little bit more challenging. Um, so, you know, I had put in an average of 25 to 36. What I'm hearing from them is at the secondary level, it's probably more accurate to
say an average of around 34. Um, so I will modify that in the memo for your June 8th meeting. Um next then we have uh number three the enrollment overall um has shown in this
this particular prepared budget for next year a decrease of 125 average daily membership ADM and um that is for the early childhood through grade 12 and you can see the numbers there listed we are including in number four a 13%
increase in the health insurance premium cost and a 10% increase on the dental insurance premium cost and in most contracts um that cost is falling to the district. The projected unassigned fund balance for the general fund is 8.8% with these
assumptions and this does include the non-spendable and assigned class size reduction. We'll come back to this as we get to page 10. Um that's probably the best place to kind of read and compare these two things um um or this statement
and and the actual detail. So we'll see that in a little bit. Number six is the FY27 projected unassigned fund balance. It is projecting that we are going to exceed revenues in exceed uh will exceed expenditures by about 470,000
185 and that will add to our fund balance. The adopted budget will be revised. I want to make note of that. That is an annual thing that is done. So, we can anticipate that happening once we know the start of the school year. We know
our federal um updates and allocations for sure. We know our staffing if there's any adjustments made at the last minute due to enrollment. Um we will know our audited fund balances before we revise that budget. Those are facts that you want to be able to make um
meaningful adjustments to the budget so that it is more reflective of what to expect. Um the the rest of this page is really about talking about each of the different types of areas of revenue. And so you've got your basic allowance, you've got special ed, referendum,
and as we take a look at these things, um you know, special education, just a note that it's one year in a in a rears the revenue is. So our revenue for 2627 is based upon an estimate of our current year 2526
school year special education expenditures that we're not yet complete with. So um that is something that we always will kind of watch and monitor and revise as necessary. And um we do know and anticipate we will still continue to have a cross subsidy need
for special education where our our true um need for special ed is not necessarily being met by either federal or state combination. The referendum um paragraph this is just noting the fact that our current referendum is the 623.97 per adjusted
pupil unit and um that is approximately $5.7 million. It does not include a CPI inflation factor um in at this time. Um total compared to our total general fund revenues, it's about 4%.
Um the next page on page three talks about the alternative teacher compensation 2.2 mil compensatory talks about using a 1.4 million. We just had um some information that came across of what occurred over the weekend with our
legislators and so I'm pleased to see that our number is right in right in the ballpark there as to what was um what we're projected to see. So I feel good about that. The English learners um here's where we receive about a half a million dollars, but we're spending
about you know three times that. And so that's an area of cross subsidy that they've gone through some changes as to exactly how they want us to report that, but we'll be adjusting to that and um that is something I'm hoping to see them actually making some movement on and
hopefully see some additional revenue in that area. Uh enrollment, just a recap here of the enrollment over the past five years or I should say since 20 it's it's beginning in 26 and goes through um fiscal year 31. Now, in this case, this
chart is a K12 ADM comparison, different from what was noted up in number three. Um, so for revenue purposes, I need I need to include the early childhood, but oftentimes for K12, you kind of want to look at that by itself. So, that's what that table does
for us. Um, moving on to page four. Um, should keep this going too. Sorry. Um we do have some revenue restrictions and then we're listing those out here. So like operating capital for example and um you know there's our budget is
approximately $2.4 million and then we have our long-term facilities maintenance revenue. Talking a little bit about how now since 2016 2017 this now also includes our health and safety along with our deferred maintenance projects, our student transportation.
um knowing that that revenue is really kind of baked into the gened formula and doesn't have its own restriction or anything. So, it is a part of the unassigned um they they basically say it's about $465 of our gened formula or um 4 I
should say 4.65% I think is what it is of the gened formula um is technically for transportation. I think in most cases people find that our expenditures exceed that amount. our sitebased budgeting.
Uh we did include or adjust for the Westwood Elementary building as a neighborhood school being closed and the relocation of Lola um when incorporating our our um instructional budgets. And yet just a note that those
instructional budgets are determined on a district-wide basis and then they're distributed among various accounts and programs at the school building level. When we move on from there, now we're talking more about like food service and community education and debt redemption.
Those are three other funds besides the general fund. The food service fund budget shows a slight increase to fund balance estimated at about 103,48 for the 2627. That's an increase to the fund balance. The community education or
community service fund shows a planned spendown um of about 520,860. They do have um sufficient fund balance for that reduction. Community education does anticipate expanding their programming as as we sell this building
we're currently in as a district service center and join them at the new educational services center at Greenwood. So, they look to use some of those funds to basically prepare the space for their programming. Uh debt redemption.
This is where all of our principal and interest payments go through. The levy dollars we receive from taxpayers goes into the fund and all the payments come from that fund. Nothing else can go in there but that. So in summary, um this was an attempt to basically just kind of run through this particular one-year
budget, right? And what is it that were the assumptions? When you get to the middle of page five, then we switch gears and we start talking now about what are the assumptions used in our five-year projection. And so this is very similar to what you saw in a in a memo that came to you in
February. Um not much has changed with regard to those assumptions. Although I did note that the 2% on an ongoing state aid formula basis, it now isn't beginning 2627 because we use the actual 2.69% for that year. So I'm going to
modify that to be 2027 2028 because from there forward I'm using 2%. Um it does have in the next paragraph the voter approved referendum currently is 623.97 per student no inflation. So
that is the amount that stays constant yeartoyear. Now then we talk about three scenarios that have been created here. So our our um this is all in appendix 2 and it's tables A, B, and C. So the tables have shifted a little as to exactly what
we're including based upon um interest from the board as to what they'd like to see those numbers look like. And so as we take a look at those um these are full page layouts for table each of the tables. And uh we can talk more about them when we get to those. But basically
the first one table A is assuming our current voter approved operating levy is renewed by the school board according to statute. Um, and then table B talks about assuming a new voter approved revoke and replace operating levy is
approved November of 2026 for 1,386 per adjusted pupil unit with inflationary factor. Um, that is equivalent to that $32 per month conversation we've had. Appendix 2, table C is assuming a new
voter approved revoke and replace operating levy is approved November 2026 for 1741 per APU with inflation fair inflationary factor and that's the $46 per month conversation.
Um, I would take note of the fact that our cross subsidy when it comes to revenues, you know, when it comes to special education, we are still anticipating we're going to see about a $5 million each year of special education cross subsidy. Uh, there is some increases,
but then there's also this discussion of what's going to happen with the blue ribbon committee. So, still up in the air as to how that's all going to settle out in the next few years. When it comes to expenditures, the forecast is assuming um a number of factors. And so under the expenditures section, the
second paragraph kind of lays out that 2 and a half% for salary costs and 1 to 3% for services, supplies, and equipment. Um we're assuming that the district's dental insurance costs will increase 2 to 5% for all staff moving forward in
the projection. Health insurance. Um we're assuming that uptick in that market trend is going to make us kind of stay at that 10% mark for the next five years. And um there are some costs that are beyond the control of the district like utilities, transportation and
maintenance capital which make it about 12% of our district expenditures. So we have to kind of keep an eye on those and and um roll with what we need to there. Fortunately, um there are some areas we can we can negotiate and have an agreement, but sometimes the the need
changes as well as we go from year to year. With regard to the enrollment projection, um slow shows a slow and slight decline. Um essentially approximately 80 I'm at the top of the analysis now in the next
paragraph. Approximately 83% of our total expenditures are spent in salary and benefits. So just noting that when talking about enrollment, we have a number of things that come into play. Enrollment is something that the hardest
number to get, I think, is the kindergarten number, right? You just don't exactly know how many are going to come through the door. So what we do is we use we use the numbers from the county as to the birth rates and we try and estimate exactly what percentage have we seen in trend over the last few
years and what were we going to anticipate seeing as we move forward. But there are some years in which that that number may not come into play. Um we're starting to see a little bit of a an uptick now in our enrollments for our kindergarters who are residents and so
that's a good thing. uh but we did lower that to 489 and that is included in the current year prepared budget for 2627 and then beyond there um we did roll that forward then with lower numbers for the next few years
and so we do see um that information is incorporated into the five-year projections. Uh, let's see. I do want to point out in the third paragraph down, it does state here on the last sentence
there, even if a voter approved referendum is renewed, there still needs to be a long range plan for reductions to offset the decline in enrollment and therefore revenue which does not keep pace with expenditure needs. I bring this up because I've had that question
as to why are you talking about having these reductions on an annual basis into the future when you're also asking for an operating levy and that's revenue coming to you. What you don't want is you don't want the public feeling like we just gave you this money and now you're cutting because you already what?
Spent it. That's not the case. We know we're going to have to reduce on an annual basis for the purpose of kind of staying in sync with our enrollment. So if enrollment is going up, maybe we won't be reducing as much, right? If it were to go down further than we
anticipated, then we do need to make an adjustment, right? Um and so you're going to just want to kind of keep an eye on that and on an annual basis, that is our our mode of operation. You um have expenditures there that are more in line with your with your enrollment.
Uh let's see, the last paragraph is again more about the levy and the dollar amounts. Some of this is restatement, but just good to clarify and make sure we're all on the same page. On page eight, we've seen this graph before. This is just again
noting the fact that the amounts that we see are the dotted lines and that's what our formula allowance has been. And the solid line that is above is what if if the um number had been inflated or adjusted I should say for pupil weight
change and inflation, what would that number be? And so it's that gap that is our concern for many districts in the state of Minnesota because that gap means that we are missing out on revenue that we really need in order to um address the expenditures that are going
at that higher number higher bar or higher line graph excuse me um compared to the revenue that we're receiving in the gened formula. So that continues to be a concern of ours and is included in the um in the projections. The
conclusion does state in here, I want to make note of um it talks about statutory operating debt and I want to point out when we look at the next appendixes what that really means to us and how to what what that what that looks like. Uh statutory operating debt is basically
when you reach a point where your unreserved fund balance exceeds um or does not exceed 2 and a.5% of your operating expenditures. When you dip below that, that that's that's when you're in statutory operating debt.
Appendix three is my attempt to show the three referendum options, tables ABC, ABC all together, and we'll walk through that in a moment. And um so let's take a look at page 10 because on page 10, we have a full page.
This one here is um table A, which is assuming our current referendum rolls forward. I'm sorry, I'm saying this wrong. Appendix one, let's back up a moment. Appendix one is our
estimated fund balance. This is the one that you want to take a look at for next year's budget and kind of understand where's our unassigned fund balance and what are all these things that we call restricted. So what we do is this one pager starts at the top with our unassigned
and um that is essentially kind of like what's left after we do everything that's under the restricted. Okay. So if I can move down to the B section restricted for this lists all of the items that are restricted by state
statute um for us to use the funds that we receive only for that purpose. And in some cases we're going to spend that amount. In other cases we're going to spend more than that amount. And so a good example of that might be um taking
a look at say where is it? Gifted talented um you know we receive 121,131 in revenue projected for next year and um we're going to spend 277,125 simply because of how we approach
things. So that is an area where you're going to see in the transfer column the fact that we're basically pulling from above out of the unassigned to help cover that difference. Okay. Um can't have a negative fund balance on that. So you have to make sure you're balancing to zero. So that's what those numbers
then mean in that column that says at the top here it states uh transfers into funds. And you'll notice that that column total of 377984 ties to the transfers out of funds that you see at the top section A for the
unassigned fund balances. Um the idea is as you bring in the you have these starting fund balances from the audit, you bring in your revenues, you spend what is the remaining fund balance. There's a couple of them that show negative on the readact and they
show negative simply because um we anticipate that the dollar amount that we actually have available is going to be the 120,000 um simply because of what we don't think we're going to spend this year. Right?
So we projected our re our revised budget that we would spend at all. The timing of that of some of those expenditures are going to fall into the next fiscal year. And that's where I'm just showing you what we have budgeted in the expenses. Um, when it shows negative like that, we can't go negative, but it's going to be because I
anticipate we're actually going to see dollars left after the current year 26. Okay. So, that all iron itself out when we get the audit in here and you're doing uh looking at this for revised. Okay. So, all the restricted funds we
figure that out and then what we want to do is we want to make sure that our totals match. So your total revenue you see at the bottom of the total general fund is 130,347586 and our total expenditures is 129,87741.
That difference between those restricted numbers and that total flows up to the top and that's what's in your unassigned with a few exceptions to address some things like the um cash or class size reduction. These are dollars we're setting aside for um kind of those hot
spots that you might think about. And then we have some carryovers for some assigned site carryover that needs to be maintained. And so you can see that anticipated fund balance isn't changing necessarily, but it is contractual for some employment agreements. So we need
to maintain those. Bottom line though is 8.8% for all of these un unassigned. um the state does not consider the things that you see listed here as assigned as being restricted. So from their perspective, we're going to show
an 8.8% unassigned fund balance with all these numbers if they were exactly like it says here. However, um if you were to look at just what is the percentage on that top line, the top line alone is 8.46%. So what we consider our unassigned and
what we focus on as to what's really truly available for everything else that is that 10 million 989161 or 8.46%. Fund balance policy says we will strive to have 8% and that is what this budget is set up
for us to do. The remainder of that page is the other funds showing the revenues and expenditures along with beginning fund balances as anticipated. I'm going to move on to the next three
under appendix two tables A, B, and C. This is where we have the three scenarios that were mentioned. The first page here um again is the current referendum continued forward and that's where I have highlighted for myself the
fact that the 2728 fiscal year is the um as you take a look at the row that says unassigned fund balance near the bottom just before the gray. I'm looking at this and I'm thinking, okay, where do I drop below the the um the
anticipated or strive to be at 8% fund balance and that's going to be in the fiscal year of 2728 under this scenario. When do we have to worry about SOD? It is somewhere between that and the next year. Okay.
Um I am assuming the $3 million you see down here under the row that says um net permanent adjustment to expenditures. Still assuming that would be our our target for assumptions for um adjusting. Turning to the next table B. This one um
now shows with the revoke and replace at 1386 per APU. And this now shows us where it's 2930 school year in which case the percentage for fund balance drops below that 8%. Um and
the SOD is going to be somewhere between that year and the following 203031. And our last example table C shows um the replace revoke and replace with uh 1741 per APU. And that then shows that
we drop below the 8% in the year 203031. Um, and that's as far out as my projections go. So, appendix 3 was my attempt to take those three charts and now visually try and show this to you with these things in play. So, rolling
through these charts here, getting to this graph and talking a little bit about these colors. Let me see if I can make this bigger. there. I think that helps just get this up a little. Okay. So, we
have our red line. The red line is um the 2 and a half% or statutory operating debt. We have our black line which is our 8% minimum unassigned fund balance. And you see that that doesn't it's not flat. It does increase slightly ever so slightly. And that's because our
expenditures are increasing each year. Our light blue line that is at the top there, that is the table C or $10 million additional U funding at about $46 per month additional taxpayer
impact. Um the purple line that is next is the $7 million of additional proceeds to the fund B or to the um annual revenues and um that's about $32 per month um to the
taxpayer of an average home. Then you see uh the green line which is our renew asis unassigned fund balance um which does sync a little bit quicker on this on the diagram trying to point out with a black line
you know how and when does that all happen and place this all on one sheet. So the last the last page of this um memo talks about our enrollment and this is in here so that people are aware of what was
used um for the kindergarten enrollments 489 this year um or this next school year, excuse me, and the following year at 500 and then kind of staying right around that flat amount there forward. As I said, that's the toughest number to try and accumulate. And then this is using a 4-year weighted average um
projection model based on the numbers that we have. So that concludes all of page 15 pages of first the memo about the next year's budget and then the ongoing five-year projection with those three possible scenarios. You've seen
much of this information before. We've talked about a lot of it, but I'm happy to answer any of those questions you may have. Um, I will just point out that in the packet there's also the revised re or excuse me, I see it now. It says revised. It should say adopted.
Um, the adopted budget resolution for the 2627 year um that you would anticipate seeing in June 8th for your approval. With that, I will pause. Thank you so much, Director Ryder, for
all of the detail and um making it easy for us to walk with you through through all the scenarios. So, I really appreciate that. Um board member uh discussion questions maybe we'll start with you director
Smith this time. >> Sure. >> Thank you. Um yeah, thank you for providing this. Um very easy to follow. Uh just a couple of questions on uh page uh one of the memo. >> Yes.
>> Um you had mentioned that for secondary classes they had mention they had said it was more like 34 was the average. Is that 25 to 34 or is that 34 full stop? >> So they use when they talk about
secondary class size averages they're focusing on the core core courses. Okay. So with the core courses, that's where they're saying if you're really wanting to talk average, then the average is 34. >> 34 full stop. >> Y. Okay. Great. >> So that's what will be modified.
>> Okay. On >> on page six of the memo, I just wanted to make sure, is this a typo? Um, the state of Minnesota providing aid at a rate of about 6%. >> So let me see. on the second or the
>> was providing aid the cross subsidy aid it was providing it only at the rate of about 6% >> okay it was it okay so it was 6% >> that has changed to 44 in 24 and then 50% now and 25 and later >> okay great >> but that's what's up in the air as to what happens with the blue ribbon
>> right of course thank you um and then uh this is more just kind of a you know looking down the runway kind of question. Um but the 10% increase annually um for health insurance. >> Yes.
>> Um you keep adding you know 10% um it similar to kind of the statutory operating debt conversation. Is there a break point with that? And um and you
talk about kind of the long-term planning. Just kind of wondering uh how long is that sustainable? >> Right. We had a conversation this evening earlier prior to this meeting uh was a health insurance meeting >> and um we really had conversations around that and it's like it was pointed
out to me that you know when you look back at the last five years um even though we are showing a 13% increase for next year the average is is less over the last five years than what many districts see right >> so yes we've done you know that's been
good the challenge now is really more around the market trend and what's happening outside of us, >> right? And so with the cost of health insurance just skyrocketing all over, >> um it makes it difficult to take a look
at the five-year and say, "Well, this is a onesie thing happening." You know, it's just going to be one year and then we're going to find ourselves going back to the way it used to be. I'd love to believe that. I'm just not certain I can because of the market trend being as it is. >> Okay. So, conversations are being had.
Yeah, we're keeping an eye on it, but I was just kind of curious. Yeah. What was that? >> That's the conversation. Yep. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Um >> uh so you mentioned in the in the narrative that this does, correct me if I'm wrong, that this does not your
projections do not include a capital project levy. >> No, they don't. Um being that as uh that's part of the scenarios that we are are considering, do you have any idea or would you be able to comment on what that gets us for
that SOD timeline or is it still roughly the same or is it >> So when you're talking about a capital project levy, that's going to be the amount that is determined based on the rate, right? And what we've talked about has been that $3.8 8 million amount because that's the amount that our debt
service will drop in 2029 fiscal year. >> So if you align it to that then it doesn't necessarily have an additional tax impact to our taxpayers. Um so if you use that number that is a rate that's determined in the first year and
then that rate is applied from there forward. >> How might that help us here in the bigger picture? It will largely be around how are those funds planned to be used, right? And just just hot off the presses is the fact that they have just
approved the ability for school districts to code utility costs to operating capital. >> Oh, >> that's huge for us. >> That's big news. >> That's huge for us. So, um that in itself could possibly alleviate quite a
bit of of um expenditures that right now are coming out of that unassigned fund balance, right? And so something to consider. A lot of people don't realize that school districts pay utility bills. Yes, we do. >> Um so so that's you know it's I think it's about how are we planning to
utilize this. We know we have we have a list of needs when it comes to curricular needs. We have a list of needs when it comes to operational needs. Um we have a list of the needs that are needed for our infrastructure for our technology. And you know, now it's about how and when would we need to
do these things and what would be possible if we actually have a question on the ballot. I think that's where we need to really >> really get down to the nitty-gritty and start talking about that so it can be communicated, right? Um, so at that point in time when we know that that's
something that's going to be on the ballot and that that's something we want to move forward with, you would um you would see an update from me with regard to what that would look like based on whatever the decision is for the ballot language. >> Yeah, totally understand why it's not on there now. Um was just was just kind of curious and uh out of curios uh
utilities, what fund is that paid out of right now? >> Uh utility costs come out of it comes out of the general fund. >> Okay. um primarily because even even utilities for child nutrition unless you have a separate meter for the kitchens, they don't let you charge it to child
nutrition. So, primarily is the general fund. >> Okay. Yeah, >> great. Thank you. Um let's see here. And I'm sorry, I I might have missed it on your um on page 15 of the memo uh appendix one,
>> the difference transfers into funds, transfers out of funds. What what what's the distinction there between those two columns? >> Sure. So in the case where it's transferred into funds, it's a case where you have expenditures that exceed the revenues. >> And so where the money where's the money
coming from? >> Sure. >> It's going to come from the unassigned dollars, the dollars that aren't required to be spent in a particular area, but you do need them down here in the area of say gifted and talented in order to cover those costs, >> right? Um it's my belief that you should show the expenditures in the areas that
you're actually spending it even if it means that you're essentially subsidizing from the unassigned. Right? So you'll see the transfers into the funds under the restricted areas and it's coming out of the unassigned at the top. >> Okay. So the um
the only number that you'll see in the transfers out of funds is that is that top number, right? >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um I think I have one last question. Um yeah, for uh appendix
um 2C uh the 5-year projection with the uh 1741 per pupil >> um you know just like uh in the other two you had mentioned that uh statutory operating debt occurs either that year
we dip below 8% or the year after. Uh, is it safe to assume that in this scenario that statutory operating debt happens in 3132 or is that maybe >> we'll be close? >> We'll be close. >> But we might we might squeeze it out another year. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Yep. >> All right. Thank you so much. This is great. >> Okay. >> Appreciate it, >> Director France. >> Um, thank you. Um when I look at, you know, our financial situation, the 5-year projection, basically um we have
three choices. We can tread water for a year and then drown. We can tread water for two and a half, three years and then drown. And then we tread water for a little over four years and then we start drowning. Um so that that I think that's
uh that needs to be pointed out pretty strongly here with our choices. Um, the other thing that I'm a little worried about is that rate of our ability to do that given the estimate for the CPI which was you estimate that in continuously over the 5-year projection
at 4%. >> Um, do you mean >> the the the only 2% was used? >> Oh, I thought I thought you said a CPI of 4% when I was looking through here. I got to find it. >> Um, I'll have to look to see. It's not
intended to be. It's it's the 2% that's out there under the state assumptions. Um and and if you look at the Ellers's materials, you'll see in a little bit, you're going to see that those inflationary numbers are at the two 2.02 2. So that's that's my intention is to
use a 2% increase on those. Is that realistic >> for for the infl Let me see if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking 2% on the inflationary for the referendum. No, I'm talk I was talking about the CPI you used in your five-year projection for the budget.
>> Yes. On on average it's four to 5% each year for the expenditure increases. Yes. Yes. Without anything done for adjustments. Yeah. >> Um and the current estimate is between four and 6% I believe in the industry if things don't change.
>> Yep. So what will that do if we see the CPI increase um above that 5% rate? I mean I know that affects primarily uh goods and services, purchase goods and services, but um that's still a huge chunk. Yeah, it's it's very challenging
because as we start seeing even some of our invoices for next year that are coming through now, even though we can't pay them until July 1, the reality is that what we're experiencing for increase in costs, other vendors are also experiencing. And you know, you just get this memo that basically says,
"Heads up, your invoice when you get it this year is going to be inflated for um costs that we have to push along." And we don't know exactly what that looks like until we get the invoice, right? So that's a challenge for us because the impact um of what's going on across the
world now and and how that's really going to impact our vendors, how it's going to then flow through to us, that is something we're going to have to kind of watch closely to see whether these percentages that I've used in these assumptions are are going to stand for us or do we have to adjust? Right? So this is something you're going to see on
an annual basis so that we can continually review it and see whether or not this is still holding true. The other area I would I would say that is um somewhat much more of an estimate as always has been discussed is our special education revenue, right? You know, so
wanting to make sure that I don't overestimate that because that is an area the state's struggling to keep up with, right? So whether or not they um can actually fulfill us with the amounts that we anticipate we should get based on our expenditures is the real
question. So that's an area that has been adjusted here ever slightly each year even though our costs are are projected to go up at 2 and a half% at least. >> Yep.
>> Director Olen, any questions that just Oops. Sorry. Uh yes, just a few. Um food service on page five of the memo. um the slight increase. What is that due to? Is
that going back on the national >> um >> program at the high school? Maybe. >> I mean, part of it's that, but it's really about um the the funding that is coming into fund two because of the um meals being s um free from the from the
state. It's interesting because that kind of is a shift for us in the fact that the state's having to cover more than what used to be in the past more federal dollars. So, we're seeing that happen in the food and nutrition child nutrition
area. Um, I think that the free and reduced applications, the educational benefits for um, free reduced meals, that is something that we still should and would want to encourage our families that are eligible to continue to fill out. Um, if nothing
else, it certainly shifts that um that cost, the revenue that we receive to the federal versus the state where it's appropriate. Um but the other thing that it will do is allow for other things that are still based upon those percentages like our e rate, our title
allocations, um other federal programs that look to what is it that is free reduced eligibility versus just the um direct which is what is otherwise used by the state now for compensatory aid. So I think that that's a challenge for
us. Um, with regard to what's causing the increase, um, this is an a fund that has been closely monitored and has pretty well stayed fairly close to that. I mean, they have gained quite a bit of a fund balance during the co years, which was the case across a number of
districts. Um, you'll note though that the there is a a fund balance requirement that you cannot have too much fund balance or you have to have a plan, right? So that is 6 months out still through 2627 and then if we still have a fund balance
that exceeds that 3 months out then then we'd have to have a plan as to how that's going to be spent down. Um but we I think that that's something that is cost of food and other things that we experienced in this year and into this next year. You know we'll talk more
about what that looks like for us as far as whether we need a plan or not because I have a feeling it's just going to kind of eek away at at what we have. So, our estimate at this point in time though is there is a slight slight benefit to the fund balance. >> Okay.
Um I realize this next question kind of depends on the district and it's it's very much not a cleancut answer probably. I'm going to ask it anyway. Um, how on average how often do districts
go to voters for a levy >> on average? >> Yes. >> Again, I know it's >> um others might be able to better answer that one, but I I would say that that shifted over the years. Um, I can remember years in which going every 10
years was was sufficient and it worked fine. But with the increase in costs and particularly health insurance over the years and the contract requirements and things of that nature and the unfunded mandates that have just hit us hard,
particularly in the last five to seven years, I mean, I'd say that that is that's just changed the changed the game, right? Um, so I don't know that I could necessarily say on average what that looks like and other than a guess, right? Um, but I do I can say with
confidence that it is less than the 10-year mark as it used to be. >> I I bring that up. Thank you. And I I know I caught you off guard with that question. Um, and I appreciate your cander. Um, page 14 was kind of the the
big flag for me. Um, to put that visually um, and thank you for doing that. Um, you know, you can read this stuff and then you're presented this this information and you kind of you see
things differently. Um, I just I it's it's crazy to me. Um, and I guess is why one of the why I I, you know, I I voted to see a whatever the $60 amount was. Um, and the
reason I asked that question is, you know, we went for a vote two years ago and then before that it was what what was the tech levy? My my years are running together. >> 20. >> Yeah,
>> it was after CO. So, we're kind of on a a every two to three year kind of thing right now. Um, but I just I this was eyeopening to me to see basically with whatever option in
another, you know, it goes by year where you're kind of inching closer to that standard uh that >> SOD. Thank you. Standard statutory. So, I guess my my comment with all of this
is I I just I I have trouble going to our community saying, you know, this $32 a month and say we do and it passes, that's great. And yes, we passed a levy, but it's not going to do anything.
Um, and not to what we want. And the same could be for 46. So, I guess, you know, I I liked your analogy, the, you know, treading water and then drowning and and I I want to be real with our community that yes, if we go for 32 and it passes,
that's great, but it's just not enough. And I don't want to be in this situation and another year and another year and another year where we try every year, every two years just to stay afloat. Um, and so that's just kind of where I
am with especially seeing that chart that you did on 14. It was really eye opening to see, you know, where we would be. Um, and nobody wakes up in the morning and go, "God, I hope my taxes go up." You know, nobody nobody says that.
And and I understand. Um, but I'm just trying to be real. Um, and I know in our survey we said, you know, this this potentially comes with cuts. this potentially still comes with cuts. This potentially still comes with cuts. And I know we were open about that. Um I just
this was really this was really eye opening for me. So thank you for pulling it together and for all the work um with this memo and all the charts. It's really really really uh it's it's easy to follow. It's easy to read. It's understandable which
we need. Um and I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Director Mason. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, thank you for all of this. It's a lot to digest. Um, uh, I had the same question I think
versus Director Smith around adding the capital levy to the graph and maybe that's great if we want to wait till after that decision's made. And even just with like some assumptions, right? Are we going to spend X dollars of it towards freeing up operating versus new
investments, whatever, right? So, whatever we decide, I think that would be helpful at some point. >> Um, so >> yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, knowing we'd be making some assumptions on what we're going to do with the dollars, but >> um and then I think last year we got
like a detailed budget, like the big spreadsheet. Mhm. >> Are we do you have that handy you could send to us separately just to see some of the like comparisons of like what we're spending on curriculum or you know all the things that are in the expenditures to compare to prior years.
>> Okay. So I I understood that that sheet was more about the restricted funds but I think what I'm hearing you say is the breakdown of the unassigned possibly. >> Yeah. I mean it was a it was a full breakdown and it might have been originally from finance committee but it was that massive spreadsheet.
>> I'm aware of the spreadsheet you're talking about. We looked at this one pager on page 10 as being its replacement. >> Okay. >> So I guess if there's something that you're feeling isn't present here, >> then that's what I can further understand. Um this has like my
recollection is that you had one side of the sheet was a very long sheet, right? And one side of it was the revenues and the other side was the expenditures. And so you'd have a column for say student activities, a column for um ALC staff
development and such on both sides. Yep. >> And totals at the bottom and lines across like where they all landed and such. So I mean I I feel as though this is a little bit more concise with pulling the information right here in front of you where you have the revenues
and you have the expenditures, but it is true it doesn't get into the breakdown of the unassigned. >> Yeah. So, um, that is something that this doesn't cover. So, maybe that's something we can discuss as to what exactly is is missing. And I can go back and double check to see what was like
shown there and what isn't shown here. >> Um, I have to say I I didn't check that more recently. I just went with the assumption that this actually covered it. So, >> yeah, I just I personally I liked it the way it broke everything down and and sliced it and dice it between revenues, expenditures, and the different buckets
across both ways. So, I would love it if you have it in the same format. I don't want to create a bunch of >> It wasn't created. So, we'd have to we'd have to work at that, >> right? That's not something that we have. >> It is not something we have at this time. >> Currently, that was a one-time um run
that uh previous director did. So, if that's the will of the board, that's that's work that um our team could >> Well, and I think I would ask specifically um if there was something specific that >> Yeah. I mean, it just broke things down
a lot better and to see how much we're spending on, you know, curriculum especially, you know, it broke it way down down way better. Again, we had kind of dove into it more in this finance committee meeting before, but I we I know we didn't do that this year, so I was just curious if it existed. >> Yeah. Well, and I think, you know, I
appreciate the the ask and I think just for the administration just given all of the the current workload and it's not something that is created, we we'd we'd have to figure out if it is the will of the board to recreate something like
that. Um, and so if there's something specific that maybe you and Director Ryder can discuss offline, um, that would maybe suffice. If there's if it's more like the the board as a whole is
looking for a past document, um, you know, I could take a a consensus down the down the road to see if that's a thing. But if it's something that maybe could just be >> That's fine. Okay, sounds good.
>> Um, and then just I think kind of hopping between forecast and current year, but on the five-year forecast, the the one that went up like 10% a year, I think was the fiscal in fixed costs. Why is that? Um, I don't know if I missed it
and it was stated, but like what why is that a jump over the five years? >> Um, one more time, which table? >> Um, sorry, all of them. I mean any of the forecasts the the fiscal and fixed costs increases that's like a 10%ish increase
year-over-year. >> Yeah. So that's that's um that's that's the leases that we have. So these are leases that are not under your debt service fund. These are things like um do a fouryear lease for the
devices that we have. And um so as we just did the um I guess Mac errors if I got that right for the teachers for example that's that's something then that we're going to see that increase um the need for those those particular leases um increase over the years um
with the interest and um the fact that there's added ones to it on an ongoing basis because they're kind of staggered. >> Okay, >> we have copiers for example coming up next year. So that'll be one year that we have to see what what happens with
those and we have to do an RFP or or find a state contract that we're under. So that's increasing at a standard percentage just to kind of make sure we got it covered. >> Okay. Thank you. That makes sense. Um and then you know again I just I know we kind of
did this approach last year of like comparing to the prior forecast. So the forecast that we used four months ago as the basis for our cuts, right, showed expenditures at like 130 132 million. We're now at like 129.9. Um so certainly see the savings, but
then I think there were a couple areas that were a pretty big jump. So special ed specifically, I think we raised nearly at 1.7 million from four months ago. >> What is the reasoning behind that? Like did we see a spike in >> negotiated contract that wasn't included
previously other than a flat amount, right? >> The negotiated teacher contract. Remember the first year was this year, >> but only in special education that it's just that's where a good number of our our instructors are and particularly
those that are at that point in the schedule that received the increases and the um longevities and such. So, >> I had thought we had already talked about that being in budget. >> It is from It is for 27 and beyond, and we always had that in there, but it's
the 26 year. Like when we talked um about the teacher contract, the fact of the matter is that the 26year current year. >> Yeah. had an established budget that didn't necessarily account for the full amount of what we were probably going to need particularly when it came to like
um say the insuranceances or the special or the um the total cost of salaries. Now it's not much but it's some but that is some of it. Um as far as where else we have um contracted services because we can't fill some of these positions
and those contracts are going up. Um I think that the you know although our our enrollment overall is going down our enrollment for special education needs is not. >> I certainly understand that. Yeah. I just know like again from four months
ago when we started versus three today the 1.7 that struck me as like that was a big bucket and the rest of it I think we see the reflection of the cuts right across the staff. >> Y >> so that's good. Um I didn't know if there was something like specific that
came up or >> nothing else necessarily. Although I will say that you know the process used here is um one that has quite a bit of manual review done by Andrea um in the process of getting these broken down by
the various different um department program areas. And so, um, I feel like this is probably more accurate than what may have been kind of just across the board last time, you know, in May in February for this for this year as well
as um, the future. So getting the current year 26 um kind of understood as to what are our current costs for all these people and then seeing that then projected as to what their salaries will be for next year and now importing that into our
system for 27 and then beyond using the percentages as we talked about. I didn't change those percentages except I did lower the health insurance from 13 down to the 10. >> Okay. Um, and then I think the other two buckets that we saw increases were like
188,000 in DS in district support services and then 185 in the I think sites and buildings. Is there any recent >> what two years are you comparing >> just again from the last from four months ago to now? >> But what year >> for this year
>> for the current year >> for the budget as we're budgeting for 2627. Oh, 26 27. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, that's just it's solely based off from um trying to think here. I suppose it's based off from more accurate information as to who has health insurance and what
coverage do they have. Um that shifts and changes. So, I I'm not sure. There was nothing other particular. There are no positions added, only positions reduced. >> Yeah, that's okay. I was wondering. >> Okay. Um, yeah. I mean, really, so we've
really increased the budget like 1.7 million if we took the forecast from four months ago minus the cuts and then added 17 back to it. >> I think you see that on the revenue though, too. >> Of course. Yes. But doesn't revenue doesn't mean more expenses always,
right? It just >> um Okay. And then sorry, buildings Oh, the 2.4 million from sale of DSSE. Are there specific things that we're
spending that on or is it just kind of embedded throughout? >> There's some plan on that. Um, as you know, there's um there's an equipment and um how do I want to say this? Equipment and finance lease, I believe it's called.
And there's two years left on it. So, it's this year 26 and next year 27. And so, it's about $700,000 that in the past has been taken from the unassigned. Okay? And we've talked about this. Instead, we're going to cover that out
of the capital in 27 and then um one more year in 28. There we go. So, that's 700 each year. That's about 1.4 mil. There is uh
450,000 in the budget for use towards um modifications at Greenwood for staff in this building. Um this is separate from what community education might be doing, separate from the transitions program that is special
education. And then the rest is still un unmarked. it's available for curriculum needs or other needs as we determine um that would have to be capital in nature of course. >> Okay,
perfect. Thank you. Um yeah, I mean I think that's most of my questions. I think, you know, again, I know we've talked about this before with the forecast, but I think um certainly looking at enrollment, for example, if we're dropping 500 students over the
next five years, we would be looking to do, you know, other shifts, I think, to save expenditures to align with that enrollment. Um, and then, you know, again, I go back to like just the forecast that we saw in October 2025,
right before I joined the board. um or October 2024, sorry. We had um we've essentially grown the expenses for this year that compared to that forecast like $10 million. Um if you take the amount that we had
then plus all the cuts we made, $8.4 million worth of cuts over the last two years and then the additional 1.7. Um, so I mean that that's a massive increase in expenses, I guess, and I know that there's a lot of reasons, but I think it's important for our community to know
that like those the expenses are going up astronomically. So, and and I think our revenues are are in pretty in line with that. So, that's great. But, um, I think that was it. Thank you, >> Director Atinson. Do you want me to go
or do you want Director um Johnson to go? Can you hear us, director? I'm happy to go and then let him feed in >> or whatever he wants to. Can you hear us? >> Welcome. >> Hi. >> No problem. >> You guys just fine. Can you hear me?
>> Yep, we can hear you. Um, we are Do you know where we are on the agenda, Director Johnson? >> Uh, I think I figured it out, but >> Yep. We we are um under the um
preliminary budget review and those documents and so we're on director Atinson for for questions and then after her if you have any that um you know from your review of the packet we'll we'll let you go last.
>> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Yeah, you bet. >> Um thank you. Um, thank you for going through all this, putting it together and going through it in detail. It was incredibly helpful. Um, I have several questions and then a few comments. Um, the first question I have, you
mentioned, um, our English learner um, aid. You said that it's about three times more than what we received, the half a million dollars, right? Um given we have about 385 students per MDE. Um are you including when you say
the English learner aid doesn't you know is our need is three times greater than that. Are you including any of the like the Ola Daga programs or anything like that or are you just specifically referring to the 385 students? >> Right. So, um,
many districts, including ourselves, have utilized the compensatory aid as a means to cover the costs of our English learners. And so, that's always been an allowable expenditure, continues to be an allowable expenditure. What's shifting on us is the fact that the legislature wants to know and see it
differently. And so, that means I'm shifting those expenses from compensatory over to the 339 finance, which is just E. And as you do that, I mean, they've always seen it where you can look at the program code and see it's program 219. That's definitely E.
Um, but regardless, the point is they're trying to get a handle on exactly how much is is cross subsidy. And, um, what we learned is what we kept hearing before is if you're getting $500,000 of revenue, then move $500,000
of expenditures over there. um and consider maybe not spending it to a negative balance, but you know, get it close. So, we did that, but we left the rest over in 317 compensatory. Now, we're hearing um if you want 25%
of the expenditures that exceed the revenue you're getting, you need to put it all over into the 339. And so, in that process, it's kind of highlighting the fact that our expenditures are $1.5 million. they're not, you know, 500,000, which we've always known and it's always
been the case, but we've utilized that compensatory to cover those costs. So now, as we move forward, it's like those other um we're going to basically we want to be able to see that separately and also see the revenue that comes from it, right? So, we want to benefit from
the 25% of those expenditures that we know we're spending above and beyond the revenue. So, let's make sure we code that so that moving forward we're seeing that. Uh so that's one of the big things that's coming up and I guess uh the fact that that is just kind of called out I think is mostly because of the attention
it's getting at the state level and um you know the the need has always been it's a it's on a case by case basis right for students. So the the counts that we have um tend to be around the same
um with students coming in and then leaving. There's also a requirement that they have to have um services for so many years, but when they exceed the number of of years, then they don't you you don't get funding for it, but you will continue to serve those students to the need that they have. >> So that's partly why you see
expenditures that exceed those revenues, right? because this the law is the way it is and you don't receive funding once you get past a certain number of years. That help? >> Yeah. Oh, totally helpful. Um but it's not funding any of the oligo. That's not considered an English learner. No, it is not. >> I just wanted to make sure because like
I said, our student count for English learner is um >> 385 students or so. >> Yep. >> Um okay, then my second question, and I think I've brought this up in the past with the revenue um assumptions. Um I'm going to pause and go back to the
special education. So, first of all, um does your forecast align with the revenue projector um provided by MDE? Like comparing those to what you have in here, does it align with what MDE is saying that we're going to get from from a revenue standpoint
>> for 2627? It is shy by about a mil. Okay. because it's projected our >> forecast is >> our our forecast amount for 2627 is shy from the calculation that's currently out there on MD's website by about $1 million and why is because I don't know what's
going to happen with the cross subsidy of that amount of dollars we receive a significant portion is um from this cross subsidy um aid and so our costs are increasing we're also looking that you know as part of this transition of
moving EL out. You know, special education funds are eligible under compensatory. So, do you do you slide some of that over and keep your maintenance of effort? I'm getting too detailed here probably for the general public, but >> it's it's a balancing act that you play.
And um so the the fact is if we have to actually kind of I'll say tamper our expenditures for special education so that it doesn't necessarily increase too high and then now that's the new maintenance of effort that you have to maintain for the following years. You um
can potentially code some of those things over to compensatory and kind of keep that a little bit flatter but you have to acknowledge you're going to lose the 75 cents per dollar on the special education if you do that. So, it's kind of like, you know, we have to just kind
of walk that line. Um, because you can't afford to keep the maintenance of effort up there too high, but at the same time balancing it. >> But wouldn't with special ed because it's paid in a rears, wouldn't you pretty much know what you're getting since you've already incurred those expenses in the past?
>> Well, one year. So, we're still incurring the cost this year. So, the final um salaries and everything that's in our projection, right? So, where our budget is, we're assuming is going to carry forward. The challenge is also how are they going to fund it because they've already said they're going to reduce the amount that's being funded
for transportation special ed right by 5%. And so then the question is what's going to happen with the $250 million statewide. Um if that isn't something that they can come up with and it's going to come out of that that special ed aid that they're otherwise giving us in cross subsidy. So um others in my
position across the this the districts in the state are are cautious. >> Yeah. >> So that makes sense. I mean, >> I'm conservative. >> Yeah. So, can you also help me understand when I'm looking at that sped revenue in that revenue calculator, it looks like the sped revenue for our district from 2023 to current, we've
increased about $10 million. So, we've seen a huge increase in sped and which is why we got the additional money this year. It looks like we're going to get the ex like additional money next year for sped from their revenue, their projection. Um, can you help me understand why there's been such a huge
increase? So pay attention on that revenue spreadsheet because there's two subtotals. There's a subtotal that is before the cross subsidy and then after. If you look at the amount that's before the cross subsidy, that's not increasing very much. >> But in the last two years, the cross
subsidy has significantly increased. So that's the that's the bulk of the reason why you see that much of an increase. Um and yet it's it's kind of in a rears too, right? So we um also experienced um some transportation costs that were
higher in 25 compared to 24 as we know um not just transportation but just special ed in general. Right. So that was also a significant jump for us our our cost and special ed overall because there's a there's a tab for revenue and there's a tab for expenditures.
>> I'm very yeah it's very helpful actually. Um so I think you know like I had called out before I think the revenue calculation on here for the 5-year is probably a little bit conservative where in the past um our compounded revenue has been trending
around 4.4%. And so I think that that overall impacts our entire you know it it impacts the entire forecast basically. Um the other thing is I had I did have a question um dress director Mason touched on it with the building
sale of 2.4 4 million. So will those are those expenditures all included in the 26 27 year or they spread out throughout um multiple years? >> So one of the 700,000 is in year 27. The other is in 28
>> and then the 450,000 is is um bookmarked for 27. Otherwise the unknown is what you will see in the capital operating capital line. You see it increasing from 45,000 up to the 1.4. four. So that's
the 700 and the other remaining 5 to 600,000. So >> thank you. >> And then just like simple math, um looking at our budget from 25 to 26, our expenditures are 126 million. Um we're estimated to be at 129 million. I myself
look at that and go, you know, shouldn't that be closer to 4 million? You know what I mean? as far as for 4 million in reductions. It should be 4 million in reductions from where we were last year. If we're budgeting year-over-year compared to last year, that number should be in a reduction of 4 million.
Um, if everything stayed stable, but our positions and salaries have not. So, >> right. No, I understand. And I think that's where we get into and I've talked about this before and where we get into some trouble is this budgeting year over year over year and um of how we budget,
but I mean I think you know there's been a there's been some chatter at the board tonight or some discussion at the board tonight about um treading water and drowning. And I think the one thing that we learned this year is that we have a superintendent who had it written in his goals to bring a budget that operated
with the fund balance at 8%. And we see that, right? And our district is in a good financial position because of that. I think when you look at um my past three years on the board, and I cautioned every single year about this
and got a lot of crit criticism about it from other board directors, um when we don't operate within our our board policy of providing a balanced budget, that's when we have trouble. That's when we're going to drown. And I think if one
thing we learned this this year is we learned how to swim. And that's that's great because we learned how to operate within a balanced budget. And I think that what I would like to see in a five-year projection is I would like to see if we were to continue to operate if the board if it was the will of the
board because there was a conservative more conservative fiscally conservative board majority last year that said, you know, we would like to see a balanced budget. our superintendent. It was written in his goals. It was in our board budget priorities.
If we were to continue to operate on a balanced budget, what would this forecast look like for the next 5 years? And um that's something that I would like to see because that's not what we're seeing right here. We're basically saying we're going to continue to overspend.
And >> where I think >> I'm sorry, what >> where does it where does it show that we're overspending? uh our revenues our our expenditures are over exceeding revenues and so um if we were to operate where our expenditures
were in line with our revenues just like our board budget policies we're I think our financial situation would look different and we hear a lot of talk about how we're going to have to continue to make cuts if we don't have the students. I mean, just looking at the 500 students, if you
take that times $11,000, that's $5.5 million we're going to lose in the next five years. That we don't have the revenue. So, I think it's important for people to understand at the board table and in our community that a big part of this this revenue issue is because of
our loss of students. Um, so I think that's important. Um, >> yeah. I mean, I think that's that's I have more to add, but I I think that's that's my biggest takeaway is I think if we like I said, we continue to operate within our board budget policies. Um, we
haven't in the past and you can go back and look through the finance reports where we've overspent anywhere between 2.8 million and seven million dollars and that's why we've gotten into trouble in the past. So happy to see our budget come in where it's coming in where we um
are meeting our bo our our board policies and um like I said I'm happy to see that. So thank you Director Johnson. You have any questions or um on the on the on the presentation
for Director Ryder? She'd be happy to take them. Yes, just just one area. Um, mine's really around the enrollment. I know that is it's constantly changing. We talk a lot about next year. Um, and
anticipating a lot of our uh in district families to wait until the summer. Uh, but just trying to remember back to what we saw. um a few weeks ago uh it it was a
significant number and I don't remember I apologize I had it written down um for what we were missing coming into this year or what what hasn't been enrolled for
going into next school year with that my question is how much of a change or how big of a change do you foresee us having to make into next year if the
enrollment stays uh with the current projection that you have? >> If enrollment for kindergarten comes in at the 489, that is what the budget is built upon. If we find that our kindergarten
enrollment is less than that, we would be looking at whether or not there's a section that should be reduced at one of our sites. Um, and if that's even possible, we'd have to take a look at that, right? Um, but aside from that, it's something that you likely are going
to find included in the budget on page um, it's best shown probably on page 10. you can see that there is a set aside of um $200,000 for class size reduction. And
one of the areas that we're kind of watching how closely is that kindergarten and so should we need an extra position there that isn't really justified by the student counts. Um in other words, we've allocated enough sections for 489 students and we come
short of that by say, you know, we're at 4 468 or something like that instead. um you know that will then mean that you will probably have smaller classes across the district in kindergarten. And how are we going to pay for it? It's
going to come from this um class size reduction hotspot type um area that we have set aside in the budget. That is that answering your question? I'm not sure. Did I miss it? Director Johnson, can you hear us? I
think you're frozen. >> I got most of that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's raining really hard here. I don't know if that has anything to do with it. >> Director Johnson, um just before you signed on, we were also tracking that
some of that resident kindergarten enrollment, that was what we were missing. That's what we're starting to see some small trends of that starting to increase. >> Okay. Thank you for the context. >> Yep. >> All right. Well, um I think if there is
no other comments on that portion, we'll move forward to um the sample ballot questions. Um, Ellers and Associates has prepared some options including estimated taxpayer impacts and timeline
considerations. So, I'll turn it over to you, Dr. Tom or Director. >> Director Ryder. >> Director Ryder. >> Thank you. Um, see I think this is the best. You need a break. Do I Do you want a break? C
>> should we can we take a quick break? We'll take a quick break. >> We're in two hours. Yeah, we can take a quick break. We'll take a five minute recess if you don't mind. Okay. And then we'll come back so everybody so nobody misses anything. Click on the slideshow.
I think I don't I thought that's where it was. Is it this one? like Murphy's last >> got a thumbs up from from Liz. >> All right, we're gonna start back up and with our Ellers's presentation. Thank
you so much for joining us again this evening. Really appreciate that. >> Yeah, good evening everybody. Matthew Hammer from Ellers. Um we do have some information tonight based on um feedback we received and some information that um the district asked us to run for
tonight. Um so that we have uh it's an update of the information we would have seen um back in April. The numbers haven't changed and um the estimates haven't changed, but we've got some more specific information on some specific options. So, I'll just get into the
presentation of information and then we can answer any questions as we as we get through here. See if I can figure out how to run this. Here we go. So, um, one of the key considerations that um, districts as they're thinking about presenting
questions to voters is whether we add an inflationary adjustment. And I I just want to go back to some of this information that we talked about um, at the end of April. um those questions for the large uh majority of districts, they're presenting these questions right
now with that operating or that inflationary factor as part of the question. And um if we look just specifically at the seven county metro area since 2018, uh there's been 57 operating questions that asked for an increase. 49 of those
included an inflationary adjustment. Um 37 of those passed, 12 failed, and um eight did not. and those um had a 50/50 um outcome um in the eight questions that didn't have an inflationary adjustment. Uh that language as we'll see as part of
the ballot options is called out in one line in the ballot and we'll see how that gets laid out in one of the options that we uh as we go forward will have it underlined as part of the question. Um and that's the component of the question that either stays or goes, right? Depending on what um the district would
want to do. Um, the inflationary uh adjustment. I think this is key, right? The district doesn't decide what that number is. The state of Minnesota decides what that number is. And it's the exact same formula that's used to calculate the statutory cap in the
operating formula. So, the operating referendum uh cap is uh for fiscal um this next year is about $2,400 in total. Um it's I think it's three or 2398 right
now is the latest estimate. Uh the state adjusts that cap every year with a formula and that formula is the same formula that's used if a district has an inflationary adjustment in the question. So they just apply the state same formula to the to the um authority that
those districts have. Districts can have authorities that have um inflation and don't have inflation um as well. So, it's it's an option for districts to have both an inflationary adjusted formula and one that isn't. You can have multiple multiple authorities.
Um, as we look at the options that we've presented uh or we were asked to run, this is a revoke of the existing operating referendum the district has. The district's current authority is $623.97.
Um that authorization in this case would be this would be $32 per month. The authority would go from $623.97 to 1,38597 per pupil. Um this is uh assuming a 10-year period.
That's the maximum term that you can have on an operating referendum or a capital project levy. We do have an option in here that we'll talk about as we go forward. The maximum term for either type of um levy is 10 years. And then you'll see that sentence which we've underlined in the as we go forward
is that this is a increase each year by the rate of inflation beginning with taxes payable 28. So the authority would be reset for taxes payable 27. Um, if the election was presented in November for next tax year, that authority would
go to 1,38597 and then in this case would be subject to an increase of the rate of inflation starting with taxes table 28 and beyond. So this is the tax impact estimate. Um right now your average value of homes
right around $525 uh,000 for a residential home in the school district. Um it's we're looking at an estimated tax increase of $377 or not quite $32 per month. Um this uh run right here would generate right
around approximately $7 million of revenue that would uh start with fiscal year 28. I think that's an important consideration. And you can see we're on a one-year um delay. So if the taxes and the levies passed um the first tax year
would be taxes payable 27. The first revenue year the district would get revenue would be fiscal 2728 or July 1 and 27 would be that start of revenue. This is a look at uh the option that comes with a $46 per month tax impact.
Uh the the first part of this question looks identical. There's no change. Both these options are looking at a revoke and replace of the existing authority. Uh the new authority in this case would go from 62397 to 174097.
Um and then we're highlighting that sentence that is in play um if the district would subject to uh the authority to a rate of inflation. Um, so that's the that sentence right there is the sentence that um in the ballot that
makes the authority subject to inflation. That sentence would go away if inflation was not part of the equation. uh this estimate um at $46 a month, we'd be looking at a tax increase of about $552 on top of what you're already paying um
for the referendum as part of your tax levy. And that would generate about 10 um million uh 250,000 262,000 is what we're estimating based on the enrollment forecast that the district's using.
the increase would be a net of $1,117 above the current authority. So, those are the two operating referendum um scenarios that we were asked to run. The other uh thing that we've been looking at is the capital
project levy. Um a lot of districts refer to this as their technology levy. If you're in the metro area, it's often referred to as a technology levy in some districts. Um, we're looking at, this is the Dr. Ryder or not, Lisa, um, Director
Ryder, uh, was looking at, uh, a $3.8 million reduction that she referred to in our in our debt service levy. So, that's a scheduled reduction that is planned as part of the district's debt service levy. That would be taxes payable 28, fiscal 29. That represents
about a $3.8 million reduction that's going to be scheduled in the overall taxes uh the school prop or the district property owners are paying. That's about $17 per month is the estimate of what that decrease is. Um when we look at
that, if we fill that space in with a capital project levy, which is spread on the same tax base, the net tax capacity, um we'd be looking at a tax increase that's not above the current level of what property owners would be paying for
um that part of your tax levy. What that looks like is uh if we presented a two question ballot, if the district did um what we're showing here is the $32 a month uh on an average home
at $377 increase for question one. Question two then um would have no additional increase above what the current levels that property owners are paying. So that represents that EST or that estimated amount is $196. So that
reduction or $17 a month represents um $196 annually. You fill that in with a capital project levy in 28 with a one-year delay. There's no increase um on the net change for taxes payable 28. So question one impacts the tax levy
right away in 27. Question two would have a one-year delay impacting the tax levy um with that scheduled debt service drop in taxes payable 28. So the net increase in revenue here is in this scenario is still that roughly u almost
11 million in this case. What does that look like in a question? Um, this question is showing uh um and we're actually not showing it in this example right here, but we'll show it to you in the examples that we have. Um,
you can make the second question contingent on the first. Um, and we'll show you how that plays out in the the ballot language. But, um, this is an example where this question would stand on its own. um the tax uh uh we did take
a another um run at how the ballot question could read. Um in this case, the estimated tax rate that would be applied to generate 3.8 million based on what we're forecasting for the tax base would three would be 3.427%.
And that is taken by the overall net tax capacity of the school district. So, as your tax base would grow or decline over time, because both can happen, right? We've seen both. Um, the the amount of revenue generated by this tax levy would would change each year. So, it would
start with a nest a levy of 3.8 million with taxes payable in 28 in this example, and then as your tax base changes over time, um, that tax rate is applied to your overall net tax capacity. Um, and that's the revenue
amount you would receive in that in that year. Um, I will say that as your tax base is changing up and down, the amount of um, and we'll see it on the tax impact, that amount does not change on on a home value very much, right?
Because as your assessed values are changing, you're taking that percentage um, times that value. um the overall tax impact um as we look at these types of levies over a 10-year period are going to stay pretty in line with what the amount was that was estimated for the
ballot when when they were originally put into place. Um this uh example shows a non-contingent question. We'll show you an example where you would have a contingent question as well. And really what that what ends up happening is is
it it'll say right here um this question can only pass if question one passes. Um and we'll show you an example of that as we move forward here. Um there's some timeline considerations.
Um we've uh um your statutory timeline requirements are August 11th for calling for an election for operating referendum. Um based on the ballot question as presented in the capital project levy um there would be a review and comment
requirement because if you spend a dollar outside of technology um the state of Minnesota has a review and comment that's required by law. um that kicks into play and you need to give the state of Minnesota 60 days to approve
that review and comment back. Um and we've got a June 30th deadline for that if qu if if that second question would be um uh considered. um that allows MDE their 60-day period and as part of the ballot question, you actually need to
say that um uh the department provided a positive review and with early voting that is early in September um midepptember, right? So if we going to give that 60 days, you got to have that submitted by the end of June.
Um we've uh discussed uh um the June meeting as being the target date for the consideration of the um the election documents and necessary resolutions if they were going to um if the district's going to move forward with a question. Um election date would be November 3rd
um 2026. I'm going to show you in a little bit bigger format here um the layout of these different options. And let me give me one second and see if I can get these on the screen in a
little bit better format. So, um the two options, uh this is an an exact um draft of what the ballots would look like. Um option one in this case is the $32 per month change. um 1,38597
would be the amount that the um authority would go to starting with taxes payable 27. Um question two, um you'll see we did um have some comments in regards to this uh acquisition and
betterment of school sites and facilities language from legal counsel. um that acquisition and betterment of school sites and facilities is a direct um statutory quote and um legal council recommends leaving both those terms in
the question. So um that was something some feedback that we had when we were doing a review of what the ballot question and changes potential changes to the question. Um there's the tax rate in question two. Um and um you can see
here um that 3.427% and then the the draft ballot language as it's presented with a few changes from what we had last time. The second option changes uh and um both these were showing subject to a rate of
inflation the $42 or the $46 per month at 174097 everything reads identical but you can see the contingency language that's built into the second option on the capital project levy. So the the question reads identically above. Um but
when you get to um the bottom of the ballot, you can see if question one is approved, shall capital project levy proposed by the school board of independent number 719 also be approved. And what that means is if question one
fails, question two fails too. So I think but that is uh obviously an option as part of um the ballot constructs that we're we're presenting. So that is the information we had um and
we can take any questions. Um initially uh you started out your presentation regarding the inflation factor. Um and so these are with an inflationary factor
included. Um I think it you know just from the things that have been presented to the board in the past regarding if an inflationary factor would have been part of our past. um you know the tax impact
to the community wasn't much different and but the impact to the district as far as funding would have been huge. Um so um inflationary factor I think is really important so I'm grateful for
that. Um another question I guess um the contingency. Okay. So the contingency of the first passing to if if the first doesn't pass,
the second automatically doesn't pass. I think one of my concerns and one of the thoughts that I keep trying to I'm wrestling with is the making the ballot as um
understandable as possible for the average voter. Um I know that there's been a lot of talk legislatively about the struggle uh of the voting. Yes. Is there's there's talk
legislatively. I know that won't have anything to do with this November. Um but there is uh expected to be a constitutional change on the ballot. Um, so there are several things that are
that is potentially going to affect the district that is coming up on this November November ballot. And I think that um what we are learning is that this levy ask this this may be one of the most important ones our district has
ever faced. I mean, arguably it is. Um, and so I think when we're looking at all of these things, all of the two different options that we're faced with here, the different ballot um, or the
different with the capital project, whether that's contingent or not contingent, um, it's a lot to take in and come to consensus. I just feel like I want to
help in any way I can or encourage the board if we can come into agreement consensus as much as possible o over um the amount of the b that we place on the ballot as well as the language I think
it's it will increase our uh likelihood of passing the passing it um and so I know it's I didn't really give a question. I'm just kind of talking. Uh this is you know it's a it's a really important decision that we have before
us and um I guess if I were to to make a question that makes sense to to um to you and that you could maybe answer is contingent versus non-contingent. Is
there um does does one way versus the other increase chances of passing or does it decrease? You know, the multiple questions. I guess that's just a concern of mine is having the multiple questions on the ballot that affect the school
district and knowing the importance of them. Um, I just want to set set the district up as best for um success in this in in this and not failure because,
you know, our last passed levy was back in 2017 and we've gone out twice since then. So, um, again, I'm probably more just talking out loud and processing out loud than asking a really coherent question. So, I don't know if you have
any comment on all that. Yeah. I mean, I would say every district's situation is a little unique, right, when you're presenting a ballot question. Um, and and you're you're no different, right? This is a unique spot to be out asking a question
at this point in time where you have you need revenue right away, right? But you also have this future adjustment that's happening as part of your future levy that um instead of asking one question a day and coming back another year later
and asking another question um you could present it right now right and I think there is some validity either you have to go out and really communicate that you're going to come back and ask a question right away right as part of the campaign or you
have to do a good job at communicating right now um what these um forecasted opportunities are and the things that are going to be happening as part of the levy. Now, from the contingency perspective um and there's typically a diminishing
return on questions, right? It doesn't really matter whether the second question is going to be zero impact or not, right? Typically, the second question has a lesser success rate than the first question, right? even if even if there is a net change that's zero
right I mean that's we've seen it in renewal questions that have been presented as a second question right there's no tax change but um those have failed at times too right so um that's just a fact of kind of the
numbers right and that's what we see over time is that second question typically doesn't have as high of a yes rate as the first question >> I have I'm sorry Sorry to interrupt my Okay. So you what you shared I have a question regarding um
if we came back in a year. So so the the the what drops off if we were to come back in a year for that second question what how much of a cost savings is
trying to you know ask both is there a cost savings around that? So, so right now it would be more costly to come back in a year >> to come back in a year >> because we would be coming back on our own and right now we're going through a general election cycle. So, it's distributed significantly. So, it would
be very costly. >> Yes. >> Um I think going back to Vice Chair Olstead's point to about how long do um operational levies um last and how frequently are they coming back? Um I think uh to director Ryder's point in
response to that is that based upon the um factors that are continuing to rise around expenditures throughout districts um K12 in in the metro um the the shelf life of a levy isn't always 10 years as they may have been in the past. Um I
think a couple of weeks ago we talked about some districts um working around or I'm not working around addressing that by doing a stepped levy approach so that they didn't have to come back multiple times. Um and we also can
acknowledge that a stepped levy approach is very unique. It's not very common and so that does lead to more confusion likely at the polls and so that was a discussion that we had here as well. Um to your point, Chair Bullan, um keeping
the language clear and concise is going to be absolutely critical no matter what the ask is in this day and age. And I think our team obviously is very committed to doing that. And so, um, to prevent unnecessary, uh, costs for
running an a levy on our own, I would, um, highly encourage the board to consider, um, the capital with a, uh, in the same, uh, uh, conversation next November with a delayed, um, uh, payment
um, for a year out when that debt falls off. And we note that statute even though this would not be a a tax increase unfortunately on that question but we still have to have that language. It's a tax this will be a tax increase.
Um and if you really want to unpack the logic behind that uh yes technically a family would have realized an additional $17 to their family budget. And because we're going to allow for that to occur,
then we're effectively paying that $17. So even though it's not real money out of pocket, that is the technicality around the statute of why we need to have that language. So just again trying to be as transparent as possible um by law. So that's that's something on
there. Um and then lastly, I'll just or two more things, I'm sorry, if I may. So, the permanent school fund amendment that's going to be on the ballot this November, separate from our conversations um will be a very good thing for public education and I think there's a lot of
bipartisan support around that as well. Um so that will uh allow us to be more in alignment to what you see with uh higher education endowment funds and so we'll be able to uh net additional revenue from there um at the district
level. um all districts would be able to net more uh resources, but that's a constitutional amendment conversation or question. So, the general public is going to be like, well, what is that question compared to what you're asking us at this question? Like, the timing couldn't be worse. I mean, it's a great
thing, but the timing couldn't be worse. Um, but it is what it is. We don't control that. So again, we will have to be really clear about our ask because that actually is not a tax increase to anyone's um income tax at all or
property tax. That is coming from um uh land sales uh revenue. Um so we will make sure we message around that to kind of draw as much distance but also encourage a yes for that. That would be great for for our district. Um actually
let me retract that. We would in we would encourage people to get really informed about that um so that they can make a decision of what they would need to do um around uh that question at the polls. Uh then lastly with regards to
ours couple of you have talked about this on different occasions. Um there is uh there is a significant urgency around moving uh getting a levy that passes and finding that appetite with our community
is like threading a needle. Okay. Um, and you know, I think a couple weeks ago there was a question asked about, well, a certain dollar amount in the past failed, so we should go asking something underneath that when we do have a
district to the south of us who went and they increase what they failed in the past and actually they got it. So, you just never know what the appetite is going to be and just how small that eye and that needle is that we're threading um of what would actually tip a voter to
uh support or not support a levy. One of the things that I think is absolutely critical and I'll reiterate our chair is that we know statistically um having a level of consensus as a board um to support going forward on a certain
dollar threshold is going to be um will help determine the success of of that levy. And um I will say that what our students need and dare I be so bold to say perhaps even deserve in many cases
is probably something that's not going to pass. Right. Um the 67 and I'm just going to speak my truth from my vantage point as the superintendent and my connections with staff and and community. Um and as a resident, it's I would be more than happy to pay that. I
am also mindful um of what our history has been, the conversations we've had as a board and I have to take all that into account um as we talk as a leadership team um to to determine where that sweet spot will be. I also have been very
public historically and I'll reiterate tonight that um there is a level of disingenuousness that I feel not asking for a certain dollar amount that's going to at least allow us to break somewhat even. Um and and I think that's where
that $32 comes into play um to kind of hold ourselves for about three years before we start having to have some different conversations. Um and then obviously that midpoint in between the 67 and the 32 currently is that $46 range. Um which gives us um obviously a
little bit more opportunity to do some things. Couple that one of those two options which is why we centered on that because there was consensus in the conversation from um our last study session. Um thus we've got the 32 and 46 out there. Now you couple that with the
um capital levy and that does afford some flexibility for the board to consider um namely some big changes that director Ryder mentioned. So if utilities in and of itself were the thing that we utilized our capital levy for that frees up the equivalent in
general fund to do some other direct student support resource and investment. So you almost net an additional $3.8 8 million. Um, or I mean you could not the whole thing is 3.8, but you could net additional resources if you covered some of those utility costs that are
currently being cross subsidized through our general fund and put that onto the capital and allow you to make some um some levels of critical investments. again to be determined and that's something the work that we would be doing over the summer to really articulate that for our community what
that would actually entail because that was another point of feedback to say if we say yes what would that look like in terms of our ability to make investments and now keep in mind the 32 and 46 on that line graph that you talked about the visual aid doesn't give us a lot of
latitude for making uh significant strategic investments um because >> any really >> because it it It allows us to kind of carry forward for a certain amount of time. Again, I Yes. Uh, director France and
by creatively braiding funding and being strategic there there may be moderate levels of some investments that could be made based upon, you know, looking further into that. So, I'm not saying a lot, but definitely would be um something. Um so uh as a board and and
and as a team and we've talked about this as well like finding that that balance um between um making an ask on behalf of the betterment of our students future um and that's digest digestible
if you will by our community and and in and what that will entail. So, um, chair, I just wanted to offer that context, um, to to the conversations this evening as well. >> That's great. Thank you for that. Um,
so you have more presentation or you're you open for questions. Maybe we can go around. Um, any one of Director Atinson, do you have questions for >> I do. Thank you. I have a couple actually. Um, um,
question. How many districts are considering putting operating levy on the ballot this fall? Just out of curiosity. >> Um well, there's a number that are considering putting on there. There's a number that you don't have saturary call for the election till August 11th, right? So formal action typically isn't
happening by school districts until June. So >> like how many are having these conversations? >> Um many >> many. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. um question when it's contingent. I understand the constitutional amendment.
So, um thank you for mentioning that. Um I'm excited to hear more about that as um MSBA continues, you know, launches that. Um my understanding with the constitutional amendment though, if somebody votes no, if somebody does not vote on it, it counts as a no. That is
>> correct. >> Yeah. And so my question is is if we have a contingency question does that law does that rule al also apply or it is true just a count of the yes or the no? >> It's just account. >> Okay. Okay. So it's not like the constitutional amendment.
>> Um >> and then my other question is more for the district. um for director Ryder. Um did we did you receive any guidance from Morris Leatherman? I know they're out doing
surveys for some districts. Did you receive any guidance from them as far as like like there's just things that are going on within the state of Minnesota and within our economy? You know, affordability, gas prices, um you can't can't look at the news one day and not
hear about the fraud. Um, and so my question is with all those factors in place, what is either Ellers's I think I asked for both guidance like what is the what is your guidance from either Morris Letterman or Ellers on um operating
schoolboard levies in general like what are they hearing the the appetite from the communities? So, I did not reach out to Morris Leatherman as we have not um contracted with them for any um type of survey or information. As far as the information
as to how many I'm sorry, your question exactly is Go ahead. >> Just just feedback. I mean, we used more southern past, so I didn't know if it was just a simple question of like what they're hearing. I've I'm heard what the feedback was when there was another district that used um listened to their
presentation and they actually discouraged the board from going out for a levy and they um encouraged the board to utter renew their levy. And so I'm not saying that we should do this. I fully support going out for a levy. I'm just curious like in general if they're going out and getting surveying the
communities given the different factors that are going on in the state of Minnesota right now like what is the appetite for for levies in general? That's what I'm asking. >> I would I would just say director Atinson and as was stated this evening every district is unique. So there's there's
>> so if you understand that then there's no generalization that we can make to say that what one district did is going to serve our district or vice versa. So, no, there isn't anything that we've heard um in general that would meet our
unique situation um other than the fact that the conversation that we had with Morris Leatherman in a formal way, that's two years ago. Unfortunately, in this day and age, two years is is is an infinity in terms of changes. So, we
can't even revert back to that survey with any kind of statistical credibility to say and today this is what it should be. So to answer your question, um there isn't anything that we are hearing that we would say would be applicable to our unique situation other than our
conversations that we've been having more locally in a media and more recently. >> Right. Okay. No, I appreciate that. Thank you, >> Dr. Mason. Anything? Uh nothing specific for elders. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Rance. Um yes, there's um the graph for the AMSD that's out uh through 2026 that still shows um the average um formula allowance and per pupil. Uh it
it shows obviously that gap widening. It's over $1,500 per student that we absorb. So obviously our revenues are nowhere near keeping up with expenses and that's with every single um district. Um
technically we're quite a bit behind our peer districts um between $2,000 and $2,500 per student from what I can see with the levies that have been passed already. And those districts are going out for even more money. Um, so
I I I you know for so my concern is that uh first of all if we're going to go with the capital and we're going to go with a lower amount rather than what we should be asking for which is the 67
then the contingency is a must. Um, but do we have any any wiggle room on any of the language here on that contingency?
>> The conting the contingency's language is straight out of statute, right? That's >> right. It has to be the full sentence of the options that we choose. >> It has to read the way it reads, right? So that's it's very prescribed in statute how these questions have to read on the ballot. you do have some
flexibility within the context of the capital project levy question, right? With what you're calling out after after that where it says the additional revenue for the proposed authorization for acquisition of better school sites and facilities after that line that has some flexibility. Um but the rest of the
question largely has to read the way it reads. >> So we could take out the whole acquisition and betterment of facilities. Would that prevent us from using the money for utilities? Yeah, you do not want to remove that part of the question. That provides the
flexibility for the district to use the dollars the way um you can use the dollars over the 10-year period provides flexibility and that's a direct statutory reference right from the capital project levy statute that language. I just I guess my fear is is
that um people reading this and getting a particularly with the number of early voting and mail and ballots, they're going to see that and think we're getting another building and and uh we're putting on another roof or something like that, which you know, we did do and we we have no intention of
doing again. Uh at least until it their their warranties are expired. Um, so I yeah, I'm just wondering how what the options are because I mean, um, and I want to reiterate that it just seems odd that we are going forward to barely
tread water still and that's a it's just a hard cell in any community to do that. So, um, just wondering any flexibility we can have and I understand that that the the language is there. So,
you can't mark it in a in a vote. You you can't put anything in there that can skew it one way or the other. You have to be 100% uh bland and consistent across uh all all jurisdictions. Um but is there is there anything that you've
seen that we could do to um maybe not unfortunately negatively almost mislead a community that may be reading this? Director France, I I would say that yeah, I I understand the question and you know, clearly through the
advisements of our own attorneys, you know, the language in that ballot question will remain um as is. I think what you're getting to is actually the campaign language. That's where we would have I mean, that's where that's where that conversation takes place. um to
ensure that folks understand well this doesn't mean a new building even though it says it here statutoily we have to say this but our campaign is going to have to be the dominant message and the dominant narrative >> but the more confusing part is you're
not getting anything new for the people that want gifted and talented and all this stuff >> understand the moderate investments I get that >> to to doing any of that >> that is the reality that's before us that we've depicted in the scenarios earlier this evening. Yep.
>> I think that's the hardest sell of all is that there's been so much pain now because we've had to further cut >> and our revenues aren't coming and we're close to what we >> should be giving our students and what we you know and and what our surrounding
districts are able to do. Um, it just seems like it's a hard cell overall without adding something in there to say, hey, you know, this is something we can at least, you know,
add back in, so to speak. I I think that's the hardest that's that's the thing that I'm struggling with here by going with the lower amount. >> I I I can empathize. I said this two years ago. That's that's the disingenuous piece that I felt inside. I'm not saying that that's what we were doing, but I just that was the feeling
that I carried that I spoke to. And I think we're in a a similar situation to what you're suggesting right now. >> Well, I think if I may, um, one thing that I think about when when you're saying that, um, is that
>> we have to remember that locally is just one part of the equation. you know, we have the state and the federal and you know, there has been so much advocacy consistent. You know, we're not in a a funding year, but there h there
is one-time funds that, you know, have been approved or that are looking to be approved. I think, you know, um just remembering that our continued advocacy, you know, next year is a a funding year.
um you know and I think uh you know we are it is I understand what you're saying uh director France I think you know like Dr. Thomas said he's talked about this even the last time we went out for a levy. Um and when it failed it
was like you know it was hard to ask for something when you weren't giving you know you aren't getting anything more. But I think um we have to be really mindful about what is going to pass
given the importance of this and um and in hopes of changing in funding formula possibly that's been being talked about a lot. you know, just the the different um there's different players in it than
just local we but realistically with the cuts at the federal level, they're never going to >> come close to closing that gap. So, but I I just want I don't want someone to go out and say, "Well, we're going to get it from the state or >> for sure." And I'm not saying that
either, but I think that, you know, when we're when we're advocating as as board members, community, you know, I I just think all there's a lot of factors at play and I it's hard to um you know, make the community feel like they're the
only ones. Um yeah. No, I just want to make sure that they're aware and that they're you know that that we're going to have to go out again. um and that um what we're doing is we're trying to maintain home values by not
cutting anymore. And I think that you know it's kind of like we're paying the same amount if more for the candy bar for the bag of chips and yet it's smaller. Um so they're still getting the bag of chips. There's just a heck of a lot of the chips in it and that KitKat shrunk quite a bit actually for the same
price. Um so that's just um you know that's just that that's a hard me that's a harder message to sell while we are saying in the same line whether it's true or not particularly on the capital part that you're increasing taxes and um
if you by any chance get that magic language that's working someplace else in a equally tax averse district then please share >> and I'll just add you'll see questions right that are technology only that do
not have that language in there. Right. But >> the legal counselor election council this time is is recommending right with flexibility to do exactly what Lisa was talking about as statutory changes happen right that it gives you flexibility to use those resources the
most flexible >> director Smith. >> Uh yeah thank you. Um I don't know if I have uh many questions just yeah um I think just kind of continuing the
conversation of you know um is the I understand in in concept the purpose of a uh levy ask and then pairing that with
the capital um projects levy is it does delay some of that and it is a it is a good way to market again that that um drop in our debt in the in the next couple of years. Um, I do wonder if if
the goal is for simplicity's sake, um, just keeping things simple. Um, because I think one of the some of the rationale around these choices might be, well, if we're going
for a capital le levy, then 46 would do the trick. Add another 3.8 that gets you to roughly 67. I know that's certainly the logic that I've used. Um, but for simplicity sake, because you know there
is all sorts of ways that this can be interpreted, uh, to director Franc's point, you know, they might think, oh, this is a new building. You don't need a new building. You just closed a building. Um, I'm wondering if just a asking one
question for the amount we need is the way to go. Um, I'm not expecting you to have an answer for that because who knows, right? Um, but I think that is something that we as a board um do need
to possibly consider and and and talk about. And like I said, I I I get the rationale um of what we have before us here right now, but um I keep hearing about this being complicated and we
really like something simple and even though there is technically no tax increase, there's still a tax increase because of just kind of how um you know, it's not like Monopoly where you can say, "Oh, I'll trade you this and you know, I'll get
that later." Um, so I I get it and and I think equally um as has been kind of said is and and I've said it at this table and because it's been repeated so many times to me
um just being clear about what the plan is regardless of the route we choose. What is the plan for spending the money? I get part of it is just treading water. Um, but I do also recall
from the survey that there were some targeted investments that we could make if we went the $46 route. Um, it wasn't a lot, but it was something. Um so I just think that it is and even um
you know with the utilities and the capital project levy like yes like there there are ways to um again market that and campaign that and I and I do think that um you know to go back to um director Ryder what you provided with
the the financial projections um you know I think that tells the story right there um because it's clear where the district is heading. Um if we go one route, we are able to make some targeted
investments. Um and if we um and if we do that, I think the other important piece to clarify is that it was mentioned that the district isn't accounting for declining enrollment. Dr. Thomas and his team have said repeatedly
that they are accounting for declining enrollment. That is why there's $3 million in reductions every year. Um, and I would also like to say that this uh to correct uh something else that was stated, this is a balanced budget. Um,
when you look at the adjustments, the net perm adjustment to expense. We've cut $4 million this year and then there's projected to be three and then three and then three. If you do the math, and it's simple math. If you do that, your expenses match your revenue.
So, this is a balanced budget and I think it's important to be very clear about that, too. So, there is all sorts of things that are going to be working against us as we try to uh articulate why this is so important. I'd love it if
we could get as much money as we can for to help as many students as we could. Um, that tradeoff just might be too big of a risk. Um, but I also wonder if it's just if for simplicity sake if we just go for the and I know Dr. Thomas, you
just said your recommendation would probably be the two questions. I think um but I just I wonder if it's just simpler to go the other route because we know it and then it's, you know, it's done. So,
I don't know. Again, no question, get out of my way. Um no questions for you but again thank you for being here providing this and um I guess there is one question um did we strike other language from the capital project or was
it just the acquisition piece >> but there was some other language that we pulled out too >> peration but that was the I think the difference there is that was the whole thing we weren't kind of parsing out like acquisition or
like so if we took out to the point of um you know uh where is it um you know the acquisition and betterment of facilities like if we took that whole thing out that's not a problem but it's that we're taking out a piece of it that's the
problem. No, that's recommended by election council to leave that section in and then the >> entire we had it out initially per our conversation last time and our >> Oh, I thought we kept Betterment, but maybe not. >> Acquisition was struck. >> Yeah, acquisition. Yeah,
>> but they said the whole thing is in statute and just leave it as >> it's actually a call out right in the statute. Right. Okay. So in that language, you'll see it in the vast majority of questions that you see specifically in bond questions too. It's
the leadin of >> most of these questions that are that are related to capital. >> Yeah. And I guess that was just my question because I I was looking through my notes. I can't find if there was anything else struck, but I just wanted to make sure that that that there wasn't any problem with that. But sounds like they're >> Yeah, we had a couple other things.
Director Rder, do you have that list? >> I do. Let me just pull it up here quick. Um so we covered this in our finance and operations committee advisory committee. So let me just pull up that material quick. Um so
May 12th. Okay. So what we did there is um in summary of what the board had discussed in qu um that was number four. We had renovation projects was struck as well. >> Yep. Mhm.
>> We left the rest of it >> for further dialogue. >> Yeah. >> And there was no problem with renovation projects being taken out of there, right? No. >> Okay. Great. >> That was I did a poor job of explaining that, but that's I'm glad that we got to the
answer. So, thank you. Appreciate that. >> Director Alstead had a >> um I do, but um Director >> Yeah. Oh, I thought you wanted you had a quick >> Yeah, it is very quick, but it can >> director Johnson, your questions.
>> Um, no question for the presenter. Just thank you for for being here. Um just quick thought I agree that uh simplicity is I think the best thing and um
utilizing the fact that we will have a tax drop off in the upcoming year in the levy campaign I think would be optimal in within the campaign to assist in getting
it to pass. Uh I think it will be already an uphill battle just knowing what we've faced in in the past and um everything else I think we'll we'll discuss discuss more
>> super quick um on the ballot this fall um with the constitutional question and then our question or questions. Um, do those are they in a certain order? I know every ballot is different
for um so that so that they're not all the same. >> Um, any idea which one would go first or would it actually vary? >> I don't know that answer. >> Okay. So >> I I I believe um Danny, I don't know if
if Martha shared this with you on her departure, but I believe we are on the backside middle bottom. >> That's what I saw from her. >> Backside middle bottom is where our question would be. >> And then the land trust
>> that that I'm not too sure >> probably be I mean I would imagine I don't think there are any other questions, right? for us this November >> or after the judges >> that we know yet. >> Yeah. >> Right. In terms of like questions, I
don't I think that's it right for us this November. Okay. >> Y >> I was just curious. >> I do have a question kind of based on um and I don't know if this is a question for you, but it's kind of based on uh Director Smith your comment regarding um
for simplicity sake and given the fact that this is our study session where we're rolling up our sleeves and kind of able to listen to each other's thoughts. um your thought of simplicity's sake um
increasing the ask and and maybe not for simplicity sake and maybe not doing the second question >> is do you have thoughts based on that >> I I will say everybody's unique again
right but I will say that you've got a complexity there too right of trying to explain a decrease that's going to come in the future year, >> right? So I I don't think either way you present this question that that's that complexity goes away
>> right you're going to present a higher tax impact >> y >> on the front end right if you chose the higher number um so I and I'll just say one thing with this ballot I mean these ballot questions you guys are not unique
right I mean from the standpoint this is the way these questions have to be presented um and I think yes they are confusing at times right but it's not that you you're not playing in a field that other people aren't playing in right so I think that's an
important piece of this conversation there's other factors that are probably more important to whether these pass or not than what the ballot question reads >> yeah and sorry director >> yeah director bullion I think one thing
that just kind of came to mind is that we could go, correct me if I'm wrong, to the ballot in two years with that capital levy knowing that people will then will they by that time will they see the dip in their taxes >> and then that's a that's a midterm
election, you know, so we would then not incur it wouldn't be a special election at that point. >> There would be a decrease after 28 is when the decrease would happen. So they would get their tax statements and be like, "Oh, wow. My taxes just dropped." and then go to the back to the voters
showing them that you're basically asking for the same amount that dropped. So that's something that can you know if we want to keep it simple and perhaps think about that second question coming up in two years um I think that that's a an an interesting option as well because
I do think the I think the two question thing is is very complicated. I think it's more complicated to try to explain it to our community to the general voter who doesn't maybe pay attention to what's going on in our school district. >> Um, Cher Bullion. >> Yes.
>> Would it be possible to ask for that step up question also um example ballot? I thought we saw it a week or two ago, >> but just to take a look at that again, the step up,
>> it's in Yeah, it's in board book. I mean, we don't have it. >> Yeah. >> For tonight, but it is in board book from our last session that you all can reference and see what other districts have used in terms of that language. >> From the complexity standpoint, I just like to compare the two options with
that one. Um, I I I I guess what I'm really going at is a fear, particularly with our economy the way it is, to to depend on going out again in a couple years. >> I agree. I mean, I I think that it's
valid and I what I I really appreciate is that there's complexity whichever way we look at it and so we can, you know, I think >> I think the it was the the will of the board to move forward without the step up
>> for simplicity sake and you know to go back you know >> you know time time is an issue. Um, yeah, I I do I I hear what you're saying and I um I don't know what if you're
asking if it's for the will of the board to to ha have the district bring back forth that. >> I'm wondering if it would be Yes, I am. I'm asking if it would be worthwhile to have um the three options, the single
ask, the two options, and then the step up and just kind of compare them for complexities per for complexity purposes. I because I really um my gut tells me we wouldn't we won't be able to go out in a couple years and be successful if we don't try to do as
whatever we can now uh to you know to in and in and that concept of step up while the um while the the the bond levy actually tails off. That doesn't sound so complex anymore
compared to the two options to tell you the truth. >> That's that's my Yeah, >> Dr. Thomas. >> Yeah. No, I was just going to say it's in board book so you all can take a look at that. Um I I think the fact that just
in the immediate metro there's only two or three districts who have found success in that. I think it's just it's it's very uncharted water and um given our history here, I I'll just be honest, speaking from my vantage point as a
superintendent, I think that would be actually more complex for this community than the conversations that we're having tonight. And to as many of you said, we're we're we're choosing an option that's the least complex, but there's
going to be complexity in this. Um I think going, you know, director Smith mentioned, you know, kind of mathematically accumulate the ask into one operational ask. That would be the effect the same effect of the smaller
operating plus the capital. Makes sense. And I'll just go back to I think a comment director Atinson might have made a week or two ago when you then have that number as the sticker shock because that's the lead story and now people are processing that number that's all they
see. Um, so there is a psych there is a psychology to this whole conversation of what's plausible to the eye that I don't immediately have a a natural psychological revolt to that I'll internalize and process and um and then
with an accompanied uh strong messaging campaign would likely lend my support okay or whatever decisions you know that ultimately that they were made but for us we were we're were hoping that we get resources for our kids. So that's why I'm going back and and and I
get the resources that I believe that we need to do the types of deep investments that we've heard through our community engagement sessions is not going to come at the tune of 32 and $46. It's just simply not. Um and I think we've walked
through the uh numerical graphs and the line graph that illustrates that point. Um and I also understand the notion of uh proof concepts and um success
breeding success. And as we demonstrate our ability to get the outcomes for our kids, albeit some of those minimal investments that we are able to make, showing that to this community means something. Um and then to come back to
have a conversation at that point to say um in the natural cycle of things in 2028 or whatever or 2829 to say okay with this investment that we've made with you all this is what we've been able to do. We we now know that this is
working and we would like to accelerate that. Here's our ask. Right? So there's there's a stepped approach that can almost be had if you will, but it comes also with results showing back as well.
So, I mean that that's something for the board to think about or consider, but think about what that dollar amount can be to at least get some initial investment at a moderate level versus
nothing or not nothing but versus um kind of remaining neutral. And I think that's when that case would actually make sense and that would lean then towards that $46 amount. if it's okay. >> Yeah, please.
>> Um, >> you know, when I look at the comments from the survey >> I'm not and and again, it was nowhere near a good population sample given the number of people and the number of voters that we have. Uh, and I don't
know if it's possible to even do an empirical study at all in any type of environment when 60% of our community um doesn't really have a nexus of a student in in going to school here. But it was
it was really it was very very polar opposite with the comments. It was either yeah, I'll pay the 46 or the 76 because I don't like what's happening with all the budget cuts and you know and and and
the reputation of our district going down. And then the other half was is no, you guys got to be you got to spend less. You know, you're not being you're not being um uh you're not balancing your budget and all that, you know, when obviously we we only thing we're doing
is cutting. We've that's all we've been doing. Um, so it's the psychology of it is I'm not quite sure those people would ever vote for a levy of any number. But by taking the ones that would vote and
would be more inclined to and can read financial statements, by the way, because they've been pretty clear and transparent, um, I I believe that that population would vote for the higher amount. I'm not sure we can ever turn
the other population. So, by coming in the middle, we're hurting a lot more than than we are gaining. Um, and you know, and that's just what I'm seeing from the psychology of of the people
just about in every single levy election we've had here. They're never going to vote regardless of the amount. Even if they say the amount was too high, they wouldn't have voted for it anyways because they don't want ever, you know, they don't want to vote for anything that's going to increase their taxes at all, particularly if they don't have
don't feel any involvement in the local school system. Um, so I I just want to throw that out there that we're not making a decision where we're cutting off our noses spider face. >> Chair, what are you hoping to get out of
this discussion? And I'm not sure there are additional questions for elders. Are you wanting us to come to a consensus tonight or >> I think that um I don't think No, we're not. I You aren't asking for a consensus, are you? >> Well, I I it'd be helpful to kind of know where the board's at
>> as far because Yeah. As far as kind of how we would begin building this out to come to you on June 8th for a recommendation for action. >> Recommendation >> because we will be voting June 8th. Yes. >> No. on whatever proposal
>> we are we are voting on June 8th. Um and so I'm I'm happy to you know similarly as we've done the last couple meetings is go around and see where board members lie as far as >> can I ask a question regarding timing.
give some boundaries for that question about where we lie because otherwise we could like actually create more. >> I think that I think that the boundaries would be what's in our in the packet. So, we'd be looking at the um 32 amount
or the 46 amount and then the um the cuz what's presented >> capital or no capital >> and capital or no capital but I feel like the last uh meeting we were in consensus 61 regarding the capital
>> um that everyone stated that they would be in favor of going forward with the capital ask. So the two options >> and if we want the contingent question in there >> okay >> so can I just I'm sorry can I just get some clarification on the timing so my
understanding from the presentation tonight is the capital levy would have to be we'd have to know what we're doing with the capital levy by June 30th >> but we have some time still on the other levy so that could come later. So my question is is why are we why are we
voting on all of it June 8th >> when well couple of things there were some assumptions that they it would be contingent from our last conversation together so that's why they were coming together that way if if you bifrocate as
a board to just run a capital on its own um and and allow that to essentially um pass um that without Question one, another operating question that would be that's why we're >> No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm
sorry. Let me clarify. Um, so legisl or statute, we have to have something submitted for the um for the capital levy by June 30th because of the review or whatever view and comment I think is what you had mentioned. So, as a board,
we could make a decision on that piece of the levy and then could we come back in a month and finalize the other piece of the levy, the operating levy? You see what I'm saying? >> Yeah. So, technically, yes, you you could. >> I mean, that's kind of what I would like
to see done. >> I think I I would >> I think flex on how depending on the amount. So, I guess >> Yeah. And for me, it's it's also just like knowing what is the tech levy for because I think coming out of our last levy, the one of the biggest concerns from the feedback we heard is being
really clear and transparent of what that ask is regardless of the levy. So, we haven't seen I I understand the list. I understand doing the list because it creates flexibility, but flexibility also really hurts us. I mean, I think the more clear direction. I mean, if
we're going to put in our marketing that this is going to cover electricity costs, this is the ballot language. Um, that's just what I would like to know going into the June 8th meeting is what does this capital levy exactly cost? Because that's one of the reasons that I didn't support it is because I thought
it might have a negative impact on the first question. You know what I mean? because I think more just like director Smith said, it is critical that we find amount that the, you know, that our community will support and keep it as simple and clean um as possible. So,
>> well, Dr. Thomas, um I think I what I'm hearing is that you're you'd like to hear some consensus from the board on how to build this out. I think that the challenge becomes, you know, I
I'm just going to uh speak from my vantage point for for uh this presentation. Um I think the study session h giving us the time to kind of um
we the the district has heard all the thoughts from from the board. Um, and I mean if if you'd like me to go board member to board member to see where they where they land tonight as far as
um you know which dollar amount that they'd prefer. >> Um we definitely can do that if that's helpful to to if that's helpful and I know that it would be. I think uh what is challenging is like when director
Atinson brings forth the different timelines and you know uh I'm thinking about superintendent search I'm thinking about all of these things at once and there's just a lot going on and so anytime we're pushing something back uh
it this this information in this board packet um is with the understanding that you know there will be board action on June 8th. Um, if we can help tonight in any way, help the district in in
bringing forth that recommendation, I want to I want to help support that. Um, but just knowing exactly, you know, the ask >> I I would just >> I would just say this. Um, this has been
a great discussion and I think there's been a lot more information shared in thinking alouds as a as a board team um with additional conversation. So, not that we're voting tonight, but I would be interested to know um how has this
conversation impacted the direction, you know, of of the board. Just gives us a sense um especially even if it's delayed. Um it helps the new administration understand the direction that we need to do a handoff um as well. Um so that's that that would be helpful.
Sorry. Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. I'm just going to ask that Matt's going to lead then. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you for being here. So yeah, so that's that's all I would say and and again this is a new a new
again through conversation a new idea on the table to potentially have more time to flesh out the operating conversation um juxtaposed to a capital um and and I think that a you have time so we're not
trying to rush but again I think there were some connections of if these were coming together that it kind of comes as a package if it's contingent. Um, but if if you want to peel that apart and and allow for deeper discussion on on the operating
that that makes sense, but then to help understand how we would hand that baton um in that conversation would would be good to know. Yeah. >> Um and if nothing has changed, nothing has changed. Well, I'm happy to start I think um
after tonight's presentation and honestly just kind of what I shared earlier really hoping to to get some um consensus with the board on the ask. I know we have time in that um but you know trying to help uh the district in
what they want to build forward. I think for me um what I'm most comfortable with again knowing the importance of this levy >> um where we've been in the past
uh yes um so I'm going to I'm going to stop um saying com commentary. I'm going to just share where I'm at. um where I'm at is the $32 amount um with the capital
um in the 28. Um and that's that's where that's where I'm at tonight. So given that I I I jumped off the board first. Um can we start with you, Director Smith? >> Absolutely. Um, yeah, Director Frans, I
I absolutely hear you on the, you know, there are people that are going to go vote no regardless of the amount. There are people that are going to say yes for the for the amount regardless as well. Um, it's the folks in the middle that um that we're trying to win over. I
would I would go $46 and the capital. >> Yeah. I'm I couldn't in a in good conscience go for 32 and only have it last a little over a year. um that would be that wouldn't be I don't believe that would be fair to the community at all or to our students. So
I'm definitely at the 46 >> and um and with the with the capital as well. >> Director Stad uh 46 with capital. >> Director Mason. Um, yeah. I mean, I I toggle with
balance, too. So, I mean, obviously, as a parent and a board member, it would be much easier to have a higher dollar value for everybody, but I think um I just think I go back to the survey feedback of the amount of tax increase being unaffordable with 45 and the
feedback from the recent survey on cost, tax impact, and affordability. And I I just think there's there's just people that can't or won't afford that. So, I I'm risk adverse and I guess I would go with a 32 also because I think we have a much higher chance of it getting passed.
Um, I would also go with the capital on top of that because I think that adds then some value. Um, you know, assuming people would support that. Um, I toggled a little bit on the on the um contingency, I guess. I don't know. Um,
I know we didn't cover that. I think obviously it's more of an education thing, right? Because it's like we don't want the capital without the operating, right? And I think that's what we're trying to achieve, but in the same breath, I don't know the language almost. I I think it's just the language I struggle with. Um
makes it less appealing. Um but I guess yeah, I I think we have to go with the contingent language. I don't think we have a choice. I think that's where we land. >> Director Atinson. >> Um yeah, thank you. Um my you know my
head goes back to what has worked for our community in the past and um listening to our community is really really important. I understand kids with PE parents with young kids in our district who were um really great about filling out the survey. I get it. I
understand. Give all my money to the school district, right? I get it. I fully understand it. Even as a parent who um you know still has kids in the school a little bit higher up in the chain, I would love to see some of the things that we've lost in the past come back to our school district. But there is the reality of there's a large
portion of our community that either the kids don't attend our district or andor they're all grown up. It's really interesting to see how much of an aging community we have. Um and Prior Lake is a great place to live. So of course we want great schools. And when we moved to
our district in 2011, we moved here for the schools. they were high ranked and they were everybody loved them and all that. So I think we have um some unique challenges just like every district has and I think again we have to listen to our voters. Back in 2017 a levy went out
it um and it didn't pass and the board was very conscious of putting out an ask that was lower than their previous ask knowing that they it had to pass based on the fact they had buildings and all that kind of stuff. So, I support um the
32. Um my concern with the capital uh as I expressed previously is that being able to be super super um how do I say clear about what that capital asks for because if you add the
32 of 15.7 million I think it is if I'm doing my math correctly. Sorry. And then you add the 3.8 8 million. We're back to what we asked for two years ago as a total. So, we're not really making an adjustment down from the dollar amount.
I get it. There's a tax break. So, I'm I still have concerns with the capital levy. I absolutely do not support it being contingent. That frightens the heck out of me. Um and just knowing how important it is that this levy passes. Um because I don't know what the board's
going to do if it doesn't pass to be honest with you. So, and people have asked me what are we going to do if it doesn't pass? And I don't think that question's really been answered. So I don't want to get into that, but um then it's an autorenew situation, I believe. So yeah. >> Oh, so I'm 32. I'm still have concerns
about the capital. If the majority of the board supports that, um I'll support that. But then I'm going to advocate for us to be really really crystal clear and transparent about what that ask is for, specific ask is for. Director Johnson. >> Uh I am at the $32 and um
I struggle with the capital um knowing how the previous levies have gone. Um and I think we have to be very clear on on what it's going to be used for. Um
and so I I will at this time say with capital. Um >> thank you. Thank you board members for that. I think with all the conversation and and you know kind of stating where we are that it's it's helpful. It's
helpful for the district moving forward and it's it's it's helpful for all of us. So, thank you for all the conversation and time around that tonight. Um, we will move on to the next item on the agenda, um, which is the
major magnitude field trip report. And I will turn that over to you, Dr. Thomas. >> Uh, thank you, Chair Bullian. Board directors, you have this report. We do it by statute uh, every year just to list out our field trips of the year. Um, so nothing to uh share other than
we've got a couple that will happen this summer yet. June um 13th through the 20th as well as the 21st through the 25th for um two tournaments in a conference that are in this budget cycle and the July one will be in next year's budget cycle that will um follow up on
for next year's report. But outside of that, it's pretty straightforward. Just fulfilling our requirement to share with you all what we've done for major magnitudes that we've done each year. If any board members have any questions on that, we can take them now. Otherwise, we will move on. Director,
>> I just have a comment. I'm so excited for the robotics team to go to to go to Worlds in Houston. I attended with them two years ago, and it is an opportunity of lifetime. They call it the Super Bowl of Robotics. So, super excited to see that they are they're going on that trip. Yep. Or maybe they've gone on it.
Sorry, they've already gone on it. So, very exciting. >> Anyone else? All right, hearing no more uh on that one, we'll move on to the next item, which is the language access plan. Um, and I will turn that over to Director
Chuka. Thank you. Good evening. I think it was in your packet for review, right? So, it's a draft. It's um something that the state legislature um requires as of last year that the board actually adopts. um it's
not a policy, but just a language access plan for our families who speak different languages or maybe need disability um types of accommodations. So maybe like a a good example might be a sign language interpreter for conferences for parents. So these are all things we already do. All we did was
put it into um this plan for your review and no action needed for tonight. Um, we'll look at that on June 8th, but I'm here tonight if you have any questions um in particular um for the plan. >> Board members, any questions or comments for Director Chuka?
>> Hearing none. >> Well, great. Then I'll see you on this uh topic in two years when we have to review it again. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> All right. And then uh the next item on the agenda is the um superintendent's evaluation. But given the significant
work ahead of the board um and in the superintendent search pro process, Dr. Thomas is supportive of foregoing the formal superintendent evaluation process. Um any feedback back from board members um that they wish to provide Dr.
Thomas is always welcome. Um so uh if there's any questions or comments regarding that um we can take them now. Otherwise we will move on to the next item. All right hearing none we will go uh the
next item on the agenda is the superintendent search and it's just an update. Um, next on uh the as a part of the next steps in the process, the executive committee is meeting to discuss uh superintendent contract
language with director Kern um on Wednesday in advance of the next board's special meeting which is scheduled for May 26 at 6 PM. Um so during that special meeting the board will participate in interview training and
determine the finalists. Any questions or comments on that? Hearing none we will um next is policy which we have none at this time. And with nothing else left on the agenda
I will adjourn us. >> Can I can I just plug one thing um just for our community too? Um, if you haven't had a chance for anyone that hasn't watched the Q&A that MSBA >> Yes, absolutely. >> I absolutely recommend it. It was super helpful. I went back and watched it. So, >> thank you. Thank you for that, Director
Mason. Anyone else have anything else they want to share before we adjourn? >> No, I just question >> on the weighted graded policy, grading policy. I know that was going to come back to the board. Just curious. >> Juneth, >> was that June 8th? Oh, okay. Thank you. >> So, it'll just come back not in a study
session, but in a vote. Okay. Thank you for the update. Can I just say thank you to Obie for sitting here. One of our one of our first uh um uh student reps that actually comes to study sessions, sits here and actually looks stuff up and
understands what we're talking about and spends late nights here despite his school schedule and his lack of senior slide. >> Yes. Thank you, Obie. Thank you for serving this. >> Thank you. So excited to see you across
that stage. So yeah, so exciting. Yeah. >> All right, everyone. We are adjourned.