elevator hold music >> or Jeopardy music. Either way, >> welcome everyone to the uh October 27th study session of the Pri Savage Board of Education. Uh before we go to the public forum, uh Director Ainson, can you hear me?
Oh, we can't hear you. Oh, we have no no Lisa on. Now we should be gone. >> No, we had that before. No, >> can you hear it? We can hear. This has to be open in order for them to >> Marcus told us to shut it. We just called him. >> Oh,
>> you can't see her now. >> Did you see her? So, see >> now you can, right? >> It was working earlier. >> Can't hear. Can you see her now? >> Yes. >> But we can't hear. >> Lisa, can you >> Can you hear me? No. Now we can't hear. >> The sound is coming through this. Ow.
That's frustrating. Okay. So, I'll just open it just a tad. >> Is she still there? >> Yep. >> Now, talk. >> Hello. Hello. >> We're good. >> We'll just deal with that. >> I can't see her now. There is >> that. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> I promise you we did a sound check. >> So, it looks like Lisa, we may be able to hear you and not see you. So, feel free to pipe in. >> I am totally fine if you can't see me. That's >> my camera's on. >> And they'll project through the that TV. >> Miss Marcus told us to shut the laptop,
the lid, and then it projects. Then >> one second, Lisa. >> Hello. I'm here. Which would you rather? >> It's a study session, so I don't know if we >> Sorry, it's a study session. Do we have to have them? We used to never even
videotape these. I don't think this is >> I think it's fine. >> I think legally you have to have me on. Thank you very much, Georgia. >> No, this is a study session. I >> So, I'm wondering if if we have you by voice if that's enough. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's fine to me. I don't care if I'm on camera. I can see you guys. >> Can we flip this around so they can see
them? As school board meetings, we have to have them on video, but study sessions, we don't. >> You can see now. >> We can see you on the laptop, so I should be able to >> You can get to stay there. We can start. >> Okay. We'll make
>> All right. I can see you and I can hear you. >> All right. >> All right. >> So, before we get to the public forum, uh, Director Atinson has a statement she would like to read. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, thank you, Director Way. I just wanted to take a moment to clarify for our community that the work
that I'm doing in support of Title N is a project that I'm working on as an individual board member. I apologize if there's any confusion surrounding this topic coming out of our last board meeting as a result of the update I shared during my board report. If anyone has any questions or concerns
surrounding the title line project, please feel free to reach out to me directly. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. We have two speakers. Um, point of order. >> Yes. >> Um, I this was not a public agenda item,
>> so I would like permission to comment, >> but I think that has to come from you because it's not an agenda item. >> Yes, you may comment if you want. >> Great. Um, there's uh I wasn't at the last meeting.
I was mom that night going to a wonderful concert. Um, I think the the to the people, not just Director Atkinson, but to the board directors who signed this letter, um, applaud your advocacy. Um, you said and
did what you felt you needed to do. But while I don't agree with its premise at all, this is actually beside the point. It's there's a concern for me that now twice um this isn't an agenda item and this whole campaign was done in secret
um until I happened upon it on my Facebook feed which is how I found about it found out about it. Um, everything about our district's MSHSL membership and the policies is board work and we vote on our membership every year and we
receive updates on it through board representation and through Mr. Marshall and we celebrate things quarterly through these updates um, sports, concerts, plays and yes, the federal administration has threatened to pull funding um, because of our membership
and the policies we abide by. But any talk of funding or a budget or school finance has to take place at the board table and this did not. So, additionally, this issue is not outlined in our legislative platform that we voted on earlier this year. And
I am not saying that we can't advocate for things that are not in that piece of paper, but I would have hoped and maybe even expected that all board members would have received at the very least a courtesy heads up on any advocacy outside of that before a statewide
campaign launch. in a media blitz. I also have concerns that there was quorum, unintended not when four board members take action or discuss what I believe is board work outside of this boardroom. That is a quorum and that breaks open meeting law. And this list or website was not sent to all
directors. And as the website states, you signed this letter with your personal email addresses and it doesn't matter. You signed this letter as a board director. And in fact, only school board directors in our state could sign this letter. So, it wasn't open to the public and that makes it board specific
and so you signed on behalf of our district. So, we are talking about our board handbook tonight which I hope we have a little bit more time to do because that is a very big project. So, I hope that we have a little bit more time with that. Um, it outlines a lot of
this. So, I hope that before we talk about what's in that board handbook, we have assurances at this board table that we're going to abide by it and keep each other accountable. So, it doesn't matter whether I agree with the present pre premise, excuse me, of this campaign or
not. It doesn't matter, but it's board work in my mind. And so, we've had twice. I appreciate the the sentiment and I appreciate that you felt what you had to do, but it's board work and I feel like it should have been done at the table. So, I just wanted to make that clear. >> Thank you.
>> I'd also like to make a statement. Um, while I appreciate the apology, I didn't appreciate the saliloquy that happened. uh that was in violation of what was on the agenda. Um it should have been stopped. So I posumously also add on to the point of order. Uh but the ending of
the apology is please contact me for more information is not appropriate and should not have been part of that. This is not a self-advertising uh forum. Okay. For things that are outside this board for personal agendas. Um so that
was wholly inappropriate. >> All right. Thank you. Director Wright, I would just like to add um Director Olstead, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Um I did I tried to be as clear and um transparent with our board as quickly as I knew that
this project was coming together. >> This this needs to stop. >> So I did your I did email the board about this. Every single board member received information on this. So for now to have two board directors basically say they knew nothing about this is a little discouraging. after the fact. You
emailed after the fact. >> Okay. I think I need to to move on. I I appreciate that. >> Again, like I said, if you have any questions, please feel free to >> That's exactly. >> All right. We're going to move on to the public forum. >> Thank you. >> Um we have two speakers this evening and
we will start with uh Joe Mleski. Off topic. I fully support the school rejecting the ideology that offers false hope to the vulnerable by claiming one can choose gender. Revisionist history. The school's response to the federal holiday. This is
kind of the topic of what it was. I was just in the middle of writing this today. Hello, my name is Joe Moleski. I currently have two kids that attend Prior Lake School District. I'm here today due to my concern over the school's involvement on the revisionist history. Recently, I have been in
contact with the school board and superintendent in regards to my concern. The response I received to my concern, specifically from the superintendent, was belittling and excluded any sense to a well-th thoughtout response to my concern, which unfortunately is how most my interactions with the school
administration have been. In regards to the supern respond response, it was with that all too familiar reflexive response from a bureaucrat mindlessly pariting policy rather than coming up with any sort of rational thought. The superintendent isn't the only one that offers me this
answer. I have asked what goals our leaders within Prior Lake have with our kids. And rather than the correct response of my goal is to ensure we provide the ability of every child to succeed after school, I was with met with the response, my goal is to comply
with the Minnesota Department of Education expectations. This to me says we have an administration more impassioned with bureaucracy than the future of our kids. This only highlighted when my concerns about the revisionist history is met with quote, we are not engaged in revisionist
teaching. Again, the component of teaching something about indigenous American history on that day is directly tied to state law. This neglects answering why a state law means focusing on indigenous state doesn't make it revisionist history, as Minnesota doesn't determine what is and isn't
American history. Nor does the law that is referenced even demand any specific way that indigenous day needs to be addressed or observed. What is stated is that an hour must be dedicated to the day through observance where it never dispels out the criteria
to fit what it means to observe the day and only offer suggestions rather to demanding what's needed to be done. Until proven otherwise, the legislation used as an excuse is a virtue signaling waste of ink that plates toward those that are driven by emotion rather than
logic. According to the legislation that is being used as an excuse, you could have the school operate as normal and just say that's how the district chooses to observe indigenous day. As to why this is a revisionist history, it completely belittles the very people the day tries to celebrate. Rather than
ingesting the reality that North American prior to colonization where the people that inhabited land were a diverse group of people, this holiday homogeneous a group of people with over 300 different languages with thousands of different cultural practices into one
amorphous category. To me, it seems comparable to thinking there is only one Asian culture. If created an amorphous group out of thousands of different cultures into one isn't revisionist history. >> Did you wrap it up? >> Well, if it's not revisionist history about that, then how about a holiday?
How about a completely nonforeign culture replacing an American holiday? Uh I never time this out so I can't I guess. >> Yeah. Three minute time limit. I'm sorry. >> But yes, I do. I want I will be here every every meeting until I get you know
addressed. So, I'm looking for I'm not looking for people to like, you know, excluded, you know, the people that inhabited America's history prior to America. I'm asking for my, you know, school to actually recognize a federal holiday and not revise it and replace it
with a culture that doesn't that has nothing to do with the Western society. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, yes, >> appreciate it. >> I will be here every week or every meeting though until I get it resolved. Uh next and our second speaker is Mark Kleenner. And again, I probably forgot
to say that uh our time limit is three minutes per speaker. You do your best to stay within that. >> Yes. All right. School board members, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Um as you review the latest elementary boundary options later
tonight, I'd like to offer a parents perspective on the data that you will soon see. I have two children in the district with a third starting her journey next fall. Based on the board packet that I've reviewed tonight um in the advisory committee feedback, scenarios C and E appear to be the most
favorable options. Both options um under consideration meet the minimum requirement for the boundary changes. And as you guys as everyone knows, you know, the guiding goals are to balance enrollment across our schools, keep transportation costs low, and minimize disruption to students, families, and
staff. I respectfully ask that you place particular weight on the option that moves the fewest students. If both options meet the criteria, it's reasonable to compare how many children will be uprooted from their current schools. Scenario C moves 580 students.
Scenario E moves 679 students, nearly 100 more students and families impacted, a guideline that we are trying to minimize. Capacity also matters. Under scenario E, FiveHawks, one of our oldest schools,
would be at 80.2% capacity. As we seek balance, does it make sense for our oldest building to carry the highest enrollment? Scenario C brings Five Hawks to 75% capacity and keeps our newest school, Hamilton Ridge, at a low 62%
capacity, leaving room for growth not only at Hamilton Ridge, but also the other schools. I also recognize that scenario C would require a start time change affecting a number of students. However, if scenario C moves fewer students overall, many families may
prefer remaining at their home school and adjusting to a new start time over being relocated entirely. Further balancing can be achieved through where we place our open enrolled students. In closing, please prioritize the option that minimizes disruption for our resident students and families. Scenario
C moves the fewest students. then use the open enroll placements to uh further fine-tune capacity. While I know you guys aren't deciding tonight um which bounty scenario the district will adopt, I would ask that you keep these stats in mind as you consider the impact to resident students and families for next
school year. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving down to the uh purpose and agenda. Dr. Thomas. >> Thank you, Chair White, board directors. Um this evening we have uh a couple of proclamations that we'll uh review this
uh tonight. Um we will uh engage you all on some consensus around um our calendar start times and end times for the year. Um given some changes to legislation. Uh we'll discuss a little bit about our uh elementary attendance boundary with some recommendations for the board to
consider. Um we will give you an updated 5-year forecasting model. Um and then um have a discussion around board budget priorities and then um the board will also take a look at some of their uh language within the school board
handbook um that governs a lot of your work and then closing out we'll have um some minor edits to policy 722. >> Thank you. All right. First off, then we have a couple of proclamations and director France, if you would read the proclamation for National School
Psychologist Week. >> National School Psychologist Appreciation Week, November 3rd through the 7th, 2025. Prior Lake Savage Area Schools recognizes November 3rd through the 7th, 2025 as National School Psychologist Appreciation Week. This week, we celebrate our thanks and
gratitude for these essential staff. Whereas during the week of November 3rd through the 7th, 2025, schools throughout the United States will celebrate National School Psychology Week to highlight the important work school psychologists and other educators do to help all students thrive. Whereas
school psychologists apply expertise in mental health, learning, and behavior to help children and youth succeed academically, socially, behaviorally, and emotionally. They provide assessment and support to students and partner with teachers and other professionals to create safe, healthy, and supportive
learning environments. Therefore, let it be resolved, the board of education hereby extends its appreciation to all Prior Lake Savage Area School Psychologists for helping all students thrive and declares November 3rd through 7th, 2025 to be National School Psychologist Appreciation Week in Prior
Lake Savage Area Schools. >> Thank you. Um, thank you to the school board for recognizing this group. I know that we're recognizing a lot of people all the time, but we have seven school psychologists, E12, that are an integral part of our special education and intervention services. So, I am very
grateful for them. And I think, you know, as every other group, we have some of the best. So, thank you for recognizing them. And I don't know what my next thought was, but thank you. [Music] Next on the agenda, I will read the
proclamation for community education appreciation week and national community education day. Prior Lake Savage Area Schools recognizes November 10th through the 14th, 2025 is Community Education Appreciation Week. Our district's more than 200
community education staff, advisory council members, and volunteers provide learning opportunities and resources for our community to develop lifelong skills. This week, we express our gratitude for these community educators. Whereas, National Community Education
Day will be celebrated on November 13, 2025. And whereas community education staff and volunteers uh deliver and support a wide range of educational opportunities for learners of all ages and stages of life from
early childhood to youth programs to adult education programs and more. Whereas the members of the community education advisory council serve the crucial role of sharing community perspectives to advise the department and the director in the fulfillment of
the department mission. Whereas the board of education encourages all community members to engage in community education through participating in the wide variety of activities, programs, and services, helping provide new opportunities, or serving on an advisory
council. Therefore, let it be resolved the board of education hereby extends its appreciation to the community education staff, advisory council members and volunteers for serving our entire community with learning opportunities and resources to develop
lifelong skills and declares November 10th through the 14th, 2025 to be community education appreciation week in Prior Lake Savage Area Schools. >> Good evening. Thank you. Um, good evening, Chair White, members of the board, and Dr. Thomas. Um, Bobby and I
are honored to be here this evening to speak on behalf of the entire community education services team in recognition of National Community Education Day. As you know, community eds a wide range of program areas from our youngest learners in ECF to our active older adults. We
also oversee district facility use and kids company child care. We are dedicated to fostering lifelong learning through inclusive and supportive programs that engage all students and promote citizen involvement. We have an extremely talented and dedicated team that strives each day to provide the
highest quality services and programming to our students, parents, and community members. It is truly a team effort. In recognition of National Community Education Day, we offer two free classes, one for adults and one for youth. Both of those classes are actually full now at this time. But in
addition to that, we are also offering 20% off of new registrations if you register between November 13th and the 30th. And this was promoted on the back of our fall catalog. We would like to thank district staff, administration, and the board for your continued
partnership and support of community ed. We are grateful for your cooperative spirit in allowing us to serve our students and families. It is this collaborative effort that allows us to meet the everchanging and diverse needs of our community. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Okay, we'll move on to oversight of operations. Uh, school year calendar start end dates for 2627 and 2728. Robert, >> good evening everyone. Director White, directors, uh, superintendent, what you
have in the board packet is one of the roles I've been assigned to is leading our calendar committee to, uh, draft some calendars for the, uh, upcoming, uh, two school years for 2627 and 2728. And uh in the board packet, as you can
see, there are there is um a new uh Minnesota law, the House bill there, and the Senate bill, which allows the school districts to vote to start earlier for 26 27 as well as 27 and 28 due to how late Labor Day falls now on those two years. Um so in order for the calendar
committee, we felt that in order to start the work, it would be nice to know what the school board, you know, would like as a start and end date for those two years before we kind of start diving into making a lot of drafts and not knowing. So, we're looking for consensus uh at the November 10th meeting. Um
depending on and the new temporary law, just some of the bullets there as Minnesota enacted in 2025, provides a temporary ex um exception to the state's traditional post LLO day start for 26 27 and 2728. Um now, this law allows individual school boards to vote to start their
school years before Labor Day if they choose, which gives them the local control over their calendars. And because the decision now is local one, there's no universal statute that dictates when schools must start after Labor Day in 2026. So what you have in front of you is the what the dates would be if you looked at 2627 before Labor
Day uh with a start date of August 31st and an end date of June 3rd, 2027. And if you went after Labor Day, it would be September 8th, 2026 through June 9th, 2027. And then for 2728, if you went before Labor Day, it would be August 30th, 2027 through May 31st, 2028. And
then if you went after Labor Day, it would be September 7th, 2027 through June 7th of 2028. So that is the information um in regards um to the calendars for the 2627 and 2728 school year. >> And action will take place on the 10th.
Is that the plan? >> Uh correct, chair. And tonight before our time or before our staff go into the time and resources of of a schedule getting consensus of do we start before or after um in between they'll work through all that but they don't want to
run down um a calendar that uh the board ultimately is saying no we don't want to do this but I would just advise the board that um if you know starting be it's a two-year approval this may have staying power um it may not we don't know um but if we would do it. We would
do it for the two years for sure. Um and then based upon feedback, we can ask our community, you know, about that. But again, just wanting to get consensus, should we go build out a calendar for you for before or our traditional um after Labor Day? That's what we would like to seek tonight.
>> Director France. >> Um so I've got a bunch of questions with this. Um, first of all, from the teachers perspective, and the educator's perspective, is it easier for them, particularly since they normally do rolling starts for, let's say, sixth
graders, kindergarteners, all that, and and assessment time to have that Labor Day break and then start fullon uh with the students or do do they not feel that will help them and actually cause too
much of a gap in um in let's say the progression of how the week and the year goes. >> Yeah, it's a great question and I'm going to maybe defer to Dr. Anderson or Dr. Thomas who' maybe have a little bit more knowledge and we have not had a calendar committee meeting yet um because we've kind of been waiting to
know what our uh marching orders are going to be as from the start and and end date. So, I haven't had an opportunity to talk with the teachers yet. But >> yeah, um director fans, I'll I'll share that um that week to your point how we have this rolling start is really a soft
launch. And so I think having that time and that breakway to come back then into core instruction would actually go well, you know, in terms of getting what we need to done and then coming in to, you know, when we start, we're we're on. >> So just a perspective to offer.
>> Have uh this has this except for in our board book here, has this gone out to parents who often also spend that last week on vacation? And obviously the sooner we can get them an answer the better because we don't want to interrupt any of that time. Has there
been any feedback in the past or anything currently since this has been out there for a week from any parents or families? >> Director France. Um we did entertain this conversation at
the last calendar um cycle. Uh and that's when we were attempting to look at a potential two-year calendar. One would be starting normally this year and then next year was going to be the um uh before Labor Day. I'd have to find the
notes on feedback that um previous leadership did on that calendar committee to to see if they you know what that perspective may have been. I don't have that tonight. >> All right. And then my last question was this change graduation or allow teachers more time to prepare at the end of the year for final grades and have that
break before that rush. >> I mean depending on how we schedule the days in between either one of those could allow for that. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes. >> Um question and comment. Um so question if if we were to start after Labor Day,
like how many days would we need off um sorry, how many additional days would we need on the calendar during the school year to accommodate that to meet the requirement? >> Um >> so we have a minimum number of days of instruction required. >> So what you have here would give is our
sandwich is our bookend. Okay. on on both models before and after are the bookend dates at the earliest and latest that we could then squeeze our instructional time in. >> Okay. >> Instructional days, sorry. >> So, no like additional um days required
in. So, I just um feedback personally for as a parent and um I think feedback that I've heard is um our summers are short in Minnesota. I don't favor starting before Labor Day. Um, I looked at like a few neighboring school
districts around and I know several districts have not set their calendars yet, but I do think it's important to try to align to some of the districts around here and I just noticed like I think EP Lakeville and Burnsville had them they have them available. Um, Eden Prairie and Lakeville instead just took
they have a few extra days of courses um during the Christmas break. So, they're going like December 1 to December 23rd, I think, both of them, or 22nd, and then starting after Labor Day. So, I don't know if that's an option if we're trying to get the calendar days in, but I would be more in favor of of that and still
starting after Labor Day. >> Other questions, comments? Jessica? >> Um, thank you. Um, I had the same questions about feedback from staff and families. So, I'm personally a little uncomfortable kind of leaning one way or
another without getting that feedback um because I think it's important and I do remember Dr. Thomas last year when we were talking about this. I remember we did, you know, generally speaking talk um about this. Remember that too. Um would it I know you're looking for some
direction tonight, but I just I don't know. I I personally can see pros and cons to each. Um uh my so there's my comment but then a question so the bills
have these two years only and is that only um sir that because Labor Day is later in the calendar year and so that's why it's these two years specifically because they very specifically say that.
>> Okay. They never actually said that in anything I read like a reason for this. Yeah, that's what we've been told. It's just the lateness of how Labor Day falls on the calendar. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Charles. >> Um, I agree with uh Director France,
Director Olstead, and also Director Mason with the hey, we have short summers here and we want to entertain that. But my only additional would be have we talked to Director Marshall and we're starting earlier um how that might
affect summer sports and or the summer programs and fall sports and what are all the other school districts that I understand director Mason already mentioned that she looked at some of the other calendars. They might not be out um with those starting. Would that have
an effect on any of those items? I would I don't want to speak for him or anything like that, but I would like just that to be part of the conversation along with parents and teachers. Um, obviously most of our kids play sports and I think
that is going to have an effect on it. >> Director Johnson. So yeah, there's there's kind of a mixed bag of conversation in terms of what districts are doing. Um, in terms of starting before or after, we're talking about 7 to nine days depending on the year of basically a week ahead of time. Um, and
in terms of the sports, uh, again, at that time frame and when we're looking at school, um, the the game schedules are not such that they're going to be impacted by, you know, our current reality. If we started earlier, um they could still have essentially an extra
week of practice time before that they would actually get into the games, but the schedule could actually still remain the same um throughout the school year. Um because none of our key games are going to be at the book end. Um we might have tournaments that run over, things of that nature, but your core sports are done um in time before school that's
out. So, I wouldn't anticipate a challenge there. Um, and like I said, there's mixed conversations that are happening with a variety of different districts. And to Director Olsad's point, um, you know, uh, resort owners
and state fair participants are the biggest hurdle. Um, that's why this has never come um, forward with any semblance of of a conversation. It is simply due to the lateness that may impact some, you know, schedules and
would only be for this two-year window. I I would not go in and out. I think if we make a decision, it'd be something that you'd probably want to see it through um to get a good understanding of how that works. But, you know, it's something there's a couple of quick questions that you all have that I'm
sure we could um um uh get information on, send that to the board just for some perspective and then perhaps do some of our one-on-one conversations. I can use that to guide the conversation that we go into with the calendar. So, again, we weren't voting on it tonight. We're just trying to get a sense of where the board may have been from previous
conversations that we've had, you know, a year ago. And Director Johnson, just to piggyback on Superintendent, um, just from my previous district, we were before Labor Day start and having kids that participate in athletics, there was no impact on starting before Labor Day with
any of their activities. So, I would not see any impact, but we'll definitely make sure that we talk to Director Marshall as well. >> Perfect. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Y, I had one more question. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Um, and so I like you, director uh co
cohern. Is that if I got it that right? Um um it's you're brand new. So um the uh um I I've been in school districts before the governor made the declaration
that we're going to start on Labor Day and we had rolling starts and ends all over the state. um the the the concern that I that I have is the number of students impacted um overall and is that significant because of that rolling start. So, in
other words, if you really are using that time in advance of, let's say, Labor Day to do the orientation for kindergarteners, sixth graders, and 9th graders, and the assessment um and it's not affecting um all the families in the
district, that may also have an impact. And I'd like to kind of understand those demographics and statistics also if that can be included in there. Um and Dr. >> Vance, can I clarify the when you say the demographics, you mean the amount of
people who actually participate during that >> correct week? >> Yes. Because obviously juniors and seniors aren't doing that. Um we have the ninth grade orientation. You've got the kindergarteners coming. You've got >> assessments, right? Assessments. So, um,
and that may also impact, uh, you know, what families feel about that time starting summer earlier or, you know, summer later. Uh, and they may change their opinion based upon if that impacts them, right? Or at least it has an immediate impact for the next couple of
years. So, I just kind of like to get an idea. >> Director Atinson, do you have anything? >> Yeah, thank you. Um, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. I was just going to say my feedback doesn't really change based on we had this conversation last year and the feedback that I've heard
from constituents and from teachers is that they would love our district to do a Labor Day to Memorial Day holiday or from bookend the holidays for summer and I know that other districts do do that. So um I would love to see a calendar scenario where we Labor Day to Memorial
Day and then um so that's my feedback on the calendar. And then secondly, um, do we have to approve two years? I know we we were recommended to approve two years last year and we only approved one based on board feedback. So where is the
two-year approval coming from? >> Uh, the director, no, the board doesn't have to. Again, just trying to be planful for our community and families to have more than one year at a time. So again, that's that's an option. That's not something that has to happen.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's all I got. Thank you. Can I I have a question on that? Would we have enough school hours or instructional hours to actually bookend it that way? Because I thought >> it would it would if we bookended holiday to holiday, we'd have to do a significant compression in between in
terms of our days and what that would look like in terms of breaks and things of that nature. That has not been something that we've ever vetted, but >> okay. >> I don't know off the top of my head how many days that calendar days of of school that that entails and where that would fit. And that's what I was asking
also like if we try to book end the holidays, how how many days would you need to have extra in the school year of additional instruction? >> And I guess my only comment is that um I can understand the the the desire maybe
to start early. I would just say that even though Labor Day does run a little late these two years, that wouldn't put graduation necessarily any later than we've ever had it um in the past. I mean, I know I've sat on the stage on the 10th or 11th before uh in the past.
So, it's I wish we were gaining a little more. It would be for me it'd be a little bit easier to to say one way or the other. Um uh so I guess if you're looking for you mean still looking for >> I think I think I have uh good
information from the board that we can vet out before we bring it to the board for conversation and action in in uh in a future date. >> Okay. We good? >> Good. >> All right. Thank you. Next, we have the ele elementary
attendance boundary discussion. Mr. Powers. >> I am too. >> Greetings everyone. Let me see if I can pull this up. >> See if it's my computer. >> Something does smell like it. All right. Uh much of this information
is um things that we've gone over. Um what we were able to do at our last meeting um with the uh advisory committee for finance and operations was to narrow it down. Um so we've got the two options that were narrowed down at
the committee meeting. Um right now I'm showing on the on the screen the current boundaries and then um as we are looking at uh the options that we came from out of the meeting. Uh first is scenario C.
Um as you can see there's not a whole lot of difference um in a couple of areas. Glendale um mostly contains the same area. It's always contained, just adding a little bit of the north side of the lake. Jeff Pond expands to cover the rest of that area
that Westwood had on the north side of the lake. And in this particular scenario, uh, Hamilton Ridge basically takes over the entire east south side of the lake. As we're looking at the numbers, directly impacted 580 students. That
includes the 343 at Westwood, 156 at Hamilton Ridge, and then a couple of the locations. We've got Five Hawks and Jeffers Pond um that some of the students will change. Uh capacity wise, um average is about
69% because this one averages things. uh the low side 62, high side 79.62%. Now this is all before open enrollment comes in and that will obviously change things.
Then as we're looking at scenario E, um once again, scenario E, the north side of the lake is split between Glendale and Jeff Pond. The south and east side of the lake is split between Red Tale and Hamilton Ridge. As we're looking at the numbers, um,
directly impacted 679 students. That's those 343 from Five Hawks. Five Hawks, excuse me, Westwood. Um, the four from Five Hawks, uh, 40 from Jeffers Pond, 93 from Red Tail, and 199 from Hamilton
Ridge. Now, as you're looking at the capacities, Biohawks is at 80%. Everyone else is bouncing around between 61.39 and 69.94. Once again, these are before open enrollment numbers are brought in.
Now, as we're looking at the analysis, both of them meet all the requirements. Both of them are mostly pretty balanced. There's one school in each scenario that will be um at a higher capacity than the other ones. Average bus rides will still
maintain 30 minutes or less. Um, scenario E seems to be more future proof considering where the growth patterns are looking at and it does not require a start time change. So, we're looking at the total students affected 679.
When we look back at scenario A, like I mentioned, they meet all the same criteria or C >> C, excuse me, I'm looking at things and my eyes are going buggy now. Um, bus times still are maintaining 30 minutes or less.
Um, we do have one school that's well all schools are below 80%. Um, this one's not as future proof as the other one because Hamilton Ridge there again is in the center of the district. We do have where the uh Corey is right now that we'll have some
housing in the next few years. Um, biggest thing about this particular scenario, we would need to swap one of the earlier start elementarymentaries for one of the later start elementaryaries. Total that that will affect is about 9000 students.
So, combining between the two of those, total effective will be 1570 students. Are there any questions about that? as you're looking at these. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry >> about that in particular. Yes. Can I ask that?
>> Yes, absolutely. >> Just to make sure I understand now that you've said it, I think I do. But in scenario C, when we're talking about 1570 total students affected, that's a location change and
factoring a start time change. >> Correct. >> So that's where you get that number. Correct. Yep. >> Okay. And then in scenario E, I'm just on the the students affected part right now. Does not require any start time changes. And so, okay,
I guess I just had to say it out loud, but thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I have other questions, but I'll wait for you to be done. Are are you done? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I did want >> any questions you have. Yeah. Um so you
know I think it's important that while it may be disruptive that it is a one-time change and and um and that's what I would wanted to have my first question on which is basically which one is more coste effective and which one
has a more strategic uh outlook of not having to change again particularly with what we know what's happening with building and movement of of um households etc. What we can actually somewhat anticipate no one
knows the future but you know what I mean. So which one is actually more cost-effective for the district and which one is more likely to to basically be here for a long long time. >> So looking at it from a past lens where we were changing boundaries on average
every 5 years um scenario E has the least likely to change in the next 5 years. Um but is if we're looking at how it's going to affect the costing for the district, neither one of those scenarios will in honesty change the costing for
much. Um we're looking at the busing still remaining the same. That's why we would need to switch those start times for two locations. Um the the rest of the changes um it really depends on how the open enrollment settles in
>> and to qualify the five years. That's that's pretty much when we built a new elementary school and then had to in order to fill the elementary school. So what I'm thinking is if if everything remains the same and we don't close another school and we don't open another
school that demographically and proportionally this one should at least stay the test of time or at least >> has more staying power. >> Definitely my hope. Yes. So both scenarios have more staying power or one
has more than the other. >> If I'm looking at it from where the demographics are in the district and this is one of the things that we were talking about in the committee as well, scenario E offers a more flexible approach to adjusting where the new growth is going to happen.
>> Okay. And if I may as well, the growth that director France you're mentioning um is not the growth that we're expecting. So we had a rapid surge during that time which is you know prompting a lot of boundaries and reopening or opening schools, building
schools etc. We're talking about growth over the next 20 years or so. um at an incremental level to the tune of for every rooftop we may see 75 to 1.0
student coming out of that. So we're not going to necessarily see the type of enrollment that we saw perhaps in the past. >> And I'm also asking about zoning. So I assume that's part of that. So if we have open land that has been zoned >> that's accounted for >> mixed use business or residential and
and high and high capacity residential then multi-unit housing then then we know that now and we have every >> every anticipation of that zoning not changing to >> mess with this. That's an interesting question and it's we met with the city
in both cities and what they're saying is potential and what right now what they're thinking may happen are two completely different things. Their hope is is that they hit that the city of Prior Lake between 50 and 100 new
construction builds. The city of Savage is thinking between 20 and 50 and they're running out of room. So there really won't be much more additional things in that area. But >> yeah, I don't know if you had anything else. >> No, no, I I would just say that again, we we obviously have no control over
zoning and whatever the city decides to do, you know, 5 years from now, 10 years from now is going to be up to the city. Um but at this time, what we know today, the data that we have today. Um uh this one has scenario E has the flexibility
and more staying power. >> And one of the things and I want to highlight this again. Sorry if I interrupt. Go ahead. >> Um, when we're talking about the new housing starts, if you think of it, every house is 75 in round numbers. So,
even if there's a 100 houses built, we might get 75 students out of that. We might not. And that could be from 0 to 7 years time after they build that house. You know, that's a long-term look at how you're looking at for the zoning and the construction. if they buy a new house or
a new family, they might not have kids for a few years. If they'd have kids when they build in or they're putting in there, it might jump in right away. So, as we're looking at those things, then again, scenario E still has more staying power and more flexibility.
>> Lisa, do you have anything? >> Okay. Um, I'm just see I see here on uh on scenario E with Five Hawks already at a little over 80% capacity. I guess I'm not sure what their open enrollment numbers are. Um, is there a point I
guess at what point would you feel comfortable maybe having to close that building off to something like open enrollment since they're already starting out at 80%. >> Correct. So that that's right at that threshold of where we would be looking to close down open enrollment based upon overall school capacity and then
individual grades. We really don't want to fill a school um more than 80 to 85%. Um so keeping that as our older school with our primary residence and then redistributing open enrollment through some of our other campuses that would be the logic behind that as well.
>> Okay. >> Can I ask a question on that? I think in the finance comm that was a question too but um I thought we had stated the target capacity of a school is 80 to 85% in district is that >> or you were saying with open enrollment >> total like you you want to have 80 to
85% capacity period because of some of the development pieces eb and flows of dem you know we don't know what open enrollment will do or what developments may may come that aren't on the radar but suddenly come onto the radar so you always have that wiggle room you know to
not built 100%. >> Charles, um, as far as cap capacity wise, um, I'm just trying to figure out how to phrase this question. So
there's an area look looking here um that would that goes to fivehawks on E and C um on the Yep. >> Talking about this right there.
>> Yep. Right there. So, I'm just thinking transportationwise, and it already is Jeffers now, if I'm reading the map. Yeah, Jeffers now. What was the decision
with that? And then would that balance the two schools out a little bit more? >> So, that's a that's actually a a much more in-depth question than you probably realize. And the >> I'm sure No, I'm I'm sure it is. And there's a reason behind it. That's why I'm asking
>> and that's why I'm I very much wanted to make sure that we touched on this and I'm I'm glad you brought it up. So, as we're looking at the scenarios where we're putting extra students into, >> you know, Jeffers Pond or Five Hawks. One of the reasons we went with this one was actually having to do with the
transportation site, but it there's also another hidden side to this. So when we talked with the transportation company, that particular north and west side of Spring Lake happens to be routing wise more efficient for them to bring it to
Five Hawks than it is to bring it to Jeff Pond. But one of the other things that we were talking about is making it this particular way gives us that that chance that we can keep the nature-based programming at Jeffers
Pond. I don't know if we will be able to. It really depends on how the enrollment goes for open enrollment and everything else, but keeping that section of that northern part of Spring Lake in Jeffers Pond puts Jeffers Pond
um another 60 70 students higher, which puts it a lot more questionable for our naturebased programming. And and I'll just reflect um from our committee conversation um the nature'sbased the naturebased
prechool program is is a huge program for us um and uh there there was some good discussion around the prioritization that actually brings enrollment not only to prek but it's a good stepping stone
to having permanency of our K12 enrollment. And so um also aligned you know with our east initiative and the proximity of the woods and everything it really makes sense there. So, I just want to share with the board that that was another
conversation that we had as a committee. Um, based upon factors, um, you know, as we heard from some of our community tonight, how we balance the open enrollment because by state law, uh, families have to say these are my top
three. Um, doesn't mean that you'll get them. They just have to submit them if they would like. Um but we will ensure that obviously the folks who live here are prioritized. Um as well as looking at some of our programming that has maybe a second and third order effect on
enrollment. That's another area that we would take into consideration. For example, um if nature prek is one of those key priority areas, then we would balance open enrollment around that to say, okay, no more at JP because we're going to have to look at, you know, preserving space for that while we then
shift that open enrollment to other campuses. So, just want to let the board know that was another big conversation that we had in committee. Where can you tell me where I understand right 75 to one per head in growth where
is that what areas are we looking at that growth >> um bigger question so I'm going to hop around so I can point out these areas for everyone so one of the areas of growth up u north of the call right up in this area >> okay >> one of the other areas of growth we've
got red tail over here where the new apartments and everything are >> we've got there's scattered areas over in this area that potentially could open up, >> but the land isn't available at this time. >> And then we're also looking at right off of 42. There's a bunch of different chunks of land up in that area.
>> And like I mentioned, this area right over by Spring Lake, that area there, >> there's always the chance in other sections, but those are the ones that have been highlighted to us by the city. Anyone else? We good >> questions. I can't get a phone.
>> Sorry. Um I need to exercise more. That's what that is. Um I did have a couple of questions. um in I lean toward the least impact to
students, right, in terms of location change and start time change. Um has it been discussed about like staff changes? So clearly, yes, we're we're closing a a you know, a
neighborhood school, but like in terms of staffing changes when, you know, capacity is going up or or to some degree staying around the same as it is now, but what kind of
conversations have we had? And I know this might not be necessarily um for you, Director Powers, but for somebody for one of the other executive directors, what kind of conversations are we having? Because I know we're talking about the least
effect on students, but I I want to talk staff, too, because that's obviously a huge piece here. Before we jump too much into that, the the staffing changes for these two scenarios won't be affected a huge
amount except by location. >> What's a huge amount? >> Well, look look at where we're looking at the highest enrollment for the per scenario. Those will obviously be the ones that they'll have to allocate more staff to, but we're having to reduce staff because of a closure um as much as
anything else. and then we're getting those efficiencies in by having those four sections per grade. So, when we're looking at those types of things, that definitely impacted how we were looking at this. But I'll I'll leave it to Director Anderson or um Superintendent
Thomas to talk a little bit more about how we're taking those things and effect and how the staff will be affected. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. I was going to say Director Coffin could speak to that. >> Thank you for the question. Yes. Um it's
something you know uh both myself and Dr. Anderson have started working on in regards to just taking a look at it. We've been talking with our principles um about some of this kind of stuff too because of course as you know as you brought up it's on everybody's mind. I mean there are going to be staff changes
um and so yeah we are you know trying to look at some scenarios. As far as specific numbers we don't I I don't think we h we don't have those yet. we haven't quite gotten to that point in the staffing process to have those specific numbers. Um, but yeah, what I can say is that,
you know, we are very aware and we we want to work very closely with trying to um make everybody feel that we understand that those changes aren't easy for our staff members as well. That we spend a lot of time talking about these lines and and where our students
are going to go, but we also do understand that there is going to be um impact on our on our staff as well. So, we've worked with we've started talking with our principles and there's been conversations, you know, um by principal Westwood with with her, you know, with their staff there. Um we've talked with the union about about this about that.
We are um and one of the things, yes, we're going to start looking at as soon as whatever decision is made here, we're going to have a better understanding of how many students are going to be at each school. So, then that's going to help us start to start to put a plan together on what the staff at each of those schools going to look like. So we'll have a better idea then at that
point in time you know what's you know which school is going to be adding you know how much staff is going to be added at one school versus another and then we'll have a better understanding of of overall impact but we have definitely started those discussions >> um one more >> sure um to that end um as conversations
start to happen in terms of you know kind of looking into the future for what people's roles and positions might look like are conversations also happening realizing you know the movement isn't happening at the secondary level, but like
are there conversations for staff to consider, you know, moving into the secondary space where and if there's there's room to do that, I realize, but are they part of those conversations too? >> The secondary group? >> Yes.
>> Um, they haven't been as of right now. We've been mainly just meeting with the elementary principles at this point in time. But I will say, I mean, some of our, you know, some of your elementary lenses are, you know, K through six licensed. So, there's a possibility that if we do have some sixth grade need that some of those staff could potentially
move into there. And I think the biggest thing we've focused on talking about is we're open to anything that's going to retain as many staff that we possibly have here at Prior Lake Schools, you know, Savage Schools. So, we want to do whatever scenarios are going to retain as many people as possible. And so, we're opened up to any of those
scenarios. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, maybe one more from Charles and we'll move on. >> One last thing. Um, are the maps that we have here, um, I know that they're available online. Are we making the like these available out here and or in in
the schools itself? Um, >> we just have these two here blown up for up here. >> Um, but they're online that people can zoom them as they need to. But these are the only two from a cost standpoint that we had professionally blown up. >> Sure. The plan was is to put these in
the lobby. Okay. >> So that people can visit and look at them. But the ones online, um, they're the same map. The biggest difference is just going to be as they zoom in, it'll start to fuzz out. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Last one. Absolutely. Last one.
>> Absolutely. Last one. And I know this was discussed the first time we brought up the whole distribution and the various options that we had, but if if you could just um humor me and just uh um explain how you're also considering
special education because there are different capabilities at different schools. Some of them have more capacity than the others. I assume that was considered in the in the um boundaries as well as the capacity of each school.
I can jump on that one. Um yeah, we're actually looking at there's some changes we may need to do at least one of the locations to accommodate um the special education um needs. Um Hamilton Ridge um we very well may need to add a couple of walls to enclose the space upstairs to
create another classroom space. Um, and then we're looking at um just making sure we're using all the spaces to the maximum that we can, which may mean that some storage needs um that we have to rethink how we're storing things. Um,
that's fivehawks is a good example of that. We're going to have to figure out a way to find ways to store everything that is currently someplace in a classroom or something else. Does one of these scenarios favor more
accommodations and more um equivalent accommodations for special needs students? >> No. >> No. So, it's we're going to deal with that situational >> Yeah. They and because of the way that we deal with our special needs students, um it's really the neither scenario is
favored in one way or another on that. >> Okay. Thank you. And and one thing I I wanted to finish with this part and then um we had a really robust um the two council or the members can also say that we had a very robust discussion of this
in our advisory committee meeting and we it was unanimous um the choice for um scenario E. Um, scenario C was the best of the rest of them. Um, but we
definitely came to a unanimous decision and I was it like I said it was the most robust discussion I could have hoped for. >> So, >> and I just want I know this might be word smithing but it was consensus around scenario a unanimous. >> Yes. Sorry. Yes,
>> it was not unanimous. People had thoughts on everything but the consensus was clearly around E. >> Okay. I think if I can add on that I think there's definitely concerns raised and the number of students were impacting right but just like the map and looking at you know future growth
was probably the driver with that and so I think most people favored that e >> all right thank you >> um before we move on I think we may have lost director Atinson >> yeah she'll text when she's gonna get back on
>> we will move on then thank you Director Powers Next on the agenda is the five-year forecast model. Director Ryder, >> thank you. This evening we are talking about our five-year financial forecast. Um
[Music] quite a bit of information here that is uh quite a bit to absorb and I would say that the timing of this information um may may have been better had we had
the audit you know a month earlier like we would have anticipated and um that would have just given a little bit more information. However, I accounted for that which is why you see the jump from
the fiscal year 26 to 27 because you will be receiving from us a revised fiscal year 26 budget. And so there's some anticipated changes that are incurring in there. And so the 27 fiscal
year is based off from the 26 with some of my adjustments that are known that are larger. Um, and I want to speak to that quickly right up front just because we already have had information that you received um in the September 17th
meeting with regard to our preliminary audited information for fiscal year 25. And we knew we had a couple of areas few areas that were more overspent than what we'd like to see. this has adjusted for those adjustments on the budget side for
two of those areas. The third area of which um was kind of already done as we did our staffing for this fiscal year, but the transportation and the um insurance were not adjusted previously. And so those are two things you're going
to see come through in the revised fiscal year 26 budget that will come before you soon. Um, but just for your information, has been incorporated before building out the next five years because I needed to make sure we weren't
having a huge adjustment later that we couldn't already know about right now. Does that make sense? All right. So then as we get into this, I want to start from the top of the memo. Um, there are two different tables listed here. Table 1A is going to assume
that the current year voter approved operating levy is ending fiscal year 29 and that it would not be there for there forward. Whereas table 1B assumes that that would be continued um renewed as is. There's no assumption of any
increase at this point in time with the information before you. Okay. It would just be that it would have been an action taken by the board to renew that just as is for the next 10 years, right? which is possible during um under statute. That's the assumption. Okay.
Forecasts are built upon assumptions. So there's quite a few that are built in here and I want to try and touch on those. Okay. Um next I want to speak to the fact that as you look at the tables um table 1 A and table 1B, you will see that we have
enrollment listed. These are enrollment numbers that we had talked about previously that we spoke of in the last meeting along with our class sizes for the um presumption for this fall for example. So those numbers have not been shifted
by myself. Uh we will maybe want to consider that depending upon how our final fall fall numbers come out as we know those as we get closer to the end of December. Okay. My point is these are not set in stone. Please don't think that they will be. they will change,
okay, based on the new information we learn as we go. So, one of those things will be enrollment. Another will be the final outcome on the audit, just to make sure. And I think I've got it pretty well in there, but I wanted to make, you know, just make you aware of that. Another would be any changes to the
revised um current year budget of which I've already mentioned the biggies I've put in there so that those would not be surprised later. Um, and then I would also suggest that there is potentially it was mentioned to me about has this
been adjusted for any any savings in the closing of Westwood and I would say not if it wasn't already involved in a cut coming into this year. Okay. So closing the building and any adjustments then I
would consider that as part of our assumptions and and our building process for the fiscal year 27 budget that would be now becoming um a projection off from your forecast because you're going to have whatifs, right? What if we do this? What if we do that? And so those would
then come through at that point in time. >> Does that make sense? >> But we're not closing Westwood. We're moving Lo Right. >> Thank you very much. I'm I did misspeak there. um the closure of the neighborhood school. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> All right. So then um I'm on the second page of the memo under enrollment. Uh just to reiterate the fact that this is uh showing a three-year weighted ratio applied to the enrollments. You see a table two there that shows the numbers
for that we're assuming for those 80 m which is average daily membership of the grade level. um I'm sorry of each school year um with approximately a one to a 1.3% decline is assumed. Okay. Um in
comparing the fiscal year 26 numbers we have for fall so far at this moment I'm seeing that when you look at grades kindergarten through 9th grade, we're pretty close to what you're seeing here on in our projections at the fall numbers. But remember these
are my end of year numbers, right? So I'm more concerned about this the the secondary the 10th 11th and 12th graders because those seem to be lower than what we were projecting. So we might have to watch that and see if that needs adjustment as we get to a little bit more into the year.
Um I would also like to make mention of the fact that on the revenue a 2% increase on the gened formula has been assumed. Statute currently says that it could uh not to exceed 3%. So, it could be somewhere between two and three. My
assumptions have been at two. Um, pointing out also that the current dollar amount for the voter approved referendum in the district is currently at $623.97 per student. This does not have any inflationary factor included. So, that's
just an a point of reference. We will continue to see a cross subsidy and special education. And I am concerned slightly that um depending upon what happens with the um with the task force that is working
on that whether or not that will actually whether some special ed cross subsidy aid that we currently are receiving might be lost because they can't find a solution otherwise then it would come from there. So that's something to be cautious of and aware of. Um, and this assumes no change in
that cross subsidy amount that it wouldn't necessarily a chunk going away. So, that's just an assumption on my part and I we'll have to wait and see. Make sense? When it comes to expenses, there were a number of different percentages used here. I did not. So, sometimes you
can take your expenditures and just say we're going to apply 3% across the board. I did a little bit deeper in the fact that I went to the what we call object dimensions, which is like how do we spend our money and so like the certified staff and the non-certified
staff percentages looking at their contracts to see if there were built-in other things like um steps, lanes, longevity, things of that nature that are really not on the cell as we talk about it, right? So those are different costs involved. So you will see that
these projections or the forecasts that you see before you for the next five years do include more than what you've probably seen in the past at least three years I'm told. So um I did it a little deeper. So not everywhere did we go
higher, but in some cases we did. Um and that's where those costs are like embedded and not necessarily just on on a um a grid. Uh so with that we have 2 and a half% increase on all wage scales for all of
the um contracts. We have 1 to 3% for services, supplies and equipment. I have assumed a 3% increase in utilities. I've assumed um between two and 5% for health, dental, and other benefits.
Um some of our costs recognizing the fact that we don't have a lot of control over them for utilities, transportation, uh transportation's been addressed with regard to bringing it up to where we are now, meaning um we had a a pretty big
disparity between our budget and our actual costs for fiscal year 25. So that has been addressed in what you will see come forward as a proposed revised budget for the current year. and it has been assumed to be in place then for the future years 27 through 31.
In addition, I did a 6% increase on transportation each year. Um, so those are the assumptions that are embedded within what you see before you. You will see that the revenue is a 2% increase on the gened formula,
but it's also offset by the declining enrollment. So you're seeing in some years it's just under 1% and in some years it's more. So on average it's around 1% across the board. We do recognize that we um I'm at the
bottom of page three. We recognize that we spend approximately 83% of our total expenses and salaries and benefits. So I want to point that out at the top of page four of the memo. Um,
here's what we know. Any potential legislative relief that comes in the form of a one-time infusion doesn't really help a district very much. Additionally, when dollars are tied to specific uses only, that does not assist
us with our unassigned fund balance. It does not help us necessarily with some of the needs that we have. Even with the state increase in the state formula of somewhere between 2 and 3%, you will find that the increases are in the revenues would not be
sufficient to cover the additional costs that we find happening in our expenditures. Okay? Um, and there isn't really a way for me to come up with a model that's going to show you a revenue that's going to exceed expenditures. It's just I don't
know how to make that happen. Our enrollment isn't going to increase that much. I don't think you could um realistically believe that that would ever happen. Our expenditures are just going to grow faster than in revenues. And that's part of our challenge always, right? It's how do we control our costs
as much as possible? Um because our revenues just have a hard time keeping up. Unless of course there is something that is addressed with regard to revenue something additional to what we currently have that is not included
here. What we have is included in these mo in this forecast is simply our current referendum as is or with it dropping off in 29. Okay. Um
always is the case that when you I'm at the top of page five. always is the case that when you act sooner on adjustments to the budget, um that helps you out for later years. Uh if we were to see a voter approved, okay, so even renewing
our current referendum, there still needs to be a long-range plan for reductions. So, um, as you can see by these numbers, clearly when you get to your even the third or fourth year out, I mean,
no one wants to see that kind of a change in your fund balance. And we would absolutely want to make and take some action, right? So, this this the intent of this is not to give you a projection. And this intent is simply to show you knowing what we know now, what we've seen happen in the past, moving
that forward. What does that picture look like with us doing nothing? Okay. So now our challenge will be to take this information and to work with it to identify then what are some whatifs? What if we do this? What if we don't do
that? You know, different things that we could see and understand what the impact might look like moving forward. If we do nothing clear you clearly you can see that we would have an issue in fiscal year 28 where we would be in sod
and sod for the public is statutory operating debt. I will pause and see if there's anything I can answer for people. >> Any questions? Lisa, do you have anything? >> No. Okay. Anyone else?
>> Amy? Well, we haven't gotten to the last page of the um report when we about the enrollment projections. >> Oh, yep. >> Um but my question was, do these enrollment
projections um consider the housing projects that are are currently um underway in the district or projected to be? if there I know that um some zoning might be one
way but that doesn't mean that it'll stay that way but just the the projects uh the housing projects that are currently underway do any of these enrollment projections um count the 75 I understand that
there's a >> all of this is so challenging because we want to find answers for things that are just scenarios and anytime you're doing that, you know, it it's it's challenging
and it can be frustrating for um for everyone involved to to be making the best decisions possible. My I'm just curious if um the housing the current housing projects are in any of these estimates for enrollment. So what you
will find is that um the the enrollment projections are based off from historic information and in that history we have had that kind of growth right earlier further back than most recently right so
when you do the enrollment projections there's oftentimes methods you can choose am I doing this over a seven-year weighted average am I doing this under a three-year weighted average that's where you kind to determine like what do you anticipate is going to happen moving
forward. And likely if you are anticipating the future to be at a slower pace and you had heavy growth further back, you know, you're going to use a shorter time frame then, right? Which is what we've done. And since last spring when you had this conversation
with Tammy, the fact then was a weighted three-year projection model seemed to work well. When comparing that model to what we're currently seeing and what's happening, it seems to be pacing pretty well, it's a question now of when you get into the secondary students, it's a
little trickier because, you know, how many of them might be um at the ALC versus, you know, so it's like you can't look at it just you have to give it a little time and a little bit of study. And so I'm not as concerned at this moment about that, but your 25 26 enrollment projection numbers
at this moment for grades K through nine are looking pretty pretty right on at this time. So if we weren't to like lose any or if we lose just the same as what we gain, we'll be fine for those grade levels, right? It's a question of our our higher secondary levels that we want
to watch for. There is every possibility this should be revised before we do our final um preparation of the budget for the fiscal year 27. That's what you're wanting to watch your fall enrollment and we want to watch to see how second semester comes about too and what that
means for us. We can always see kind of some growth in that area at those semester changes. Um and just as well you can see some losses. So kind of keeping an eye on that and kind of monitoring that is what we're going to want to do and that's what we do on a monthly basis, right, with our
enrollment report. So I think we're keeping a pretty good eye on it. I feel as though the current enrollment projections for the future um I don't think that they're like overly aggressive, right? At the same time um
you know one 1.3% loss in enrollment is not what you've seen in the most recent years. So, it's a question of what are we going to really see going on here? But you have to acknowledge the fact that our in incoming kindergarten classes are much smaller than our our 10, 11, 12th grade, right? And so that's
that's just the nature of what you're seeing across the state. Um it's not just us, right? So, thank you for pointing out the enrollment projections on the back page there. Um it is also um reflected in the
table two that you see on page two of the mo of the mill excuse me director writer. Um we do every so often get updated uh demographic projections from the county and the cities. Um I'm not sure if they have been actually updated
recently but I thought that we were due to get some. Um I and I assume that they will be applied to these numbers. >> I'll check into that. They have not at this moment. Okay. >> You for Thank you for um answering that.
And I I just even going back to your analysis on page three um where you had um it's like the third sentence like there's no realistic enrollment scenario where revenues will exceed expenses. Um I think you know um
with all of this. Again, not to reiterate what was already said, but it's it's trying to gather the most information so that we can um decision. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions, comments? Jessica, >> I have a lot actually. Um just trying to understand. So, you know, I started with um last October 14th memo a year ago, right? We had this five-year projection um we also were given an updated version
in May um with with the forecast. And if I look at that for 2627, what to me is alarming is that you know our revenue um is has a 3% increase despite a little bit reduced enrollment between let's call it let's just work from May. Um but
our expenses went from 2025 million to 130 million. Um and that's you know after we we made uh a lot of cuts and and then also I have more questions about the building closure. But you know
it appears that it's not a revenue issue like the revenue is in line with CPI and that 3% growth but it's you know we need to get our expenses under control. Um I think what would be helpful for me um you know we sat and made budget cuts the
prior board starting last December and then us through you know five months and we had we made budget cuts down to like $9,000 increments right and and made some tough decisions. Um but suddenly we're adding 4.6 6 million and then if you tack on top of the other projected
cuts that we had nearly 7 million um to our expenses without like a detailed line item explanation. So for me it would be really helpful to understand um because I was trying to back into your math as far as like you mentioned the
insurance um and that percentage doesn't match. So I would love to understand that. I think it would be really helpful for our community to understand that any expense increase that you've factored in over the last six months, I guess, or five months since May. Um, and I know
you're I I respect that you're new to this and you're kind of backing into someone else's numbers. So, I appreciate that. Um, but I do think, you know, we've made some really hard decisions down to that, you know, low level dollar amount and and to not have like a really detailed description on all the expense
increases um is challenging for me. >> That will come with the revised budget. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And so the um when you look at it in whole numbers, however, your adopted budget which included all those adjust adjustments that you had made is at 123.2.
We talked about the fact that the preliminary audit is coming through showing a $1.7 million overspend. That's what had to be adjusted, right? >> Okay. So, when you add in that $1.7 million which is transportation
and um some dollars for I think it's about 500,000 for the insurance and then the um additional costs that we've seen in special education. Right. So just let's just add in the 1.7 for
example. Now your 123.2 becomes 125 or 124.9. Okay. Now you're looking at something that is very close to a $5 million difference between 26 and 27. There's $5 million difference between 27 and 28. You're
seeing a consistent about $5 million increase every year thereafter. And that has to do with the assumptions that I went through earlier as to what I'm using, which is different than what you've used in the past potentially. And um I just think that if we're going
to actually stay on top of this, we need to be clear about what our potential costs really are. >> And and since six since 83% of it is salaries and benefits, we have a very robust benefit program for our staff. Um it costs, right? and knowing the cost
increases that we're anticipating to see in just the area of health insurance for example and others, I still feel as though we're being somewhat low on what it could be. But we also have a very good self-insured insurance program. So I'm counting on that too to offset some of that. So um these costs that you see
as far as estimate assumptions, those are assumptions at this point in time. Any one of them certainly we can discuss and and change as necessary when we move this forward. And as we do so, everything that you see on this back page
after the memo is a very detailed. This is done with every single account code. I have every single account code. So you want details. I I have that information at my fingertips. It's a question of how to summarize it for
public consumption and at the same time make it meaningful. So I try to replicate that which you're seeing on a monthly basis for all the years going out. Okay. >> Yeah. So I I think and back to my question about the neighborhood school.
So on when we made the decision to close Westwood to as a neighborhood school, we were given that 1.9 to$2.7 million operational savings. So that is not included in these numbers. >> It's not there yet. >> Okay. And then I the other thing I had >> I'm I'm sorry. director Mason if I
could. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I know that was like a estimated range, but estimated and um it's for capital. So, we'd have to look at ways to offset the capital that's within the general fund. It's not necessarily a dollar for-doll correlation. >> On the deck, it was stated as
operational. That's outside of the capital. >> Yes. Well, >> the staff reductions was 1.9 to >> That's what I was referring to. Sorry. Yeah. You're talking about the building. >> Yeah. No, outside of the capital. >> Um so, that is not reflected. Okay. Correct. Correct.
>> And then also a question around like looking at the vocational education that cost went up quite substantially like 500 grand. Is that where that transitional program lies into? I know we were looking at some savings with that too. Where is that? And I didn't know what bucket that fell into. I was
>> I'm sorry. Can you help me understand where you're at again? >> Yeah. So the um >> the expenditures >> the under expend expenditures the um vocational education. >> Yep. that one had increased quite a bit from the May. And so is that where that transitions program falls or what falls
in that category? >> Um that's going to be all of our CTE programming. So when you have when you have courses that are now eligible under vocational education, you're going to move it from a 200 program series, which
is your instructional, over into account codes that reflected as vocational. >> So you're going to you're going to see um where that might increase. you're going to find that that probably was coming from what was previously a 200 series. So, as we develop more coursework that is eligible under the
CTE, career technical education, that has a different method of how the state tracks that information and then can potentially calculate some levy towards those costs as a a reimbursement. It isn't a full reimbursement, but so what we want to do is we want to make sure
that as we're recording and every year that can shift on you a little bit depending upon your coursework that you're planning for. So if we have eligible coursework that's in the vocational teched we're or the career tech, we're going to put that under the vocational category. >> Is there a reason for the substantial
difference though or is that like pretty typical that we have so much more going? I'd have to look to compare the 26 adopted which I didn't prepare to what we have for our estimate and I think it's a matter of just taking a look at that a little closer for me. >> Okay. >> I can do that as we come forward with
more information. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean for me it it would just be trying to get kind of that side byside compare of of our prior forecast to what we have today. Again this substantial increase in expenses is is alarming. Um, and so, you know, I
realized like transportation, great example where um, we know that this is a problem. We know that there's a huge increase, but like it's, you know, the answer maybe isn't just add more money. It's how do we correct it, right? And I assume like the RFP isn't included in this >> that is also not included.
>> So, just, you know, think on that line of thinking, it's not just let's add money to the budget, let's figure out how to fix these things. And so, having that breakdown, I think would be really helpful as a board for me. Well, I think there's a 1 to 3% also uh inflationary
impact in the general supplies and things that are considered variable but also fixed that are tied to a lot of these programs. >> But can I ask you a question on that? Like that hasn't changed from the last forecast. Like those same assumptions were in both other forecasts. So, >> um possibly not. My assumptions may not
have been the exact same that Tammy used. Is that >> I looked at both memos. They look >> She did, but they weren't compounded. >> Yes. >> Um, so that's I think the difference when they did it, she kind of left it flat, but um, you are correctly including the compound. And yes, we have
seen a 6% increase in transportation in previous years. Um, this past one obviously was a little bit of a surprise based upon how the transportation was actually calculated on the new contract. And a lot of it, like you said, was special ed. But I did have a question if
you could elaborate particularly for the public on an example of one of those CTE classes because I think that'll ground some of the listeners to this conversation. >> You might need to help me a little bit. I think my understanding on the career technical education courses, they're
going to be the vocational type courses, things like um it can be um metals, it can be woods, it can be um um certain science courses, excuse me, >> I say computer science,
>> computer science, engineering type courses, right? um it requires a specific lensure of the instructors and as we have courses that involve those lensures. The instructors then are coded instead to the 300 program series. It doesn't change anything about what they
do. It just changes how I have to report them because we're trying to stay within what the UFAR's descriptions are. So 200 series mean that that's going to be your instructional and sec and secondary regular instruction. when you move into a course that then is now vocational,
that's then going to be shown under a 300 series program code. >> And you fires out of the UN the um universal financial accounting record system. Yeah. Okay. >> But like that example Yep. is where I feel like as a board since we're making
decisions on budget cuts, like if there's decisions to offer these types of courses that are having a $500,000 budget change impact, >> like that's the decision making we should be offering, right? >> It wouldn't be an increase. It would be a shift
>> regular. I guess that's where it would be helpful to have that breakdown of like where those shifts are because that's I'm again just seeing an increase in that one section but not pulled out of another but it's hard to tell right from this level. And the other question that I had is um we have had an emphasis on
the um teched portion of Minaps and we've been trying to grow that program out of u demand uh and popularity of that program and I think that had a significant impact in the last couple years and this year I I'm not sure but I think it's full if I'm not mistaken.
>> Well and and I'll know more as I look closer into that. Um the focus wasn't on exactly who's coded here. It was more the focus of what's the totals to this to this date. >> Lisa, did you have anything? >> Yeah, thank you. So, a couple things.
Um, so just I'm just listening and I want to be clear. Are we going to get a revised budget forecast that has in the teacher cuts we made last year? The move of midcaps, that was a big deal. That was a big cost savings. So, I know we're talking about these vocational passes.
We should actually see a cost savings moving it back from Lakeville. Um there was the selling off of as well as the consolidation of elementary schools. Are we going to see a revised forecast
um with all those um components in it? >> Um some of those I believe have already been addressed in your adopted FY26 budget and some of them have not because they haven't taken place yet. So as far as >> I'm trying to understand.
>> So to my knowledge, what you see before you is I've worked off from what we have in our adopted budget currently. I've adjusted it for what I know I'm going to bring forward to you as adjustments coming forward as revised current year simply because of a results of the
audited financial statements from fiscal year 25 which would not have been known at the time when you did the adopted budget. And then for 27 and beyond, any adjustments that had been discussed previously about programmatic changes
after we consolidated, that is not reflected. I'd have to get up to speed on those and get those incorporated. So certainly we can um adjust this forecast for those things. I want to make sure that they're still estimated to be as had been discussed and that they're
actually going to take place and that nothing has shifted about any of that. So what you will expect to see is next board meeting is the um report on the audit. The following board meeting is the November 24th meeting and you would have a revised fiscal year 26
um revised budget for the fis current fiscal year. At that point in time we can look to see if that changes any of these numbers. But I would say that what we're looking at as far as moving this forward when you're doing a forecast, the focus is
more on big scope, right? What does it look like for like the tables 1A and 1B? What are total revenues, total expenditures looking like? You're seeing these gaps. How are we going to narrow that down? It could be in what we do for our assumptions. If some of what I've used
for assumptions are um too high or too low, we'll have to adjust for those. uh we can look at that further when we get into our conversations around how are we going to address fiscal year 27. This is where these forecast numbers get really
kind of um because of the accumulation um one year on top of the other estimated year it becomes pretty far out there when you get out to the fifth year out. Okay. So I don't hold a lot of water with regard to what that fifth and fourth and fifth year are going to look like. Honestly, my experience tells me
as soon as you get to the second and even into the third year, you're really you're stretching things, right? Because you're going to make adjustments. You're not going to let things get to that point. So, as the sooner you make those adjustments, then that changes those future rep um forecasts and projections.
So, I just I want it to be clear that this is this is the first run at this to give you a sense of where we're at, what we're looking at, giving you a um kind of a feel of the climate, right, of what we're going to see for the next five years and the fact that there's there's
some real need to address our expenditures, but also a need for us to figure out what we're going to do about revenues. >> And I appreciate that. I think the challenge is like we have the revenue, right? The revenue is there. We've got we've got decreased revenue. We have
fewer students. So, we're getting more revenue, fewer students. But our expenses are up $7 million. So, I'm sitting here as a board director trying to understand is the $2 to3 million that we are going to we talked about cutting
when we consolidate the school district. Is that actually reflected in here? Because that for 27 we didn't know. We were given those numbers at a board meeting back in I don't know March or April or something like that. So I I totally understand what you're saying
from a fiveyear perspective. But I really want to see what 27 looks like because we've already talked about those cuts. We made those cuts and then even the $2 million in teacher cuts we made that should be reflected because we don't have that staff that we're re you
know those continuing numbers that we're paying for staff. So, um I I think there's I I personally think we need to go back to the drawing board on 27. Um because we don't have it doesn't we have a revenue problem here. We really have an expense problem that we need to take a look at.
>> So, that's just my perspective high level looking at this. So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um can I just So, we've got a 1% increase in revenue on average after you take everything out. Uh we've got an
average of 2.8% an 8% to 3% increase in expenses just from inflationary factors alone. We absolutely do have a revenue problem and we've had a revenue problem for a while. Um so I just want to make that clear.
>> I think it's 3% the math that I did taking from the last year. >> 3% increase invenue >> in revenue. >> 3% in revenue. >> Yes. part of that revenue. I will also state as much as I am also adjusting the expenditures in the adopted to the
revised for fiscal year 26 current year for the overexpenditure in the previous year those over expenditures occurred in in a large part in the special ed area. Special education funding occurs where you incur the expense one year and you
do not receive the revenue until the following year. So there is an increase. If you look at the revenue, you see there's a $3.2 million increase there from 26 adopted to 27. That incorporates an addition of special education aid in
fiscal year 26 that I am anticipating that didn't exist previously in assumptions and that is going to step us into what you're seeing. But when you look from 27 beyond that revenue is flat almost, you know, and that's where the
only change from there forward is your 2% on revenue for gened formula adjusted then for the enrollment. >> So can I ask a question on that because I I had looked at that special education number too and in in the forecast that we received in May that was 26.88
call it and now we're at 26.98. So that that was that was very minimal increase. So of the $4.6 million increase in expenses, it wasn't in special ed. Um so anyway, that's where I kind of go back to it would be really helpful to have a breakdown of what was increased from the
last forecast we saw. It's just >> I'm not working off a previous forecast. >> No, I understand. But we have made cuts to get to a budget number again down to a very detailed level number. And so it's now we're increasing a forecast by
$4.6 $6 million the expenses just having an explanation of where did that come from like I I just right now it doesn't the math doesn't add up >> we made cuts and we're try to tread water not to go underwater so >> this was five month our forecast was
from five months ago so what's changed in the last five months that's all I'm asking >> we've increased expenses $4.6 6 million in the last five months. That's where I'm going. That it's hard to understand. >> Board approved reductions occurred for
fiscal year 26. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Correct. Yeah. >> No board approved adjustments occurred for fiscal year 27 at this point. Correct. >> Only the building closure discussion. >> That's not true. The consolidation of the schools would be for 27. Correct.
It hasn't been >> but I think she was saying that wasn't included. It >> hasn't been yet. We're looking at the net present value of what was reduced in. >> What is approved, right? >> What is approved is the consolidation of schools closing a neighborhood school
and then the movement of of um our students for boundary changes and teachers and staff as well. Right. So, the financial impact of all of that is yet to be um determined as we develop our 267 budget because then we're going
to know our class sizes that we're going to be working off from. We're going to know exactly what we're talking about in that regard. Um, I have to get up to speed on on these uh savings related to the Westwood change um since it's not a closure of a
building and make sure that we can all agree whether or not those are still in place. To my knowledge, they haven't necessarily been reflected in the 26 budget, which is the basis of my projection and forecast forward. >> So, Dr. Thomas, was were those was that
$1.9 million to $2.7 million operational savings? Was that done? I think it was March, April, May. I don't remember what month with with Director Frederickson. And like do we have the details of where that came from? I assume there that number was from somewhere. I understand we're
>> And those were estimates of what we may have. And so as we get more real with our current staffing, we'll look at those again to see did that track. Again, those are just projections. Same with the potential sale of this. We have a projection of what that might cost, right?
>> But once, you know, we make those decisions and start going through the motions of readjusting staffing, etc., then we'll see, you know, the the real cost savings or, you know, capital savings, etc. >> Sure. Okay. I just want to add that that
there's still the sale of this building and all that. They're one time, right? >> They're one time savings. >> They are one time >> and not reflected, >> right? in any of the projections that we're talking about tonight. >> And if you look at the Ellers, a third party estimate, you can see the
increased gap very very clearly in revenues versus expenses with all things remaining equal with the percentages that you've added in. And so there's there's I I just don't understand how anyone
could say revenues are increasing or I I don't above expenses. They're they're clearly not. >> Again, we were just tying back to the prior forecast provided not to prior years. >> I would say that we have this one perspective. So you just have to be respectful of other people's
opinions and perspectives. Okay. So we're going to have we are going to have more information forthcoming and the further we get along the more reflective of reality we will we will will be in front of us. Understood. If there's nothing else I think we can
probably move on to the next item which would be 67 2627 budget priorities. Director Ryder and as before we start I want to make sure that we kind of all on the same page here. Um, this is kind of the first crack. I think the the drop
dead date for an actual plan to present to the administration is at the November study session where they'll need to know exactly what's off the table or however you want to phrase it. And um um you know last year when Dr. Thomas asked for
you know what's off the table, there was consensus on nothing. I mean, individual board members made their case for certain things, but uh four people didn't agree on anything. And so, I think that may have led to some of the confusion about why certain things were brought to the table for cuts. Um, and
so this I just want to make make sure that we understand that our job uh I believe is to come up with one or two or three things that we are going to say are off the table uh when in advance of the administration beginning the the reduction process. And so I just want to
make sure that if if if we say A and B are off the table uh and then administration comes back with cuts in CD and E, we really got to be careful as to how much we we are critical of that. Should it be discussed? Obviously should be ration obviously. But I think that
extended our discussion into what was actually going to be cut last year because we weren't we didn't have a clear picture on what we say as a board is off the table. So I think that's where we got to get to. let's let's see if we can find a couple of areas
um that we're going to say sorry um you can cut away but these things don't get touched and come to a consensus on that and uh allow the administration to be able to move forward with a clear picture of what the board is after. So having said that Dr. Ryder
>> so I'll I'll um >> you kind of stole the thunder there. Um I I I would just say this to the board. Uh we we know that we are going to have to, you know, over the next foreseeable future, we're going to be making significant reductions and we know that
as we heard tonight, you know, a good portion of our budget when we're talking about, you know, the budget, it's it's centered around our staff. You know, that's a a people oriented business. And even when we're talking about programs and reduction um or or keeping programs, it's about um FTE. And that's kind of
how we kind of break things down. So what we want to make sure of is that um there aren't going to be reductions that we can take which aren't going to be impactful. As lean as we run you know couple of you mentioned you know the
$9,000 conversations that we were having 9,000 times you know 5 9000s is almost 50,000 right? 45,000. So it it all can add up and it all has this cumulative impact and we want to make sure that as we move forward as a team knowing that
we're going to have to make some tough um uh recommendations that if there are things that you say Michael we want to uh make sure that as you're making reductions that you um do do not increase class size targets to to manage you know uh the the reductions uh
differently. Okay, that that's that's a parameter that we're going to have to live within or do not um cut any activities that are currently offered. We want to maintain the breadth of activities. You know, I'm just hypothetically thinking um and and so that's what we wanted to know and kind
of have some agreement on what are the untouchables and obviously everything can't be an untouchable otherwise we wouldn't be making any adjustments. something of great value to one of you, to a staff member, to a parent, um, is going to be touched. Um, and we
understand that. Um, but we we we have this reality before us. And, and so if we can understand kind of from a board standpoint, these are the things that you're considering do not cut in this area, then we have to
find other ways to to bring it. And it can't be 50 things, you know, three, four things, as Chair White has alluded to, as just some markers because too many markers, we we might as well not even go through the budget exercise. So, I just echo a lot of what Chair White
just said and um you know, begin that conversation as he noted uh by November, we would want to have this solidified so that we can bring you know, some recommend start bringing some recommendations to you all in December. >> Okay. Um if I may just kind of add the
feedback from the finance committee too. Absolutely please. >> Yeah. So we brought some samples. Again these are very much samples. Get some juices flowing. Get some some ideas um from the finance committee. Um I think probably overwhelming um feedback and I adjusted some of the
samples um to reflect that a bit was around um a lot of discussion around class sizes and that and um the classrooms directly being sort of last resort. Um and and Lisa feel free to correct me if I'm misstating anything.
Um I think so that was a big one. Um I think also just um a lot of discussion around math pathways and um I think the gifted talent. So some sort of sage replacement and the math pathway um for
middle school students. Um and then you know where we could I think there was a lot of discussion around community partnerships and where we could come up with ideas there to help with expenses. Um and you know I think just largely around academic excellence and trying to just
keep cuts as far away as we can from from the classroom. Um you know we talked about security. I think that one is maybe off here now, but um just given you know and I guess maybe to just step
back to the discussion was around it depends on what sort of situation we're in if we're making budget cuts versus you know we get a levy passed if you know if if we're able to have funding or where we sit to add things then security would be a priority but that obviously may not be the case. So um I think Lisa
do you have anything to add? >> Yeah I I would add I think we you know and I will serve on the finance committee and when we presented this to the finance committee, we presented it as how do we align our board goals um based on our strategic plan. So we
really kind of looked at like the four pillars of our strategic plan and then asked for feedback based on those four pillars and there were definitely some things that rose to the top as far as like what Jessica was saying as far as academics and keeping those class sizes
as small as possible. That was a compensation. So, if we are going to um set budget priorities, um first of all, I'm grateful that we're doing this because I think it's going to help um our board be more aligned with our administrative staff as they have
more guidance going through the budget process. Um so, I'm grateful that we're doing this this year, but like I said, I think as a board, as we look at this, um we look at like our our strategic plan and how do these up into our strategic
plan. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Mary. >> So, first of all, I would appreciate Director Writer's um feedback and direction on this. Um a we're closer to
statutory operating debt than I think we've ever been in the history that I remember have having lived in this district. Um not to mention being on the board. So, um, that is very concerning and I'd like to go back to where the
there's certain guidelines we're not going to be able to touch. There's restricted funding. There's all sorts of things that we can't touch. Obviously, there's wish lists that everyone has. I don't think they're reality right now at all. Um, but I do want to uh try to
ground us back into certain things like like the class sizes if that's a red line because that's typically what happens with budget discussions is these are things that we will not cut from. These are our these are our red line threshold. You will not drop below that.
Um, and then of course um keeping the current physical security that we have. not going to be turning off, let's say, the the backgrounds and the badging and and uh whatever security doors that we have. We're not going to go backwards from certain fundamental things. And um
but there's certain things, of course, that we're not going to be able to enhance and we're certainly not going to be able to cut from. your feedback on where the actual statutory and required red lines and and what if anything we have to play with'd
be very helpful in this discussion. So, one of the things that business directors will look for um in working forward in the process of developing next year's budget and bringing forward ideas and projections
is going to be that fund balance, that unassigned fund balance that your board policy calls for, that the board is going to be willing and accepting of. Um that is something that I guess I would hope to understand as a board priority what that looks
like. Right? Knowing that um you'll hear this probably from our auditor when he speaks to the audit as well. Our policy has language that may have shifted in the last revision where it actually says that it is the unassigned fund balance
is your percent of your budgeted expenditures. So um all along as you look at information from me it's based upon the budget um that's shifted from what it had been
calculated by the auditors for example. So for financial purposes, it's always based upon the actuals. And so my point is as you look at just even the forecast for example, those expenditures are increasing each year. Okay? As your base in that formula increases, it's much
harder to get to that 8% than it is to start with. Does that make sense? So you're going to take your 9 $9 million and divide. Okay, let me use 10 mil. 10 mil right now is 8% for us at 125 mil. So if 10 million is what your base is,
but now your expenses include are increased to 130 mil and you divide that 10 mil by that 130, you're no longer at that 8%. Okay? So my point is that as we move forward and we plan for what needs to happen, it's not just about hitting that revenue and expense mark. If you're
looking for us to increase the unassigned fund balance back up to the 8% or there higher maybe that's something then that we also have to take into consideration when setting our goals with regard to what we're going to do for budget adjustments. So I guess that that is like it's kind
of broad spectrum but at the same time it's like it's kind of key to what we also have to be thinking about. um it's not just enough to just cover the the expenditures with your revenues if we're already below the point you want us to be at in the future.
So from my perspective as a director of of business, it's like understanding exactly where we want to be in the future and what those what are those goals for us from a financial fund balance. Now here's the thing. So much of our revenue we get from the state is
categorical, meaning it's got a restricted or some type of tie to it. The only part that doesn't right now is the unassigned part that is the gened formula. And if that gened formula, which as you saw in that that diagram from Ellers, I mean, the fact of the
matter is it just isn't keeping up with what the CPI is. And that's our biggest challenge, right? So, um, if that revenue isn't increasing very much at all, but our expenditures are still going to increase because they're across the board and their salaries and
benefits across the board. We don't get to say, well, you're funded by compensatory, so therefore, you know, you get this and no, you're not. You know, that just doesn't that's not how it works, right? So, um, so as we think about what we have to do, the challenge
is going to be if we're cutting in areas that are restricted already, that's not going to help us any on the unassigned fund balance. That's something to consider as we work forward. And as you think about what it is that are the priorities and what we're not wanting to touch, you know,
the impact on that unassigned is going to be those things that are already not restricted. So basically um we're currently at or a little bit above the 8% but by next year we drop and our policy says 8% and the following year we are in SOD and we are
now negative regardless of whether we renew the current levy or not. Um, so we've got a one-year one-year reprieve to try and make a lot of changes. And again, we've got some things that we
can't touch. Like you said, the categorical um, so we have some really serious decisions to make on just how much bone we're going to actually cut into and which limb we're willing to cut off. Um
if I sorry for the anomical analogy. >> So then so Lisa then by just I think the board has to if I'm hearing you right the board has to take into consideration just by following policy we almost compound our cuts
>> by trying to keep our fund balance. So it's almost like it's a cut you don't think of. It's not like we're >> right. >> We have to increase this with something else. Has to go over and above >> what you're talking about, >> right? We do have to compound our cuts because it's coming up so quickly. >> Yeah. And or when it talks about
striving for that. Is that a floor that the board has conversation about as well? >> That's the other option. >> And that's that's an option. You know, it's a variable. >> Um not recommending, right? Boy, I'm saying it's a variable >> and I I don't think statutory operating
debt is something we want to be in because then we lose total control over a budget and basically state rules take over what and how we can spend is that is a correct statement still. There's been no changes to that scary option. >> Okay. No, and I think that um I would
also just like to point out too the fact that as you you'll hear it in our truth and taxation hearing probably as well as um I mean I've heard it in talking with our our financial adviserss when you compare what we have for a referendum compared to neighboring districts. We
are one of the lowest numbers >> in the state >> and not just in the neighboring districts where I think we're the lowest almost in the state. is where a lot of districts have relied upon in order to be able to make things work. So, it is something we have to think
about too. I've spoken with sorry and I've spoken with a couple of the directors in some of our one-on ones and then that conversation also when we start having you know what does the levy cover and what would a potential future
again we're at a point where levies used to be something that would be a value ad on top of a base in in districts and we're seeing many districts who are successful in passing levies and only two years later they're making
reductions, you know, because it's it's a general operating issue that obviously we have a local conversation and as you all know we need to address a bigger structural state conversation as well. Um so even that conversation should that
be in our future it's not going to be a parachute that's going to give us a soft landing. It might buy us some time. Um you know so These are some and and perhaps chair white uh board directors you know as we go through our next
rounds of some of our scheduled oneto ones maybe this is an opportunity for uh director Ryder and I to sit and just get your ideas so that we can kind of coalate them or you know go through some of the nuance questions that might come up too >> um
>> tonight you not going to do it all tonight but that might be a better format >> um that will ultimately fuel a conversation that we can bring forward for another iteration of discussion based upon what we hear. Just I'll I'll make that offer. >> Does that sound fair to everybody?
>> Sorry, I just want to add something. So, um you know, we had talked about Dr. Thomas and your goals. We had talked about the um the fund balance and how that was actually one of your goals. So, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to write that into our board goals as well?
Uh yeah, my my goal aligns to the current board policy. So it's the strive for and you know based based upon the realities that we have before us. You know, we can only squeeze so much blood from a turnup. So So yes, I I mean that would definitely be something in terms
of a priority um that you would match that because that's what your policy language I think you already stated in policy. Um but yeah, it could be definitely one of the things that we strive for as as a management and governance body. Agreed. >> I think I think the goal of this
objective right here, the goal of tonight is to really understand like if we are going to make a cut, if we're going to make cuts, which it looks like we're going to have to. I mean, personally, I'd like to see a revised 27 forecast so we really know what we're talking about here. Um, but if we're
going to have to make cuts, which I think we're still going to have to make cuts, what are those guard rails to be put in place? What are the untouchables right or giving admin instructions so that when you guys come back with a budget
that that there is not alignment of of priorities and so I think as a board we need to do our due diligence in setting those board goals and what are those guard rails that we need to put in place and like I said director director Mason and I we took this to the finance
committee they provided their feedback and then all we're trying to do tonight is to provide that feedback So I guess then Dr. Hackinson uh Superintendent Thomas' suggestion is that I mean because the the actual decision by us will come at the end of
November at that study session where we're going to say here are the three things that you can't touch as you begin this process over the course of the next month during the one-on ones each one of us individually with Dr. Thomas and Director Ryder um you know make our our
feelings you know known our ideas to throw on the table and and then when we come back in uh November Dr. Dr. Thomas and his team will have an idea collectively and that that point we will have to come to consensus on one two or
pick a number of of red lines just like you're talking about parameters where where we're going to say um you know we aren't going to we're going to stay with our current class size parameters we that's an untouchable uh as an example >> timing on that because last year in
December we were already making cuts and and in November we were given a scenario. This is where we need to start. This was our baseline. And so from a timing standpoint, are we looking at a November >> board meeting to come back and have that conversation again? I mean, I thought
that was the whole point of this board meeting that needs some discussion at >> I so go ahead. Can I Okay. >> What I was understanding you saying, maybe I'm misundersting, is that our one-on- ones, we would discuss if we
were looking at a potential levy, what types of things we might be looking at, but like this to me is like what are the untouchables on the budget cut? >> Yeah. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to understand. >> I'm I'm going to go back to how we started tonight. >> We're looking for the board to give us the things that are untouchable,
>> right? >> And everything can't be untouchable, right? you're all going to have three or four things that are and it could be the same, could be some differences, but we're gonna reach a saturation point where something's going to get touched.
Um, and my com my offer was to as we have our one-on- ones between now and November where we would come back um having some conversation. I mean you all can obviously talk tonight and maybe there's you know a couple that surface
but then in those oneto ones um that I would bring in director Ryder along with me then we would have some conversations with you about some of your your own individual thoughts on parameters and then we can coate all of that and say this is what we heard from the body of the board like
here's everything and you know you know when we kind of thematically group things here's what rises to the top and then you all kind of make those determinations for consensus in November which to dire your point still aligns for that same timeline of where we were
at last year. So we're not doing anything different than where we were last year. >> I just like I do think it's important tonight to come away with like that is the purpose of the study session and for transparency for our community to discuss our priorities, right? To at least come up maybe one bullet under
each priority or something. I I appreciate the offer on the one ones. I think that's great, but I think it's important that >> maybe we start here. I mean, I've heard it more than once tonight. Is Is there consensus um that we want to stay within our current class size targets?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yep. So, there's one. >> Y >> does that fall under optimized resources or academic excellence or both? Okay.
>> Um and is it I think we have to at some point whether it's tonight or uh another night. Um I think that the fund balance discussion has to be >> we have to be serious about it. I mean we may have to do something that we
might be uncomfortable with or completely understand um sticking with current policy so we have a a real clear picture. You know we can stay hard and fast on 8% but that means this this and this. My question to
to Director Ryder is um basically because such a large percentage of our budget is staffing and and the vast majority of those are in the classroom. Um the the question that I
have is are we creating a conflict by saying keep the class sizes but by the way we need to cut in other places. I mean, that's where I need the feedback personally. Um, because we say we click the class sizes, but then we say our
fund balance can't drop below, let's say we drop it to 4% with cuts. How much of of a conundrum is that going to be, >> right? >> Um, and and there's so much categorical in in that
in that area. I don't know if we cut off that limb, so to speak, if that's a limb we're even statutoily allowed to cut off. That's that's where I need a little bit more understanding of the boundaries, particularly with all the additional mandates that were put on in the last bianium. I that that concerns
me because it's it's still something I'm trying to get a hold of of what we're supposed to be doing and and all that. Um that's what I'm concerned about. So if we if we make that red line tonight and say class sizes will not change, how
will that impact 27 and 28? And what other variables do we actually have to choose from? >> Right? So as I take a look at this, these are budget priorities. >> And so let's say that's one of them right there. Right? So that's the case. As we develop 27, you're going to ask me
that question. I'm going to bring forward to you. Here's what it looks like with our current class sizes, which is a budget budget priority. Here's what it does with the whole picture, right? And if and that's where it's like, well, what if we were to modify that because although it's a
priority, you might find you have to have discussion that takes you down below that. But that would be something that would not be like this is our solution and the only solution. It's about let's have that conversation. That that's my perspective. It's like
>> it allows us to bring a a recommendation to the to the table that reflects >> the the guard rails using that term. Um whether you choose to uphold those because of some of the unintended consequences from that, that will be
part of the discussion. But at least we know that we're not going to waste all this time on something that you all say, "Hey, we would never approve that." Well, that would have been good to know two months ago, right? And that's what we were talking about for the past couple of years. And so, I think we're
here now. These these are basically giving us the guidance to start the process internally to bring forth a recommendation to engage in discussion with the board that you're ultimately going to have to say yay or nay or
uphold these or modify them based upon some of the realities because we're not going to be able to vet out every right >> uh guard rail tonight, right? >> You know, it just gives us a starting point. But if we could vet out, do a scientific method of just having one
variable at a time to understand the net impact and then figure out what else we're left with. Um, I I would appreciate that to have that one variable of class sizes stay the same. Uh, recalculate those numbers and see what we have left to play with. And
there may not be a lot left. I I don't know. I I have no idea. But um if we throw too many variables at that, I think we're going to end up in a mess. And >> and that's why we were saying earlier tonight, we're talking like two or three, you know, I think I said three to four. You cannot put so many guardrails
on where we're not cutting the budget. Right. >> Right. You'll box ourselves in. And so I >> I would rather as a superintendent walk away with and or continue to have some conversation. I'll still keep that offer out there um about some of the
iterations that you all come up with tonight so I kind of know what what are we starting with initially. I I I I think I would rather have that. And if we come back to say, you know what, these two guard rails are kind of competing with one another or the or we
believe the unintended consequence of this guard rail is so significant that we probably want to brief you in advance before we run down this path. I would just kind of know um so that we have the ability to kind of play with this. It's kind of like negotiations. you you kind
of have everything on the table and you kind of figure out is it all going or are we going to take pieces of things that we can maybe make it all work together. So that would be my preference. >> I have a I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> I don't know how to state this. Um so
bear with me. So, the fund balance um our policy right now um it it was stated that if that is to be in our um desired outcome to remain in that in what our our policy currently
is, we would have to make additional cuts to do so. >> So, if uh it it has also been stated tonight that we would we are possibly that statutory operating debt fiscal
year 28 if nothing changes. >> Right. >> Okay. So given that s given um given that reality of what we are looking at if nothing changes statutory operating debt in fiscal year 28.
We have already come to a consensus that um uh board members would choose to uh not increase our class size um parameters where they're from where they're currently at. Um,
but help me understand what it looks like if we are to keep the um if we are having a a goal, a budget priority for keeping the policy
as it is for our um fund balance. Does that mo so will cuts additional cuts will have to be made but does that move out or change anything in the um stat in our looking forward at statutory
operating debt. Um the the fund balance we use it we have used it the last couple years to as as our savings account, right? we've used it to to um um meet the needs of the district. Um and
I'm just curious what it looks like if we're even talking class sizes and keeping the fund balance. If we're looking at those two priorities, what does what kind of situation does that put the district in? >> Does that make sense? Does that even make sense? >> It it does.
>> It it does make sense. And I think those are those are that's an example of a potential competing priority. >> Yeah. >> But we would have to vet through that. Yeah. >> To see can both hold true and if and and
if so what sacrifices would be made along the way or could they even be both held? >> I think what I'm maybe needing help to understand and director Ryder or Dr. Thomas. Um, having that fund balance, it's our
savings account. It's been our safety cushion. We've used it the last couple years to meet the needs of the district. Um, we're understanding that if we are to keep that 8%, we will have to make additional cuts to keep that. But does
that save us? And maybe not. I don't know because it's not >> I need the gap bridge. Yeah. I mean, does that make sense? What I'm >> one of the statements in the memo is the sooner you make adjustments, the better off, right? So, you can lower the fund
balance policy. That does not necessarily change what you're seeing for the numbers for SOD or or or the future, right? That alone doesn't do that. But when when looking at those numbers and seeing a $4.8 8 million deficit between revenue and
expenditures. If that's all we did, we wouldn't be moving towards keeping at that 8%. Does that make sense? So, we need to be considering that as well because we need to make sure that as we progress forward that the goals of
trying to keep enough cash flow to be able to pay the bills and things of that nature as well, you're going to reach a point where that's an absolute. You're going to you can't go too low, right? At the same time, um, if revenue continues to be as flat as it's looking, that's
our issue. I mean, compared to the expenditures. Now, don't get me wrong, as you move through every year, you're going to take a closer look at those expenditures and particularly the 83% that are salaries and benefits and try and nail it down more. sitting through
the insurance committee today, for example, learned a little bit more about what it is that we can anticipate and where we at so far this year with our claims and things of that nature. That gives me a sense of like where's the right percentage to use in this forecast, right? And as we build next
year's budget, how do we fine-tune those numbers? Because what I did is simply it it's still a pretty broad brush. It wasn't just one percentage across everything, but it still is a broad brush, right? So now it's about us trying to fine-tune this a little bit more about okay, we have some things in
the works with regard to negotiations. We know we have everything open next year for everything else. And so it's a question of what are those parameters we're going to set for those? Are the parameters that I've I've included at this point in time where we're going to land and that's where we're going to stick with it or are we going to adjust
for that? Because this is intended to give you a sense of what does that number look like when you put it all together, right? to do some of what you're asking. Absolutely. That makes sense. The thing about it is I can't tell you right now about class sizes until we know this answer for boundary
changes, right? And there's a process that needs to happen for us to be able to know what that really looks like for each building, how many sections in each building. The specialists are dependent upon the number of sections. It all builds upon itself, right? So, there's
just so much information that happens in a short period of time. We have to make some assumptions. Some of those assumptions may be wrong in the end. And that's where you have these budget to actual variances that occur, but we need to have a plan long range that's going
to be kind of thinking about the possibility that okay, we might dip below that 8%. What are we going to do then to make sure we we compensate for that in the future? And if I may, um, helping the board understand
what is the best as far as that fund balance goes in and of itself because like I think if I'm just speaking for myself, having that savings account, there is there is safety in that, right? There is comfort
in that. And um, there there's also been, at least in my, you know, less than three years on the board. Talk about um you know the the our money being used for current our current money being used for current students and you
know so being able to weigh those things out um to be responsible given the circumstances that we're under. Um yeah, it's it's giving us kind of um the
information that we need. we we'll probably have seven different opinions. Um but like if 8% is maybe not the a target that's reasonable or beneficial for our district in this time today like
I don't know and those are the kind of things that I would like your help in understanding better I guess >> and that's why maybe is it worth the exercise uh for us to be given um because I would I would consider uh let's say
hypothetically changing the policy and the fund balance from eight to another number six whatever it is I'd consider that a cut because um that is the money that we are we are spending into an account is it
worth the exercise to for Lisa and her team to kind of extrapolate what if what if we decided to say okay we're also going to uh reduce our fund balance um policy to 6% and what that would what
that would mean on a month-to-month maybe the worst case scenario are we going to bump up against that six >> yeah I can I can come back with what it is like how much is how much payroll does that cover right because that's kind of what you're watching for you got to make sure you you're you're covering
enough to be able to keep things flowing um on an on a short-term basis too so it's like that is information that certainly we can recalc because that does shift over time and so it Just trying to make sure that that makes sense. And when you're dealing with percentages, math is a funny thing. You
know, percentages versus straight dollars, you know, different story depending upon which perspective you're looking at it, right? >> But yet the same data. >> I was going to say, um, I believe the original low end of the fund balance was
based upon covering us if the state shut down in June. >> And that would include the forward payments of those that wanted the lump sum, etc. because the money wouldn't be coming in and we'd have to cover that >> all the payoffs. Yep. >> Um and that's where we base that low bar
for the fund balance. Um, but I want to add in something else too as we're going through this fund balance discussion and class sizes and all that because something was brought up um last month at our study session which I've kind of mold over a little bit and that's that
the one thing that we have to fund and that is kind of one of our biggest surprises that we've seen with the 1.7 million that we are actually over budget for because of special aid uh special ed um and could we actually
say our low bar is to increase that estimate by at least a percentage to make sure we're covered for that type of surprise going forward. Like if we say class sizes plus assume a certain percentage extra uh in in special education.
>> Yeah. >> To avoid that surprise or maybe to at least anticipate it in advance. Maybe >> it it does create a little bit of a a challenge in the fact that if you overexpend in one year, you're going to receive that reimbursement the following year,
>> right? >> So, is it about um knowing and understanding that there could potentially be some loss of your fund balance, knowing it's going to get restored the following, but then you can't rely upon it to be able to balance the next year's budget, >> right? So it's like you need to be
somewhat conservative which I think I was when you look at the revenues across for spa for um state aids um like yes there's a bump for 207 because of what I know is coming here in 26
and it's significant enough because we had kind of a um a unique situation in the fact that our our special ed transportation costs as they were recorded in 25 compared to what they will look like in 20 or 24
compared to what they will look like in 26 is much more of a gap than what you'll see in the future. Okay, if that makes sense. We don't anticipate seeing that kind of a increase in our transportation costs as we saw in one year. Does that make sense? And so
you account for that one time, but then moving forward it won't be as great. So with that then your special education will take a bump but you wouldn't anticipate necessarily that that bump would continue every year like that. So you have to kind of moderate that then
and bring it back down which is what I feel I did when taking forward the revenues. So sticking that at a certain point and then staying flat knowing that there is a chance that that's not going to be the case. Oftentimes what districts will do is we have what we call maintenance of effort for special
education. That can mean that you do make adjustments to staffing, but at the same time, you know that there's an increase in costs in other areas related to special education, but in total, you're staying more flat than what you would
otherwise do. So, it's about analyzing what is your case loads, what does that look like, what are the real needs of our kids, and trying to understand that, right? And if you have um changes in programming and things, what does that do to the cost, right? So, with that,
it's it's a lot more complicated than just straight class- size formulas, right? As average as those are, um, when you're dealing with special education, there is still possibilities of finding things that you can adjust, knowing that you're
already going to have an embedded increase and in total, you'll still be meeting your maintenance of effort, right? If your student counts increasing, that's a different story. But I'm talking about assuming your student count wouldn't be increasing, right? That the needs of your students
are staying somewhat flat and similar, right? So, it's all dependent upon what is our real picture and that's beyond my my purview by myself, right? That's a combination of working with um director Chuka and making sure that we're clear and understanding what those needs are
and as we shift the location of those programs. There's there's those changes too to consider and and incorporate into budgets. the one uh if I could just get some clarity too on on one thing uh director
Atinson you had mentioned earlier um last year how I think it was in December that we were making some adjustments um and that was based upon the class size targets and what we were forecasting for our enrollment and and what we would do that would be the same here too so when
we're talking about class sizes are are we talking the class size targets because as our enrollment goes down, as long as we're within targets, we can make adjustments and and and so I just want to be clear with the
board that's been something that we've leveraged or LA, you know, probably, you know, for as long as I've been here and every district I've been in. You you look at those targets and it it's not hard fast, but we know that we have the target and then we have the discussion
cap that we would actually have to talk about, you know, additional FTE. So if our enrollment goes down, then our our our targets are staying the same. That's what I'm hearing. Keep class size targets, but we can adjust so long as we don't go above, you know, those targets.
>> Yes. So we should reward to say targets. >> Classiz. Yes. >> Okay. I noted that. >> Yeah. And again, my concern was that if we have to really really cut and and obviously unfortunately staffing is where we cut,
>> then that's where we draw that line. Uh if those class- size targets are going to exceed >> and then we have to come back >> and we can't do that. Yep. That's where we that's the ceiling, >> right? >> Yeah. So for me the other kind of non-negotiables I was just thinking about too as we were more one came up
today as we were talking through um the forecast is should we add something around and maybe this isn't really non-negotiable but a a priority for us to reduce transportation costs and by by way of RFP but also finding
efficiencies with transportation. I feel like that needs to be a a priority for us >> and g given that would that's one of our biggest outliers that we know of and and so again I think that's broad enough so as we look to structure that RFP it's structured in a way that gets to this
priority. So that would be >> even maybe beyond the RFP like do we have students that are riding a bus but they live within you know correct just the whole structuring of transportation but I think that's and I guess we're saying the same thing that would all be built into our expectations of
>> how we would choose a provider right >> um based upon those factors that we know are coming with some significant costs so efficiencies there is something that we want to gain right save dollars >> so we should should we list that as a board priority to focus on for
>> so how you how would you think how would you word it >> well just I think that falls under maybe optimize resources where we're reducing transportation costs by way of our fee and you know finding efficient or something like that we can reward it but >> so if you remember last um January we
had the transportation policy at the board where we had the option of making it 2 miles >> um and then leaving it up to district transportation to determine if we wanted to go under that based upon that that may be something we want to go back and
revisit and turn it back to what what was recommended by administration at that time. >> And then um I don't it may not change the um because we're interested obviously in the safety of the students too. >> And when you're dealing with, you know,
kindergarten through fifth graders, you don't necessarily want them walking. But >> um but that may be something we want to just go back and give the administration that leeway. >> And I think Director France, just having kids in the district. I think the key is
are we even following our onem policy? You know, I think it's living two blocks from a school, are they receiving transportation? So that that is to me that's what what I'm hearing here is like why are we these massive increases
in transportation costs when we have fewer students in our district and really going back and forcing our transportation company to take a look at are we even following our current board policies that are currently at hand. Um,
so that that's my takeaway on that >> and I would add to that too because this was a discussion we had around special ed transportation having personal experience with that like I think we can find efficiencies there right we don't necessarily need special ed students being on a bus alone or maybe we could
just add paras you know depending on needs so that's part of that like gaining efficiencies >> all right so we need is there a consensus that we would uh be in favor of a transportation cost decrease case. >> Is that how I'm Yes. >> phrasing it?
>> I would go to our director of operations for that and also to the obviously a lot of requirements around that and stuff like that. But um seeing where we can cut there. However, I'm not quite sure that's part of one of our red lines. I
think that's a consideration for us to go back and maybe adjust the policy to give the administration more flexibility. >> Kind of like the fund balance thing. explore it. >> Um >> um having
>> Yeah, >> I personally am not in favor of reducing fund balance but I guess it will you know I appreciate the feedback on >> a reminder that we did actually just adjust this policy. It used to be signed and assigned so I am not
supportive of adjusting our fund balance policy. Um that is our savings account and I we have whittleled away at it from you can go back and look at when I started on the board on 22 in 23 we made some very serious investments in our
district I did not support um and I I don't want to go down that path but we have whittleled away our fund balance the last few years and so I do not support going below where we're at currently because we've already done that multiple times in our district >> and maybe misspoke in that I would like
to see a a picture of what that would look like just so we're confident that that 8% in our current reality isn't too isn't too much. Maybe it's seven maybe I mean if it's seven and a half it would save us >> according to the projection we'll be
under that next year anyways and I think the and I think the the the discussion Yeah. And then the next year we're really we're in debt. We're underwater. we have no money left whatsoever and we're actually borrowing and an SOD. But I do have a question because we don't really have anything in
our policies right now about what we do when we're under >> um no matter what we set it at. We set it there, but we don't >> have any board action as a result of when it actually does drop below that. And I think that's also a question that
maybe we should consider. >> We do actually have that in policy director France. It's in 701.2 I believe or something like that. It says that it has to come before the board for discussion. And I' I've called that out a couple times in our meetings. So, um I I do believe that is in policy. So, I
think formalizing that I agree with you formalizing that what happens I I don't disagree with you because that hasn't happened. Um but it is written in policy. >> We we all agree it's written in policy. The thing is is the discussion is very nebulous and we are at a point where it
will drop in the next 12 months. >> So then >> so what what do we do then and what is our what are the boundaries for those discussions and what choices do we actually have or what should we be doing with that because again it's a it's unchartered water here.
So, my other non-negotiable for me, um I liked the um gifted and talented and leaving those in there, especially um you know, I think we're already moving Sage into different programming and I just again going back to our strategic plan and empowering each student to
reach their full potential. I think it's really important to make sure that we state like that's kind of a last resort to to cut any gifted and talented programming that we have >> maintain what we have or I don't even know what we're calling it these days. Yes.
>> I don't know if others agree but for me I feel like that's part of >> is there a consensus to uh keep current ma maintain the current level of gifted and talented programming? >> No. No. >> No. That's um unfortunately
um um unfortunately that is um um an area that is a very much a nice to have and um you know there's there's a lot of reasons why we talked about cutting it last year. >> Um it's an expensive program and um I I
think that it's it's I think that that's going a little too high for the red line. Well, let me rephrase it then because uh when we decided to make the changes in SAGE um Dr. Thomas, if I remember right, um you going to kind of
reorganize the whole way that that >> program operates kids in their home. >> And and I'm not saying that we should hang on to what we have currently. I'm saying continue to move ahead with Michael's plan for that group of students that he was going to put in
place in lie of Sage. Is that >> I remember that right? >> That's what I'm getting at. Not not that we go back and and and redo what we cut last year. More it's more about maintaining continue having Michael continue down the road of of of redoing
that program um and ensuring that we maintain a gifted and talented program period. Is that correct? what we have with this new whatever with supporting kids who are eligible or
qualify within their home schools and and the model will look different based upon our resources to be able to do it but >> ensuring that we have one >> I would just add I think that meets our strategic plan like right like helping children reach their full potential um
it's every student so I I I think that aligns with our strategic plan as well >> so we look we have three S's is director and >> I need to qualify. >> You qualify. >> So, we used to have that pull out program um like where kids that were
that had um um needs whether they be for um you know advanced needs or not and we used to have the student support services that could come and work with those those students to give them extra challenging work etc. Um I believe and I
and and that it was synergy at one point in time then we had a program before that >> iteration of that is what we're that we believe we could have some capacity to support and that's what we're starting this year with that kind of atlarge third grade differentiation support
>> and the differentiation support I fully support. What I don't support is the because one of the reasons why we had some issues was the integrity of the original gifted and talented program and that it wasn't being supported and that
we did have policies where um that were not that were um we were supporting kids um for whatever reason that we had to lower basically the threshold in order to even keep the program going. So, you
know, if we're supporting differentiation, absolutely, but I'd like to keep it in that language and not in a G&T because that gives it a whole another connotation. And also, um the one thing that I want to that I want to
know is there are funds from the state if there is that particular uh designation. If we change the designation and not have a formal set aside program and leave it at differentiated services, which I think are needed no matter what, um, does that
at all put our our funding in jeopardy? >> No, it is a formula based upon the gened formula, a portion of it that a certain number of dollars that they say per student um, goes towards gifted and talented. So what you find yourself
doing is considering um how does that program function? Are there individuals or portions of their time that is spent specifically on that type of programming? And that's where you would find yourself probably allocating a portion of salaries to that or certain
grade levels and what they're you know whatever that model might look like is how you're going to probably show those expenditures. Right? If you didn't show those expenditures in that fashion, then you'd find yourself growing a reserve that you're not spending. And the fact of the matter is um one of the things
you want to do and that our policy does call for is to use those reserve funds first before you use the un un um the unassigned. So the fact is if you have specific dollars for a particular purpose and you are spending it towards that purpose that we want to make sure
we're coding those things there, right? So um to qualify differentiation yes that that has to be done no matter what. Um I am at this point I am not in favor of going into additional funds that are not
being supported by the state based upon our numbers and our and the money that we would be getting toward to funding that program. Um and that would be my concern and I have nothing against the program. I'm just saying that now we're we're literally at the point where we're
cutting off limbs and and we need to draw the line there because otherwise we could be going into funds that we simply don't have. And again, the staffing is a huge expense. And if we're going to keep class sizes the same, I I
would have a hard time financially looking at those numbers and balancing them out. So we have are we clear on what we're asking just for >> the differentiation. >> And so we have a yes and a no. >> So we're I'm yes if it's
differentiation. I'm yes if it's that and we're not overspending. I think that's really important here is that we're all clear on what we're stating and because it's been stated here tonight the gifted, you know, are we in
support of gifted and talented or are we in support of differentiation? If we're talking differentiation based upon what we learned as um decisions were made to get to where we are today, then yes, I
am in support of the differentiation support. The gifted and talented programs, we already decided that they are not looking as they used to look. So, um you know, making sure that we're clear on that. I I do support that the
the students that are um needing the differentiation support that we continue to do what we said that there was margin to do. >> What would you like us to call that in this document? Dr. Thomas like differentiated >> support. Make sure you
>> all right. Um may I suggest we have um given him Dr. Thomas three things so far to consider. Would I be out of line to then allow us to use his invitation to have further conversation which would then um uh roll out in at the end of
November where we'll um give the the final red lines and guard rails so they can get on with the process. Is that fair? >> This really gets us going. >> Director, that fair? >> Yeah. I just one thing I want to just I
just want to go back to I I don't want to elaborate on this, but I do remember our conversations back in like March and April when we talked about administrative cuts and one of the things we talked about is what do all the administrative positions do and are we able to get that information? I
thought we had more board alignment on that that going into our next budget sessions that we would be able to get that information as far as like what do the administrative positions all do so that we can um basically understand
like are we making administrative cuts or like if we're not touching classrooms then it really it becomes people right and it becomes in my opinion it was more administrative or student supports or whatever that means so I just wanted to ask that question as we're going into this budget session Dr. Thomas you
probably remember the conversation when we talked I know that Dan White director white you had actually recommended that we have more of a descriptive um analysis of that um I just wanted to that >> we did get it.
>> It was we got a extremely granular detailed breakdown of that um that director Frederickson gave to us of every single role and every single title and how they were broken down and I believe that was given last May or June
>> maybe no maybe maybe longer than that >> exactly where I was sitting I remember exactly when we talked about it. I do recall a discussion around doing some org review as far as like we would call in the corporate world like spans and layers
>> where we do like a kind of a rulebased like you know if you have ex students you would expect one dean per x students or one you know that kind of org review. We had some discussion around. >> We had one when we were sitting at the table over there that was very very detailed and then we had another one
that was a higher level because there was a lot of confusion about people using that star report that wasn't made for administration. >> Yeah. That that >> then maybe we can use that opportunity for the 101's to um >> to broach that subject if that's that's
important because I'd like to to uh go ahead. >> Yeah. I want to say who um I want to say that was in um when we were talking cuz yeah I remember where I was sitting too. You were over there. >> You were over there >> and it was in um just for everybody's
benefit the month isn't going to help you but uh cuz I can't remember that but it was in a presentation that she gave and I think it was when we were talking about you know some of the cuts and things like that. I remember it was like a huge grid >> and everything was laid out. Yeah,
director Herman walk through the distinctions of the categorization of of of the administrative FTE. >> Correct. >> And how on the star report? >> Yeah, I I that I won't rehash that right now, but but >> so that information is available if if
if a member wants to bridge that with with Dr. Thomas. >> So, if we're good with our starting point, um I think we've given the administration a good place to start. And >> thank you for the uh perspectives and uh your open dialogue here.
>> Would you like me to update draft and send it out? We can circulate it again just to have the document for it's like a final with the three that we just >> that'd be great. Sure. Thank you. >> The thing that we have here, the one that >> Yeah. Just update the same format we've
been using, right? Yeah. Yeah. I don't >> um next to the agenda is the handbook. And before we start discussion, which I'm not opposed to having, um it has been suggested to me that as I'm sure you all know, it's it's rather lengthy
and there are a lot of words. And uh um I'm wondering if uh I'm just going to throw this out to the six of you who will still be here uh when the clock turns 2026. Um, it's been suggested that perhaps this
finalization of the uh and the words smmithing of the handbook uh might deserve its own space. And I'm wondering if I'm not trying to throw this off anybody else, but I I want to be respectful cuz Charles put a lot of work into this and I want what's agreed upon
um and and put into place and voted on to be something that that the board at the time has had a proper amount of input and we're not just trying to jam it through. I'm not so concerned about the timing as I am the integrity of the document. And um I'm wondering if if if
it's the will of you of the six of you um if I I would even make a you know ahead of time make a a a date for a retreat for the new board in 26 with this is the topic. Is that completely out of line?
>> Uh Chair White, if I may. Um, Director Cohern, you uh sent an email to the policy advisory committee regarding doing work outside collaborating. I'm wondering if if you could what I'm
thinking of is that maybe this direction that he gave um with doing policy advisory work that uh um uh a Google doc is shared amongst the policy committee um a space for people to uh write their
comments and things so that you know so it's all gathered um I think that that might be really helpful for us in this space. While director Johnson, you're um I too am so
appreciative of what bringing their current policies in and all the work that you've done. Um but to or I shouldn't say but and to save um space and to for to get all to collect all the feedback from all the different board
members. Um doing something like you're suggesting in the policy advisory committee really could help us. I like that idea, putting it out there instead of having everyone send in feedback and having somebody trying to read and and kind of coagulate
everything. >> It's a discussion. Yeah. At in this space, whether it be at a regular session or a study session, it becomes cumbersome, >> right? Um and so if we have a have time and space for us all to um give our
feedback and then um then it would be figuring out how as a board we want to um you know bring those into a s you know bring those suggestions together
>> and and I think getting the board's feedback on how to do that um collectively I think that'll help us. I think everyone will feel like they're heard, their suggestions are seen, and it gives us time. Um, while I think
Director Johnson did a fantastic job um to getting us to where we are right now, um I'm not opposed with what you're suggesting, Chair White, in um you know, giving this giving us time and then in
the beginning of the year um having a specific whether we do a board retreat or not, whether >> but a specific space. Yeah, a specific space and maybe we can get it done um with another study session and then vote on it. I'm not sure. You know, I I like
the idea of a retreat because obviously with the finance issues, um we have other things coming up that will, you know, like the uh a lot of changes in our district and using the time with the administration here and the public and
all that to focus that on actual district work and then to focus the work on ourselves >> at a retreat. um combined with the idea that you just said about um having um these documents be in a Google doc that
people can actually see and contribute to and see other people's contributions so there isn't a lot of duplication. >> Um my only feedback to that is um u one I think just like the 200 series policies we could probably chop away at
this and a couple different board meetings and get it done um and have it done by the end of the year. So that's my personal feedback, but I also know I've heard a lot of criticism in our community that there are no board violation policies in place, but board members are not currently being held
accountable for their actions. And I I just think um you know, we have procedures in here that need to be followed if board members are not following code of ethics. And so I think that um pushing this off kind of sends a
bad message to our community that not holding each other accountable, but yet there are things in this board handbook that we should still should be following. You know what I mean? Even though it hasn't been finalized or voted on, we still have code of ethic policies
that we need to follow. So, I just wanted to put that out that we're not trying to pass the buck. We're not trying to hold, you know, push something off. I appreciate the Google doc. I appreciate collaborative um um approach. I I pushed for that from the beginning.
Um so I do appreciate that. But on the flip side of it, I do think a couple meetings and we'd be able to get this done. So I kind of have two different thoughts on that. So >> thank you. Um so what's the consensus? Um I my my other thought was would be a
very good way to onboard um you know either Dustin or John with this as a topic to really um have them dig in right away on on how how we're supposed to operate and all those different things. So I think that that part too would be helpful. But having said that I
like the Google Doc idea as well. Um how do we want to handle that >> before I push this off on somebody else? If I were to give a suggestion, it would be start my personal suggestion would be that we
start with a Google doc. Um, and even if we state that in the November study session, look at where we're at, right? Like look at where we're at collectively as a board. um you
know the the >> maybe there's enough similarity that we could >> maybe we only have one study session >> one more left and then we have some that's going to be >> pretty much budget >> and I think that's fair enough >> I think it's fair because it kind of
addresses um you know both thoughts director shared you know um I think you know the 200s took us longer than we thought they would um this this work. It's important work and I think if we if
we just start with the the Google doc and where everyone has their um space to contribute and then uh during the November study session, we can um look at where we're at and then we can decide as a board where you know will we do a
board retreat come January. I think I think giving us that leeway is is helpful at least for me. Fair enough. >> Fair enough. >> Um yeah, and I actually had already sent some track changes. I do think there's a bunch of like just um formatting kind of stuff and whatever.
>> A lot of this stuff is going to be I think Martha's going to be cleaning up once we have the everything finished. She'll make it look the way it's supposed to look. >> Yeah. So, >> but my only other comment would be like it would be nice to have in place before a new board member joins because it is a
useful tool, but um I don't know if we would be able to get it done by January with the holiday. >> Director Bullion's suggestion. Let's see where we are in November and give everybody a chance to to weigh in and if we find that we're real close, maybe we can we can do it.
>> Yeah, we can say we can give a present. >> Yeah. Welcome aboard. >> All right. Did just did director Olstead. >> Thank you. >> I didn't >> d you have anything.
>> That sounds good. >> All right, we will move on to our final item which is the first reading of policy 722. >> Yes, thank you. This will be very brief. Um so as the from the policy committee
uh 722 is a yearly reviewed policy. So we uh reviewed it in our policy committee and since it was very thor thoroughly um vetted last year and made some changes last year, the committee did not see um uh actually any changes. The only changes are at the very bottom
uh would be to uh replace uh director Herman's name with uh my name and uh change her email to my email. So those are the changes that you are seeing on the policy. >> All right. Thank you. Comments or questions? Director Edison.
>> Yeah, I have a question for um Director Rob. Um in the MSBA policy, there's something that very specifically says that was changed to the 2025 Minnesota legislative session that has to do I'm going to call it bullet point. I don't know how to define it, but it's under
request for public data. Cindic So, if we updated this to um reflect legislative changes and we didn't include this one paragraph, I can definitely read it, but you may be already aware of it. But it has to do with if the school district notifies the
requesting person that responsive data or copies are available for inspection or collection and the requesting person does not inspect the data or collect the copies within five business days of notification. The school district may suspend any further response to the request until the requesting person
inspects the data that has been made available or collects a pay for the copies that have been produced and it says that that part of Minnesota 2025 Minnesota legislative session and that is not included in our policy. Yeah, I we uh I mean from went to the
MSBA website and on under 722 pulled up the most recent redline version that MSBA had and that you know from our committee standpoint did not see any um updates from that policy version or any new from where it listed 2025. So, I
mean, if there is, we can definitely go back to the policy committee and relook at MSBAs. But when we pull the MSBA red line, there was um nothing that had been updated since the last policy committee update had brought it. MSBA was still um
after after that or before that date. >> Is that I didn't find it in the red line. I just found it in their policy. Like I literally took our policy and their policy and compared it and this was the only that was different. So, I'm happy I can email you a copy of it. I don't think it needs to go back to
policy committee to be honest with you. I'm just wondering if it's part of Minnesota state statute why it's not included in ours. >> Is it reflected in the current statutes that are here? Because a lot of times the statute numbers don't change, but it it's it was my understanding that the
statutes didn't the statute numbers did not get updated at all. if they made any minor adjustments within any of the statutes, these statute numbers are still legal references that would apply regardless. >> Well, I think that's fact, but I think this change is kind of a big change
because it basically says that somebody has to go look at their days. >> I think that was under shows 10 days right now. I think we have under under that section, Director Atkinson number four, under B
and then under one and under baby C. >> I just want to be clear. Our policy matches MSBA word for word except for they have an additional paragraph that has to do with a Minnesota legislative
change from 2025. It's not listed in our policy. >> But what I'm saying is does this babyc say the same thing with exception of that yours has five and this says 10. >> Yeah.
Director because they have that and then they also have paragraph. >> I understand. I looked at it word for word and they have this extra paragraph. So I just want to be careful that we are including everything that is included regarding
the statute and this is very statuto heavily heavy policy. You can pull up MSDA and look at it perhaps back at our board meeting and take a look at it. I'm not trying to off.
>> So that's what it was. So, it's in there. >> No, this is MSBA. >> So, we didn't include So, we didn't So, they have a note in there talking about the 2025. Um, they don't make a change to the actual body of the document.
>> Cag. >> Okay. I think we found it, >> right? But is that in here? >> That's not in ours. >> It's not in ours. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Yeah. Thank you. No problem. >> So, I'm sorry, >> just point of clarification. So, this is
this is uh a new version or a new paragraph on MSBA's um policy 722 without bringing it back to policy committee. Um would the board uh be okay
if this were to be added to reflect MSBA without going back to policy committee for discussion? I say >> yes. >> Yeah, it's statute driven. >> Okay, so I'm totally fine with that. >> All right, we good.
>> Y >> and no changes to the statutes at the bottom. >> Yes, >> there is already there. So, yeah. So, adding that would just be um basically doing what was already there. But, uh
the statutes don't change. But I don't care either way. We're the same. >> It's >> Yep. Everything else is >> Everything else is the same. The statute, the statutory references in there. >> All right. Great. Thank you. I think uh we are done for the evening.
>> Thank you.