[00:00:05]
[1. BOARD WORKSHOP - 4:30 PM]
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO OUR APRIL 18TH BOARD WORKSHOP.THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
ONE IS A BUDGET FOR THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR, ALONG WITH SOME SOME FOUR YEAR PROJECTIONS. AND JASON AND MATT WILL BE PRESENTING THAT.
AND WE ALSO HAVE FACILITIES REVIEW AS WELL.
IS THAT CORRECT, JASON? OKAY. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JASON AND MATT.
[2. 2022/2023 BUDGET REVIEW]
OKAY. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF SLIDES TO GO THROUGH.I'M GOING TO BREAK PROBABLY LIKE AT AN HOUR, IF YOU WANT TO BREAK BEFORE THEN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I'LL GO THROUGH THIS.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THESE SLIDES ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WITH LIKE OUR BUDGET COMMITTEE, BUT NOT ALL OF YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN AT THOSE BUDGET COMMITTEES.
IF YOU ATTENDED ONE OF THOSE BUDGET COMMITTEES AND SAY, I'VE ALREADY SEEN THIS SLIDE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M GIVING YOU THE FULL PICTURE AS A SCHOOL BOARD AS A WHOLE.
SO JOINING WITH ME TONIGHT IS MATT CAMPBELL, OUR BUDGET ANALYST.
AND HE'S GOING TO HELP ME WHEN I RUN OUT OF WORDS OR NEED A BREAK.
SO WE'VE BOTH BEEN HEAVILY DUG INTO THIS FOR MONTHS RIGHT NOW.
SO IT'S NICE TO GET TO THIS POINT.
HONESTLY, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT WE'VE PUT INTO THIS.
ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT KIND OF MEETING OBJECTIVES, I REALLY KIND OF WANT TO GET INTO WHAT'S THAT BASELINE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR AND WHAT IS THE BOARD WANT TO SEE WITH THAT ULTIMATELY? RIGHT. AND THEN LOOKING AHEAD ON A FOUR YEAR, WHEN DO WE WANT TO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET, SUSTAINABLE PATHWAY GOING FORWARD? [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN.
ANY SORT OF FEEDBACK THAT YOU ALL HAVE ABOUT DURING THIS BUDGET CYCLE LIKE IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD X OR IF WE HAD Y THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN ONE OF THESE 50 SLIDES.
BUDGET PROCESS. SO AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE SUPERINTENDENT BUDGET COMMITTEE AND EACH YEAR I THINK WE WE GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER AT THIS.
AND EACH COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO SERVES, YOU KNOW, AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS, THEY TEND TO CONTRIBUTE MORE.
THEY HAVE MORE INSIGHT, YOU KNOW.
AND SO HONESTLY I THINK THIS WAS PROBABLY THE BEST SET OF BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETINGS WE'VE HAD, AT LEAST SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
AND WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR, WHAT, FOUR YEARS, I THINK NOW FOUR OR FIVE.
NOT TO MENTION IT REALLY HELPS TO HAVE SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT WE HAVE. I MEAN, THESE ARE SMART FOLKS.
THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY RUN BUSINESSES.
I MEAN, OR THEY HAVE TRUE INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE OR SCHOOL EXPERIENCE OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
I MEAN, IT'S REALLY IT'S A WONDERFUL GROUP TO WORK WITH.
AND THEY'RE OFTEN THE SAME FOLKS THAT HELP US WITH, SAY, LEVY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS WELL. SO THEY'RE JUST IT'S REALLY A GREAT COMMUNITY THAT WE SERVE.
WE HAD THREE HEAVY, REAL IN-DEPTH IN PERSON MEETINGS THAT WE HELD FEBRUARY, MARCH, AND APRIL. WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ONE IN JANUARY, AND TYPICALLY WE DO BECAUSE THAT'S THE START OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
BUT WHEN WE CAME BACK FROM BREAK, IF YOU RECALL, IT WAS WE WERE SO IMPACTED BY ALL THE COVID CASES AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
WE WERE. WE WERE DOING COVID TESTING AND NOT DOING BUDGETING AT THE TIME, SO WE HAD TO POSTPONE THAT MEETING. SO.
BUT THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION CONCLUDED EARLY THIS YEAR AS A SHORT SESSION WHICH ENDED MARCH 10TH, WHICH IS NICE FROM A BUDGETING PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE YOU TEND TO GET ANSWERS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER YEARS AND NEXT YEAR WILL BE ONE WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG SESSION. AND WE WOULD WE WOULD COME TO DO A BUDGET WORKSHOP 12 MONTHS FROM NOW, AND WE WON'T HAVE SOME OF THE ANSWERS THAT WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS NICE.
NICE TO HAVE THAT. SO I MENTIONED BOARD WORKSHOP TODAY AND THEN KIND OF BOARD PRESENTATIONS IN THE FUTURE AND I PUT TWO TO BE DETERMINED AND THAT REALLY JUST KIND OF DEPENDS UPON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK TODAY.
AND THEN GOING FORWARD, WE HAVE THIS TIME PERIOD BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF IN THE END OF JUNE IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY THAT LAST MEETING IN JUNE, WE TYPICALLY DO A
[00:05:04]
PRELIMINARY BUDGET PRESENTATION THAT REALLY KIND OF BECAUSE WE HAVE TO POST IT BY JULY 10TH. SO IT'S REALLY KIND OF OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY BEFORE WE HAVE TO PUBLICLY POST A PRELIMINARY BUDGET.AND THEN OVER THE SUMMER THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR REFINEMENT.
BUT TYPICALLY BY THE TIME WE POST IT ONLINE, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGES.
AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE THE CASE THIS YEAR, PARTICULARLY WITH THE SHORT SESSION.
WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT WAITING FOR ANSWERS FROM THE STATE.
SO WE'LL DO A LEGAL NOTICE AND BUDGET HEARING SLASH ADOPTION MEETING.
TYPICALLY, IT COULD ALSO BE SOONER THAN THAT, BUT NOT LIKELY JUST GIVEN OUR CYCLE WHERE WE ONLY DO BUSINESS ON THAT SECOND MEETING.
AND I DOUBT THAT WE WOULD MOVE IT UP TO JULY.
SO I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE TARGET TO HAVE FOR AUGUST 22ND.
FIRST. THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO COVER WAS ENROLLMENT FORECAST.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST THING THAT DRIVES OUR FUNDING.
THE NUMBER OF KIDS REALLY IS WHAT DRIVES DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE FUNDING MODEL.
GRANT FUNDING ON DOWN THE LINE, LOCAL SALES, EVERYTHING.
SO WE ALWAYS SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF TIME LOOKING AT THIS VERY CAREFULLY.
WITH THE COVID PANDEMIC AND THE EFFECTS OF THAT AND HAVING A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE THE START OF THE PANDEMIC, WE INVITED OUR DEMOGRAPHER, MR. HOVEY, TO COME BACK AND KIND OF DO A REFRESH ON THE LAST STUDY THAT HE DID AND THAT WAS HELPFUL BECAUSE HE WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT DATA ELEMENTS.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE THE DEPTH AT WHICH HE GOES INTO HIS ANALYSIS.
AND WHEN HE WHEN HE DOES THIS FORECAST, HE DOES IT ON A HEAD COUNT BASIS.
SO WHAT HE IS FORECASTING FOR US FOR NEXT YEAR DISTRICT WIDE IS ABOUT 7,100 STUDENTS.
NOW ON FOUR FTE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE FUNDED ON, YOU CAN REDUCE THAT BY ABOUT 175 AND THAT'S BASICALLY OUR RUNNING START STUDENTS SO.
BUT WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS ON ON THIS GRAPH HERE IS, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO 2005 WE'RE ON A PRETTY STEADY INCLINE.
AND THEN RIGHT HERE, RIGHT WHEN WE GOT TO ALMOST 7,500 STUDENTS THAN THE PANDEMIC HIT.
AND SO WE HAD THIS KIND OF TWO YEAR DROP.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE FORECASTING FOR NEXT YEAR AND A RECOVERY, BUT A SLOW RECOVERY OVER A FEW YEARS BEFORE WE REACH WHERE WE WERE PRE-PANDEMIC.
AS FAR AS FROM FROM A NUMBERS PERSPECTIVE, KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 12.
AGAIN, HERE'S KIND OF THE 7,100 OVER HERE.
BUT AS YOU CAN LOOK, AS YOU CAN SEE, REALLY PRETTY MODEST GROWTH.
OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FOUR, FOUR YEARS, ON AVERAGE, IT'S ABOUT 1.65.8% GROWTH A YEAR.
SO IN THESE YEARS, WE WERE EXPERIENCING 2.5%.
I WILL HOLD IT. SO WE WERE ALREADY KIND OF ON A PATHWAY THAT WAS SLOWING DOWN FROM PREVIOUS GROWTH TRENDS.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WITH THE PANDEMIC, THAT WAS A BIT OF A SHOCK THERE.
SO. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON ENROLLMENT? OKAY. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT IT OVER THESE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
SO LEGISLATIVE SESSION? YES, SIR.
[00:10:02]
STATE BUDGET THIS YEAR THEY HAD A LARGE AMOUNT OF RESERVES.THERE WAS A LARGE INFLUX OF FEDERAL FUNDS, COVID RELIEF MONIES, AND THEIR REVENUE OUTLOOK WAS REALLY STRONG.
THEY DO A QUARTERLY I WANT TO SAY QUARTERLY REVENUE FORECAST AND EVERY SINGLE FORECAST SHOWED AN IMPROVEMENT IN IN STATE REVENUES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THEY THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WHEN YOU GO IN AND YOU LOOK AT A SESSION AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO POTENTIALLY FUND FOR K 12 [INAUDIBLE] . MAYBE I NEED ANOTHER ONE.
OKAY ANY BETTER? OKAY. MAYBE I JUST NEED TO HOLD IT RIGHT HERE.
SO ON THE K 12 HIGHLIGHTS, WE WERE REALLY LOOKING AT ENROLLMENT, STABILIZATION, MONEYS FROM THE STATE. THERE WAS A LOT OF ENERGY AROUND THAT AND ULTIMATELY THE STATE DID PROVIDE SOME MONEY ON THAT.
THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF ENERGY AROUND PROVIDING SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING SUPPORTS.
AND IN A IN KIND OF A RARE MOVE, THEY ACTUALLY MODIFIED THE FUNDING FORMULA HERE FOR SOCIAL EMOTIONAL SEL POSITIONS SO THAT THAT ACTUALLY HAS A LEGACY TO IT AS OPPOSED TO ONE TIME FUNDING. A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT THEY SAID IS THE IPD, AND IPD WAS SET AT 5.5% AS WELL AS CPI WAS SET AT 5%.
AND SO IPD IS A DRIVER OF FUNDING AND CPI HAS AN EFFECT ON SOME OF THE LEVY CAP CALCULATIONS AS WELL AS THAT IS TIED TO OUR LABOR CONTRACTS AS WELL.
NOW KIND OF LOOKING BACK AT THE STATE AS A WHOLE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE LEGISLATURE OBVIOUSLY TENDS TO POINT TO, YOU KNOW, K 12 IS THE PRIMARY PARAMOUNT DUTY OF THE STATE EXCUSE ME, PRIMARY PARAMOUNT.
AND AND THEY OFTEN POINT TO WELL WHAT OUR INVESTMENT IS IN K 12 AND AS A STATE GOING BACK A FEW BIENNIUM WE WERE AT 48%.
AND THEN THEY COME INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL WHICH A SHORT SESSION IS, THAT'S WHEN THERE'S A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET OR WHEN THEY ADJUST THE FINAL YEAR.
AND SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE PREVIOUSLY SOMETIMES IT'S DOWN A PERCENT, SOMETIMES IT'S UP A PERCENT. WHAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING IS THIS PAST SESSION IS THAT WE WENT FROM 48% DOWN TO 43%, AND THAT IS AN OUTLIER.
I THINK IT WILL POTENTIALLY BE A RALLYING CRY FOR K 12 GOING INTO NEXT SESSION AND ONE THAT WE'LL WANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO.
I KNOW THAT A LOT OF OUR OUR ASSOCIATIONS AROUND THE STATE ARE KEYED INTO THIS AS WELL.
SO. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, DOUG? WITH THAT 43%, WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS THE FEEDBACK THAT I WAS RECEIVING FROM OLYMPIA WAS IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THE SHOP YOU WERE ON THAT PEOPLE WERE NOTICING 43% AND THE DRASTIC DIFFERENCE.
SO I TOTALLY AGREE WITH JASON.
I THINK THIS WILL BE A COMMON GROUND NO MATTER HOW YOU HAVE FELT ABOUT THINGS PRIOR OR WHAT YOU SAID SHOULD BE A FUNDING MODEL, THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE QUITE ALARMED THAT THAT WENT DOWN TO THAT PERCENTAGE.
SO BACK ON ENROLLMENT, STABILIZATION AND I ALSO PUT UP HERE LAST TIME BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN PROVIDING SOME COVID RELIEF TO US THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
AND REALLY THE MESSAGE FROM THE LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR WAS, WE UNDERSTAND YOUR ENROLLMENT HAS DECLINED.
WE WANT TO HELP YOU WITH SOME ENROLLMENT STABILIZATION THIS YEAR.
HOWEVER, THIS IS THE LAST TIME WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.
WE EXPECT SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ALIGN THEIR THEIR BUDGET MODEL AROUND THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT THEY'RE SERVING.
AND SO IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE GETTING SOME ENROLLMENT STABILIZATION, BUT THEY MADE IT VERY CLEAR THIS IS THE LAST TIME THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S ABOUT $1.9 MILLION.
I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT SCENARIOS ON HOW WE GET THAT MONEY, BUT I THINK THE LATEST IS NEXT
[00:15:02]
MONTH WE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE IT THROUGH OUR APPORTIONMENT APPORTIONMENT FUNDING.SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'LL COME IN LUMP SUM NEXT MONTH.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR SCHOOL YEAR AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
SO IT'S REALLY MONEY THAT WE PULL INTO THE NEXT THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE FOR 22-2023.
THIS IS ALSO ONE THAT I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER.
KIND OF IT HAS A LEGACY BECAUSE THEY CHANGED THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL FUNDING MODEL, WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN EVERY DAY.
AND SO THIS IS WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THIS INVESTMENT IN COUNSELORS AND NURSES AS WELL AS OTHER POSITIONS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY BATTED AROUND WAS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE MODEL ALL IN ONE YEAR OR PHASE IT IN OVER THREE, AND THEY CHOSE TO PHASE IT IN OVER THREE.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT HOW THEY CHANGE THOSE RATIOS, WHAT I EXPECT TO HAPPEN IS THAT AFTER THREE YEARS, THEY WILL FUND AT A LEVEL, AN FTE LEVEL ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT CURRENTLY AS FAR AS THE CURRENT STAFF THAT WE EMPLOY.
TYPICALLY, WE YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
I THINK THAT UNDER THE THE OLD PROTOTYPICAL MODEL, WE'RE FUNDED 1.1 NURSES.
AND WE OBVIOUSLY EMPLOY MORE THAN THAT.
WE COULDN'T HAVE ONE NURSE GET TO GET TO 12 OR 13 SCHOOLS.
RIGHT. SO IT'S GOOD THAT THEY'RE INVESTING MORE MONEY HERE.
SO WE HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS IS HOW TO HOW DO WE WANT TO UTILIZE THIS THESE RESOURCES? WHERE WHERE DO WE WANT TO INVEST IN SEL? AND I WOULD EXPECT, SINCE WE'RE ALREADY, IF YOU WILL, INVESTING IN THESE POSITIONS, WHAT THE STATE IS WANTING TO SEE AS FAR AS GUARDRAILS AROUND THIS MONEY IS THEY WANT TO SEE THAT WE'VE THAT WE'RE EMPLOYING.
AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF FTE THAT THEY'RE FUNDING, WHICH SO CLEARLY WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE THERE. THAT SAID, I STILL DON'T I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE US FROM INVESTING IN MORE SCHOOL STAFF.
SO I THINK THAT CASE HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEARLY MADE NOT JUST IN OUR DISTRICT, NOT JUST IN OUR STATE, BUT ACROSS THE NATION, THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR SOCIAL EMOTIONAL SUPPORTS FOR STUDENTS. SO I WOULD EXPECT WE WOULD PROBABLY MAKE SOME SORT OF INVESTMENT HERE.
HERE ARE THE TABLES IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DIG IN.
KIND OF UNDER THE OLD FUNDING MODEL.
IF YOU YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS LIKE TO POINT TO THIS WHEN I TALK ABOUT NURSES.
RIGHT. IT TAKES 7,200 MIDDLE SCHOOLERS TO TO GET ONE NURSE UNDER THE CURRENT FUNDING FORMULA. AND THEY MADE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT NEXT YEAR, THAT IS DOWN TO JUST UNDER 1,300 STUDENTS.
SO THAT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND AND CERTAINLY ONE THAT'S WELCOME SO.
AND THEN ULTIMATELY AFTER THREE YEARS FOR EVERY 486 MIDDLE SCHOOLERS, WE WOULD GET ONE NURSE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT BEFORE I MOVE ON? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
SO. THIS HAS BEEN QUITE A QUITE A TOPIC IN OUR BUDGET COMMITTEE.
WE'VE HAD OUR FUND BALANCE IS SEEING SOME MORE VOLATILITY THAN IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AS YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IN THIS GRAPH.
IT'S KIND OF STAYED AROUND BETWEEN 15 AND IT WAS AT A LOW OF 10% RIGHT BEFORE MCCLEARY.
AND THEN WITH THE CHANGES IN THE FUNDING FORMULA DUE TO MCCLEARY, WE SAW A BUMP IN REVENUES AND BUMP IN FUND BALANCE AND PUSHED IT UP TO ABOUT 13.
THEN WE START TO GET INTO THE COVID YEARS.
AND IF YOU RECALL, IN OUR COVID YEARS, IN SOME CASES, WE WE SAVED SOME MONEY, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE WANTED TO, BUT BECAUSE WE WERE EXPERIENCING STAFFING SHORTAGES
[00:20:01]
RIGHT. WE WERE ALSO GETTING AN INFLUX OF ONE TIME MONIES, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF ESSER FUNDS OR ENROLLMENT STABILIZATION MONIES OR GRANT MONIES.AND SO THOSE THOSE TWO FACTORS, THOSE FACTORS REALLY HAD AN EFFECT OF PUSHING UP OUR FUND BALANCE. BUT WE WERE NOT REALLY OPERATING UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS BY ANY MEANS SO THAT'S WHAT PUTS US IN THIS POSITION OF HAVING A LITTLE BIT HIGHER FUND BALANCE IN WHAT WE'VE TYPICALLY CARRIED IN THE PAST.
AND SO IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFSET SOME FUTURE OBLIGATIONS WITH FUND BALANCE.
AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WHAT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE HAD HAD KIND OF PUSHED ON AND REALIZED AND RECOGNIZED THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE TO USE FUND BALANCE.
IN LOOKING AT KIND OF THE ONE TIME RESOURCES I MENTIONED, WE ACTUALLY HAD $10.4 MILLION IN ONE TIME RESOURCES.
AND SO THAT INCLUDES ESSER ONE, TWO AND THREE.
WE WENT OUT, WE GOT SOME GRANTS FOR SUMMER SCHOOL.
WE GOT SOME GRANT MONEY FOR TESTING AND FOR CONTACT TRACING.
AND THEN WE GOT STATE FUNDS IN THE FORM OF ENROLLMENT STABILIZATION AND TRANSPORTATION STABILIZATION. SO ALL OF THAT ADDED UP OVER THE COURSE OF THIS IS ABOUT A THREE OR FOUR YEAR PERIOD IS $10.4 MILLION.
NOW PREVIOUS TO THIS OR RIGHT ABOUT THE TIME RIGHT UP PREVIOUS TO COVID, OUR FUND BALANCE. THIS WAS THIS IS A FUND BALANCED STAT PER STUDENT.
AND LOOKING AT IN A COMPARATIVE MANNER WITH WE FALL IN THIS BAND OF 5,000 TO 10,000 STUDENTS, THESE ARE WHAT THE AVERAGES ARE WITHIN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
AND WE'RE WE'RE DEFINITELY RIGHT IN THAT RANGE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATEWIDE AVERAGE, WE'RE RIGHT IN THE BALLPARK AS WELL.
SO THAT KIND OF THAT TELLS YOU THERE'S A SCHOOL BOARD THAT YOU KNOW, RUNNING RUNNING A 13, 15% FUND BALANCE IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR NECESSARILY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
SO WE OFTEN GET THE QUESTION OF I ALWAYS ASK JASON, WHAT'S THE MINIMUM FUND BALANCE WE CAN GO TO? AND AND IT'S A PRODUCT, I THINK, OF A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND I WANTED TO KIND OF PUT IT IN THIS CONTEXT.
I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR YOU AS A SCHOOL BOARD TO KIND OF BE THINKING OF IT IN THIS CONTEXT. AND THERE'S KIND OF TWO COMPONENTS.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE SUFFICIENT FUND BALANCE JUST TO COVER YOUR CASH FLOW VARIABILITY DURING THE COURSE OF A YEAR.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE DON'T GET 1/12TH OF OUR REVENUES EVERY MONTH.
IT'S IT'S IT CHANGES A BIG FACTOR, OBVIOUSLY, IS THE PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION CYCLE, WHICH TYPICALLY HAPPENS IN OCTOBER AND APRIL.
AND SO THOSE TEND TO HAVE A SPIKE IN REVENUES IN THOSE RESPECTIVE MONTHS AND SO WE WENT THROUGH AND DID THIS CASH FLOW KIND OF ANALYSIS AND WE KICKED THIS AROUND QUITE A BIT MATT AND I AND WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, WHAT WOULD WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE AND WHEN WOULD WE RUN OUT OF MONEY, AND WHAT WE DETERMINE IS IF WE STARTED THE YEAR SEPTEMBER ONE WITH $4.27 MILLION, GIVEN OUR MOST RECENT SPENDING TRENDS AND REVENUE TRENDS, WE'D RUN OUT OF MONEY IN MARCH.
WE'D WE'D BE ALMOST OUT OF MONEY IN FEBRUARY, AND DEFINITELY OUT IN MARCH.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT MINIMUM FUND BALANCE IS SOMEWHERE NORTH OF THAT, RIGHT.
TAKING FUND BALANCE TO ZERO IS NOT AN OPTION.
SO THERE'S A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CONTINGENCY ON TOP OF THAT.
RIGHT. AND SO WE WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME REASONABLE LEVEL TO EXPECT OF ACCURACY IN REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES.
AND WE PUT IT IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE.
SO LET'S SAY IF YOU'RE CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN YOUR REVENUE PROJECTION WAS 98%, YOU WOULD WANT TO GIVE YOURSELF ABOUT $2.2 MILLION CONTINGENCY THERE.
AND LIKEWISE ON THE EXPENDITURES THE NUMBERS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE OUR REVENUES IN OUR EXPENDITURES ARE NOT TOTALLY IN ALIGNMENT THERE.
[00:25:02]
SO WHEN WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT MINIMUM FUND BALANCE AND WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT THAT FOUR YEAR MODEL, I THINK IN FOUR YEARS THERE'S DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT COULD PLAY OUT WHERE WE MIGHT GET TO THAT MINIMUM FUND BALANCE.IT KIND OF IT KIND OF DEPENDS.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE IT YET, BUT I THINK WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE ON A TREND IF WE'RE GOING TO START TO USE FUND BALANCE AND PARTICULARLY AT AT A HIGH RATE, WE COULD APPROACH A MINIMUM FUND BALANCE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE IN THE OUTYEARS, CERTAINLY NOT NEXT YEAR.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 8%, ROUGHLY.
THAT'S WHAT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WAS KIND OF CIRCLING AROUND AS FAR AS A MINIMUM FUND BALANCE. OVERALL, THEY KIND OF WERE SUGGESTING A TARGET OF 10%.
GIVE YOURSELF KIND OF SOME BREATHING ROOM.
AND I THINK PART OF THAT WAS LOOKING BACK AT THE AT THE TREND RIGHT BACK HERE.
WE'RE KIND OF OUR LOW POINT OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS IS RIGHT AT ABOUT 10%.
AND IT FELT LIKE, OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S COMFORTABLE.
WHEN YOU START TO GET BELOW THAT, YOU HAVE A FEW LESS OPTIONS AT YOUR AT YOUR DISPOSAL.
ANY QUESTIONS? IN THAT DISCUSSION.
ON THE CONTINGENCY ON ACCURACY.
YOU MENTIONED THE 8 TO 10 ISH.
WAS THAT IDENTIFIED AS A BARE MINIMUM OR A RECOMMENDED TARGET? I MEAN, THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE IS ONE THAT WE WOULD ENJOY IF WE HAD IT.
ONE IS WE DON'T GO BELOW THIS.
AND I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT FRICTION PERCENTAGE THAT IF THE COMMITTEE HAD ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT. YEAH, I THINK WHAT THEY WERE WHEN THEY WERE SAYING 10%, THEY WERE SAYING THAT'S A GOOD TARGET IN THE FUTURE.
BUT IF YOU'VE GOT TO GO BELOW THAT, 8% WAS KIND OF THAT BARE MINIMUM.
AND AGAIN, THAT COULD TOTALLY CHANGE, RIGHT.
BECAUSE YOUR CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN IN BUDGET PROJECTIONS, BE IT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, COULD REALLY INCREASE IN THE FUTURE IF WE DON'T HAVE FUNDING MODEL CHANGES, IF WE START TO SEE STABILITY IN YOU KNOW, OUR ENROLLMENT TRENDS, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF VARIES FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT POTENTIALLY, BUT.
I THINK 8% IS A REASONABLE NUMBER.
I GET PRETTY NERVOUS AT 7 AND AT 6 I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO SEE THAT.
CAN I CHIME IN, TOO? AND CONNIE AND ERIC, I DON'T KNOW IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE THIS.
WE'RE A PART OF THOSE MEETINGS LAST THURSDAY.
AND SO FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN AT ANY POINT.
YOU WORKED WITH TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS AND AGREE WITH JASON AND MATT WAS THERE AS WELL.
THAT 7% WAS THIS THING THAT IT DID MAKE FOLKS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
ANYTHING SEVEN OR BELOW SO BUT YOU KNOW ERIC AND CONNIE AND MATT WEIGH IN AT ANY POINT.
SO I'LL MAKE A BIT OF A TRANSITION ALONG THOSE LINES.
DOUG [INAUDIBLE] JASON ASKED ME TO TALK ABOUT THE BASELINE BUDGET AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TERMINOLOGY OF WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT.
THE WORDS ON THE SCREEN, THE STARTING BLOCK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
OBVIOUSLY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE BUDGET SUBMISSION DEADLINES IN JULY AND AUGUST, BUT REALLY WE START BACK IN JANUARY OR SO.
AND AT THAT POINT, REALLY THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE BUDGET IS HIGH.
IF NOTHING ELSE, BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, BUT ALSO BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING CURRENT OPERATIONS AND FORECASTING FORWARD TO THE NEXT YEAR AND THAT INHERENTLY THE FURTHER OUT YOU ARE HAS SOME SOME UNCERTAINTY.
SO WE IN THAT DISCUSSION, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO PULL NUMBERS TOGETHER AND START STARTING BLOCK FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT.
AND THE QUESTION IS, WE START WITH SOME BASELINE BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS IN ORDER TO THAT'S WHAT WE START OFF WITH IN THE BUDGET MODELING.
SO ON THE REVENUE SIDE, REALLY, OBVIOUSLY THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF OUR REVENUE IS DISCUSSED IS ENROLLMENT. THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT COME IN AND THAT'S REALLY MY ROLE IS TO PULL ALL THOSE TOGETHER. BUT THE BIGGEST ONES, I WON'T REHASH ALL THE DETAILS THERE ON THE SCREEN.
AND IPD WAS ONE THAT WE WERE WAITING FOR THE LONGEST TO SEE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD DO IN TERMS OF A MULTIPLE THAT INCREASES YOUR FUNDING MODEL.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, JASON TALKED ABOUT THE SEL ALLOCATIONS ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE.
CPI IS OUR BIGGEST DRIVER OF SALARY AND EXPENDITURE INCREASES.
[00:30:03]
AND THEN STARTING THAT STARTING BLOCK COMMENT, IT ALSO SAYS TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT OPERATIONAL LEVEL. SO IN THE BASELINE BUDGET, WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE DON'T FACTOR IN STAFF GROWTH LIKE FTE GROWTH AND WE DON'T FACTOR IN CONTINGENCY OPERATING INCREASES.WE START AS IF TODAY WE WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT YEAR AND APPLY SALARY INCREASES, IPD, ETC..
SO THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS JUST SERVES AS A FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION REALLY AROUND SURPLUS OR DEFICIT PROJECTIONS.
AND THEN WE BEGIN NOW AT THIS POINT, WHAT I'M DOING ON A DAILY BASIS AND JASON AND YOU'RE DISCUSSING IS HOW TO REFINE THAT DOWN TO A REAL END STATE BUDGET AND THAT NOW THAT WE HAVE THE DETAILS, WE'RE HARD AT WORK BETWEEN NOW AND JULY.
SO WHAT YOU SEE IS THE BASELINE FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
REALLY, WHAT I FOCUS ON IS THAT DEFICIT NUMBER AND THE DEFICIT NUMBER THAT'S NOT SHOWING ANYMORE ON OUR WHITE SCREEN.
BUT RIGHT IN THERE, $5.6 MILLION.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE REVENUES AND THE EXPENDITURES WILL BE REFINED.
IN FACT, THIS WEEK THE STATE HAS JUST OPENED UP THE THE STATE REVENUE MODEL, THE F 203, WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY SEE YOU PUT THE REAL NUMBERS IN AND REFINE THAT.
WE HAVE PRETTY GOOD CONFIDENCE IN OUR LOCAL REVENUE AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE REFINING ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE.
THAT REALLY COMES DOWN TO LOOKING AT STAFFING NOW, REALLY GRINDING INTO STAFFING.
WE'VE ALREADY APPLIED SALARY INCREASES AND AND STEP ROLES, THAT TYPE OF THING, BUT THE REAL HARD WORK OF REFINING THAT.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE, WE'RE PROJECTING RIGHT NOW $5.6 MILLION IN DEFICIT.
AGAIN, THAT NUMBER WILL CHANGE.
BUT WHAT THAT LEADS US TO IS A BASELINE BUDGET OF 10.3% ENDING FUND BALANCE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT AS ALWAYS, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT, VERY IMPORTANT, IS THAT SALARIES AND BENEFITS ARE 88.6% OF OUR BASELINE BUDGET.
IT IS IT MEANS THAT ON THE SUPPLIES AND OTHER OPERATING COSTS, MOVE THE NEEDLE VERY LITTLE WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO ADJUST THINGS AND ALIGN THINGS.
SO THAT'S A BIG TAKEAWAY FOR US.
ANY QUESTIONS ON OUR STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY SO STAFFING, THIS DOESN'T WANT TO WORK FOR ME.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE TONE OF MY VOICE.
I DON'T HAVE THE NAVAL OFFICER VOICE APPARENTLY, THIS IS ONLY FOR NAVAL OFFICERS.
SO IN LOOKING AT OUR STUDENTS TO STAFF RATIOS ACROSS DIFFERENT EMPLOYEE GROUPS BEING ADMINISTRATORS, CERTIFICATED, CLASSIFIED, WE'RE SEEING A GREATER INVESTMENT, OBVIOUSLY, IN OUR TEACHING STAFF ON A PER STUDENT BASIS THAN THAN OUR OTHER EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES.
AND HERE'S KIND OF SOME SLIDES THAT KIND OF LEAD TO THIS.
THIS ONE IS OF MARGINAL INFORMATION JUST BECAUSE IT'S OVERALL FTE AND THESE EMPLOYEE GROUPS ARE VERY DIFFERENT IN SIZE, OBVIOUSLY FROM 27 AND, YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATIVE UNWRAP ALL THE WAY UP TO 460.
SO IT'S BETTER TO LOOK AT THINGS NOT JUST IN TOTAL FTE BUT TO LOOK AT STUDENT TO STAFF RATIO. IT BECOMES MORE MEANINGFUL.
AND THE WAY TO KIND OF INTERPRET THESE GRAPHS IS THE LARGER THE BAR, THE BETTER YOUR RATIO EFFECTIVELY IS.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHER STAFF.
SO IT GOT PRETTY LOW LAST YEAR.
AND THEN THIS YEAR WE KIND OF GOT BACK TO WHERE WE NORMALLY WERE AS FAR AS FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.
AND THEN ADMINISTRATIVE UNREP.
THESE ARE LIKE OFTEN DISTRICT OFFICE STAFF IN EFFECT, AND SECRETARIAL STAFF.
AGAIN, WE KIND OF GOT BACK TO WHERE WE WERE PRE-COVID.
AND SO WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF VOLATILITY THERE, BUT ACTUALLY WE'VE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO TRY AND ADJUST TO THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT WE'RE SERVING.
CERTIFICATED IS ACTUALLY REALLY KIND OF REMAINED FAIRLY LOW AS FAR AS THE RATIO GOES.
KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS A MUCH LARGER EMPLOYEE GROUP AND SO IT TAKES MORE EMPLOYEES TO KIND OF MOVE THIS METER, IF YOU WILL.
BUT IT HAS IT DROPPED DURING COVID, AND WE'VE KIND OF MAINTAINED THE SAME LEVEL OF STAFFING FOR THE MOST PART IN CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL.
EVEN THOUGH OUR ENROLLMENT HAS DECLINED.
[00:35:04]
CLASSIFIED. YES, SIR.JUST MAKING SURE TO CLARIFY, THAT'S NOT CLASS SIZE, CORRECT? IT FACTORS IN ALL OF OUR CERTS.
GREAT QUESTION. YEAH, GREAT QUESTION.
NO, THIS IS ALL CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF.
AND SO IT DOESN'T BREAK IT OUT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, HOMEROOM OR BASIC ED TEACHERS VERSUS SPED OR SPECIALIST POSITIONS.
DOES THAT DROP THAT WE SEE FROM 19-20 TO 20-21, DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE THE SMALLER CLASS SIZE INITIATIVE THAT PASSED? ARE WE THAT WERE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
YEAH. THE K THREE CLASS SIZE ENHANCEMENT.
WE HAD BEEN ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS, WE WERE ONE OF THE LAST ROUND OF DISTRICTS TO RECEIVE THAT FUNDING AND IT WAS FIRST ROLLED OUT TO HIGH POVERTY DISTRICTS, WHICH WE DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR.
AND SO I WANT TO SAY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO IS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TO QUALIFY FOR THIS FUNDING. AND WE HAD MADE THE DECISION AT THAT TIME, SINCE IT WAS A NEW FUNDING SOURCE AND WE WEREN'T SURE ABOUT THE STATE BUDGET, WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW THE LONGEVITY OF IT.
AND SO WE HAD BEEN KIND OF MAKING PROGRESSIVE STEPS TOWARDS STAFFING TO THAT, TO THAT LEVEL, BECAUSE WHAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IS STAFF TO A LEVEL, HAVE THE FUNDING DISAPPEAR AND HAVE THAT THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO OUR PROGRAM STAFF AND STUDENTS.
AND SO I WOULD SAY IT WAS RIGHT ABOUT IN THAT MCCLEARY YEAR, I WANT TO SAY IS WHEN WE'D KIND OF WE'D PRETTY WELL ACHIEVED AND MAXIMIZED THAT FUNDING THAT YEAR.
SO IT WAS REALLY JUST KIND OF HOLDING ON TO THAT STAFF DURING THE COVID YEARS.
AND THEN CLASSIFIED IS REALLY KIND OF GONE ALONG WITH OUR WITH HER CHANGES IN STUDENT LEVEL. AND PART OF THAT KIND OF MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? YOU HAVE FEWER STUDENTS.
THERE'S THERE'S GOING TO BE FEWER STUDENTS TO FEED FEWER BUS ROUTES, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING. SO.
ANOTHER THING THAT WE STARTED TO KIND OF LOOK AT THIS IS WHAT'S THE AVERAGE SALARY COST PER EMPLOYEE GROUP? AND THIS COMES FROM A DIFFERENT DATA SET.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT IT'S ORGANIZED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY.
BUT TYPICALLY WHERE WE HAVE RANKED IN THE REGION IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE VANCOUVER AND EVERGREEN. AND THAT'S REALLY KIND OF WHERE THE CERTIFICATED ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF HAVE REMAINED DURING THIS COVID TIME PERIOD.
CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF, WE TEND TO WE PAY MORE IN THIS REGION PER PER CERTIFICATED INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF MEMBER THAN ANY OTHER.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS REALLY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE SALARY SCHEDULE.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE PLACEMENT ON THE SALARY SCHEDULE.
WE ALL HAVE PRETTY COMPETITIVE SALARY SCHEDULES, GIVE OR TAKE A FEW THOUSAND HERE OR THERE. THIS VARIABILITY IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCED STAFF THAT HAVE CREDENTIALS THAT PUT THEM KIND OF IN THAT UPPER QUADRANT OF OUR SALARY SCHEDULE.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE OR A BUDGETING PERSPECTIVE, IT JUST MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR THAT, THOSE STAFF MEMBERS THAN OUR NEIGHBORS DO.
THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE EMPLOYEES WHO WANT TO WORK HERE, STAY HERE.
THEY'RE SEASONED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE AT THEIR CRAFT.
SO IT JUST COMES AT A LITTLE AT A HIGHER COST THAN WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE.
YEAH. ERIKA. AND THAT'S BEEN A TREND FOR A LONG TIME.
RIGHT. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED TEACHERS THAT STAY HERE COST TO THE BUDGET.
I THINK IT KIND OF LEADS FOLKS TO WONDER IF THERE'LL BE A GREAT RETIREMENT OR A BIG CHUNK FALLING OFF OF THE BUDGET, IF YOU WILL.
AND I JUST WOULD LOOK TO YOU FOR THAT ANSWER.
BUT ALSO, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SEEMS TO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A TREND FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
YOU KNOW, IT HAS ERIKA WE HAVEN'T SEEN A STRONG UPTICK IN RETIREMENT SO FAR, AT LEAST IN THE PAST TWO YEARS. WE'RE ASSEMBLING THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW GOING INTO NEXT YEAR, YOU KNOW, AND IT TAKES A WHILE FOR PEOPLE TO BE MAKING SOME OF THOSE PLANS.
[00:40:02]
RIGHT. AND SO THERE'S A WINDOW HERE IN WHICH WE'LL START TO SEE MORE INFORMATION COME IN FROM OUR EMPLOYEES ON THAT.THIS HEARKENS BACK TO UNDER THE OLD FUNDING FORMULA.
WE USED TO GET ENHANCED FUNDING OR MORE FUNDING FOR OUR STAFF.
THEY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THEIR PLACEMENT ON THE SALARY SCHEDULE.
THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE UNDER THE NEW MCCLEARY FUNDING FORMULA.
IT'S FUNDED ON AN AVERAGE SALARY, SO THERE IS NO VARIABILITY.
IT'S JUST WE GET THE AVERAGE SALARY AMOUNT FOR HOW MANY EVER FTE THAT THEY FUND AND THERE'S. THERE'S SOME NUANCES TO THAT.
YOU'LL HEAR THE TERM EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
THERE IS THIS EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
WE JUST DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR IT.
IT IS KIND OF TOWARDS THE END OF THIS SLIDE DECK.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE CAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF AND ADVOCATING FOR AS AS THE STATE IS EVALUATING THE EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET SOME RELIEF IN THIS AREA.
IT WAS ONE OF THE IT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST OUTCOMES OF MCCLEARY FOR CAMAS WAS THIS VERY THING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE WE KEPT ALL THOSE STAFF EVEN THOUGH THE FUNDING FORMULA CHANGED, WE, WE KEPT EVERYBODY SO.
CLASSIFIED IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE REGION.
WE ARE TECHNICALLY AT THE VERY TOP, BUT NOT BY MUCH VANCOUVER IS WITHIN $1,500 OR SO.
ACTUALLY, ALL EVERYONE IS PRETTY DARN CLOSE.
THIS THIS IS PRETTY AMAZING BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT QUITE A VARIABILITY IN SIZE OF DISTRICTS HERE, YOU KNOW, FROM 1,500 STUDENTS TO I DON'T KNOW 25,000 IN EVERGREEN OR SO I'D IMAGINE SO THIS IS A PRETTY TIGHTLY PACKED AND COMPETITIVE LABOR MARKET IS WHAT THAT TELLS YOU.
SO WE'RE ALL VYING FOR BUS DRIVERS AND YOU KNOW, EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT ON THIS LIST IS, YOU KNOW, HAS SHORTAGES OF CLASSIFIED STAFF.
IT IS A PROBLEM REGIONALLY IN THIS STATE AND NATIONALLY.
WE HOPE TO SEE A RELIEF IN THIS AREA, YOU KNOW, IN THE COMING PERIOD.
BUT WE JUST WE STILL ARE EXPERIENCING STAFFING SHORTAGES TODAY.
SUPERINTENDENT BUDGET COMMITTEE CONSIDERATIONS.
HOW ARE WE DOING ON TIME? ANYBODY NEED A BREAK? CAN YOU GO ANOTHER 15 MINUTES? ALL RIGHT. AWESOME.
SO THIS IS SUPERINTENDENTS VISION.
OR YOU COULD CALL THIS JEFF'S VISION.
YEARS AGO, HE PUT TOGETHER THIS SLIDE, AND I'VE JUST KEPT IT.
AND THIS REALLY KIND OF SPEAKS TO THAT SUPERINTENDENT BUDGET COMMITTEE AND IT'S NOT ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS IT'S NOT AN ATTEMPT.
IT'S REALLY ABOUT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF CAN'T DELEGATE IT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COME UP WITH A BUDGET.
THE SCHOOL BOARD CAN'T DELEGATE ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROVE A BUDGET.
YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR.
AND SO BUT IT'S REALLY ABOUT JUST ENGAGING SOME KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND BRINGING THEM ALONG IN THIS JOURNEY.
AND WE'VE INVESTED VERY HEAVILY IN TRANSPARENCY OF OUR DISTRICT FINANCES.
CASE IN POINT, WITH WITH WITH MATT HERE, HE'S HE'S WELCOMED IN A NEW ERA OF TRANSPARENCY THAT WE HAVE NEVER HAD PREVIOUSLY.
AND ACTUALLY, I WOULD SAY THERE'S NOT MANY DISTRICTS IN THE ENTIRE STATE THAT ARE AS TRANSPARENT AS US.
HE'S MADE SOME AMAZING IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR BUDGET WEBSITE.
MAYBE YOU EVEN. WELL, WE HAD SOMEWHAT OF A WEBSITE, BUT.
IT'S A REAL ONE NOW AND [LAUGHTER].
WELL, NO, THAT FALLS ON BUSINESS SERVICES, I WILL SAY NOT NOT ON COMMUNICATIONS.
SO BUT NO, THIS IS REALLY BEEN IMPORTANT.
AND THIS COMMITTEE, I EXPECT JOHN WILL WILL WANT TO CONTINUE IT.
SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO WELCOMING HIM INTO THAT LOOP.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THEY'RE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROVIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO
[00:45:05]
THE SUPERINTENDENT. THEY'RE NOT RECOMMENDATIONS.THAT'S ULTIMATELY THAT'S THE SUPERINTENDENT'S JOB TO RECOMMEND TO THE SCHOOL BOARD HEY, I'M RECOMMENDING X, Y OR Z IN THE BUDGET, AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET.
THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A SCHOOL BOARD.
AND THEY DON'T BUILD THE BUDGET.
THAT'S OUR JOB HERE IN BUSINESS SERVICES.
AND SO IT REALLY IS STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
BUT THEY THEY THEY MAKE US BETTER.
THEIR QUESTIONS PREPARE US FOR MEETINGS LIKE THIS.
I CHALLENGE YOU? THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT YOU COULD ASK THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN ASKED BY THEM. THEY'RE VERY INSIGHTFUL, AND THAT'S GOOD.
IT PUSHES US TO RESEARCH THINGS.
OKAY. THIS IS KIND OF THE THE BUDGET CYCLE THAT WE LOOK AT AND.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE CONSTANTLY IN SOME BUDGET MODE, EITHER PREPARING, ADOPTING OR ANALYZING EVERY SINGLE MONTH.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, HERE IN APRIL, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING FOR KIND OF A RANGE OF OUTCOMES. THE BUDGET COMMITTEES COMING UP WITH THEIR CONSIDERATIONS.
WE'RE STARTING TO REALLY SETTLE IN ON THE NEXT YEAR AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.
WE HAVE SOME STATUTORY NOTICE DEADLINES THAT WE HAVE TO NOTIFY OUR STAFF ABOUT THE INCOMING YEAR, AND THAT'S COMING UP IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS IN MAY AND JUNE.
AND SO SOME OF THESE BUDGET DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE WELL IN ADVANCE OF WHEN WE ACTUALLY ADOPT THE BUDGET IN AUGUST.
THIS IS NOT NEW. THIS IS JUST JUST THE NORMAL COURSE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. SO THE KIND OF CULMINATING DISCUSSION FOR FOR THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WAS ON FUND BALANCE, FOUR YEAR BUDGET SCENARIOS.
BASICALLY THERE ARE THREE LEAVERS IN OUR IN OUR FOUR YEAR BUDGET SCENARIO.
AND IT'S AROUND USE OF FUND BALANCE.
A COMMITMENT TO COST CONTAINMENT IN FUTURE YEARS.
AND THEN WHAT SORT OF BUDGET CUTS MIGHT WE ENTERTAIN IN OVER THE SAME FOUR YEAR PERIOD? AND SO WE REALLY PUSHED ON EACH OF THESE.
YOU KNOW, IN BUSINESS THERE WOULD BE A FOURTH BASICALLY REVENUES.
RIGHT. BUT WE WE HAVE A LIMITED ABILITY IN INFLUENCING OUR REVENUE PORTFOLIO.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT WE HAVE.
RIGHT. AND WE HAVE A DEMOGRAPHERS STUDY WHICH GAVE US REALLY GOOD A GOOD STARTING POINT.
AND THERE IS REALLY NO NEED OR WE COULDN'T SEE ANY ANY ANY REASON TO VARY FROM THAT FORECAST. SO WE FEEL LIKE THE REVENUE FORECAST IS PRETTY SOLID.
SO IT'S REALLY ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE AND FUND BALANCE.
AND THIS IS REALLY WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH.
THEY WERE REALLY LOOKING AT USING FUND BALANCE PRETTY HEAVILY IN THE FIRST OF THE FOUR YEARS AND THEN LESS IN THOSE OUT YEARS.
AND PART OF THAT I DIDN'T PUT ON THIS SLIDE, BUT BUT PART OF THE FEEDBACK WAS OR RATIONALE AROUND THAT IS WE'RE KIND OF STILL IN THIS.
AND SO IT MAKES IT KIND OF DIFFICULT AT TIMES TO KIND OF PLANT YOUR FOOT AND GO, OKAY, THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING, RIGHT? WE NOW KNOW DEFINITIVELY WHAT OUR OPERATIONS ARE GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT RIGHT NOW.
AND SO USING FUND BALANCE GIVES US SOME FLEXIBILITY, YOU KNOW, AN ABILITY TO NOT MAKE ANY SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM CHANGES AND MAINTAIN OUR OPERATIONAL LEVEL AT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. THE OTHER THING THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER WAS ABOUT TARGET FUND BALANCE, AND THIS WAS THE TARGET TEN MINIMUM OF EIGHT.
COST CONTAINMENT. SO COST CONTAINMENT, WHAT THAT MEANS IS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT WHERE YOU'RE AVOIDING FUTURE COSTS OR YOU'RE REDUCING YOUR OBLIGATIONS IN THE FUTURE? SO IT'S NOT LIKE CUTTING, IF YOU WILL.
IT'S IT'S MORE ALONG THE LINES OF CONTAINING COSTS GOING FORWARD.
SO IT'S A VERY FORWARD THINKING APPROACH.
[00:50:04]
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE REALLY WANTED OR WAS RECOMMENDING THAT NOT RECOMMENDING.RIGHT. WAS SUGGESTING THAT COST CONTAINMENT BE A PRIORITY FOR THE ORGANIZATION THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE ONCE YOU KIND OF USED FUND BALANCE IN THAT FIRST YEAR, COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES SHOULD TAKE OVER FROM HERE ON OUT.
AND THEY RECOGNIZED THE IMPACT THAT BUDGET CUTS HAVE ON STAFF AND STUDENTS.
AND SO SOME OF THE SCENARIOS THAT WE WENT THROUGH WOULD RESULT IN BUDGET CUTS, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
WELL, THAT'S PRETTY DEMORALIZING, OBVIOUSLY, FOR STAFF AND FOR AN ORGANIZATION TO GO THROUGH. SO THEY WERE VERY MINDFUL OF THAT.
DIDN'T REALLY HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SMART BUNCH.
AND THEN BUDGET CUTS, THEY REALLY WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, AVOID BUDGET CUTS WHERE POSSIBLE, TRY TO UTILIZE FUND BALANCE AND COST CONTAINMENT LEVERS, YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU REALLY START TO LOOK AT LOOKING AT DOING BUDGET CUTS.
SO. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? KIND OF THOSE THREE LEVERS.
THEY ALSO HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY WANTED TO OFFER.
USUALLY AROUND, YOU KNOW, BALANCE THE BUDGET.
BY THAT FOURTH YEAR, I THINK NO ONE WAS COMFORTABLE GOING FOUR YEARS OUT WITHOUT A BALANCED BUDGET. AS I MENTIONED, UTILIZING FUND BALANCE, THEY HONED IN ON, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO COST CONTAINMENT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH YOUR FUTURE LABOR CONTRACTS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED TO MAKE YOU KNOW.
MAKE SURE THAT THE POINT WAS MADE THAT IF THAT'S IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE CHARGING STAFF WITH, IF IT'S FOLLOWED ALL THE WAY THROUGH BECAUSE THEY VIEW IT AS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T. IF YOU DON'T UPHOLD THOSE COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES THAT YOU HAD COMMITTED TO, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP RIGHT BACK AT BUDGET CUTS, WHICH YOU'RE TRYING TO AVOID. AND SO THAT THAT WAS KIND OF THAT FULL CIRCLE THOUGHT PROCESS FOR THEM.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
DEFINITELY RETAIN RETAIN EMPLOYEES IS PREFERABLE, YOU KNOW, AND THEN IF REVENUES MATERIALIZE, YOU CAN PASS THAT ON.
BUT IF IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN IT'S TOUGH TO GIVE GIVE MONEY TO SOMEONE WHO YOU'VE ALREADY CUT.
RIGHT. SO IF YOU COULD RETAIN THEM AND THE REVENUE PICTURE AND, YOU KNOW, IMPROVES, THAT'S THAT'S GOOD.
HAVE THEY MENTIONED ADJUST BOUNDARIES TO BETTER UTILIZE SCHOOL FACILITIES.
AND I AND I SAID, WELL, THIS WILL PLAY WELL INTO OUR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN THAT WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT LATER, WHERE WE WHERE WE TALK ABOUT KIND OF THAT STUDENT LOAD AT EACH OF OUR SCHOOLS. THEY THEY THEY PROVIDED THIS FEEDBACK WITH WITH SOME.
WITH AN OBVIOUS RECOGNITION OF THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH A MOVE.
SO. BUT REALLY THE SPIRIT OF IT MADE SENSE, RIGHT? IF YOU COULD BALANCE YOUR STUDENT LOAD ACROSS SCHOOLS, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY USE YOUR STAFF MORE EFFICIENTLY.
RIGHT. AND AND SO THE CONCEPT DOES HAVE SOME MERIT.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, TOO, BUT THERE YOU NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF PASSING A LEVY IN 2024.
SO THAT'S FEBRUARY 2024 IS OUR NEXT LEVY.
AND AND THAT PLAYED OUT IN SOME OF THE SCENARIOS SCENARIO ONE THROUGH SIX THAT I PROVIDED. THERE WAS TO BE NO CUTS FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR AND THAT WAS TIED DIRECTLY BACK TO THE LEVY. SO MEANING.
IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE PUBLIC FOR APPROVAL OF A LEVY, THAT'S NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH YOU SAY THANK YOU AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO CUT PROGRAMS. THE MESSAGING JUST DOESN'T DOESN'T WORK.
SO THAT WAS ALWAYS A CONSTANT IN EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO THAT WE ENTERTAINED.
YES. BACK WHEN MCCLEARY CAME INTO OUR LIVES, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT LOCAL LEVY FUNDING COULD NOT BE USED TO FUND BASIC EDUCATION.
IT'S SOLVING PART OF OUR PROBLEM, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT WHAT'S THE CURRENT STATUS ON HOW WE USE THOSE THOSE LEVY DOLLARS? HOW WE CAN USE THOSE LEVY DOLLARS.
I'M CONCERNED THAT. IT MAY NOT BE AS MUCH AN ABILITY TO FIX A PROBLEM BY VIRTUE OF THE
[00:55:06]
STATE'S RESTRICTIONS ON HOW AND WHAT WE CAN USE THOSE FUNDS FOR.SO THE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION CAME OUT ON THIS VERY ISSUE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. BUT HE REALLY SUMMED IT UP AS YOU CAN USE LEVY FOR WHATEVER THE STATE DOESN'T PAY FOR.
AND THAT WAS REALLY THE POSITION OSPI TOOK AND.
AND WE PUT THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE IN THERE IN OUR IN OUR LEVY PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED TO OSPI LAST TIME THAT WE, WE WENT OUT FOR A VOTE AND THEY APPROVED IT.
AND THAT SEEMS TO HAVE HELD UP WITH THE MOST RECENT TEST OF TIME OF REVIEWS AND AUDITS AND QUESTIONS AROUND THAT.
IT. IT'S JUST A YOU KNOW, IT'S INTEGRAL TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN THIS STATE THAT LEVY.
I MEAN, IT'S PART OF THAT OPERATIONAL RESOURCE.
THE TUNE HAS CHANGED AND NOT AS RESTRICTIVE.
AND THAT KIND OF BEGS THE QUESTION OF HOW DO WE COMPARE ON OUR RATE, OUR MILITARY? RELATIVE TO OUR LOCAL NEIGHBORS.
I THINK THAT'LL. THAT WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE CARRYING A FAIR AND PROPORTIONATE OR NOT RELATIVE TO OTHERS.
WE CAMAS TYPICALLY IS HIGHEST IN THE REGION AS FAR AS TAX RATE.
WITH WITH ASSESSED VALUE GOING AT THE DIRECTION THAT IT HAS.
I THINK THAT WE WERE PRETTY CONSERVATIVE ON OUR ASSESSED VALUE ASSUMPTIONS.
AND SO LOOKING AT THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, THE TAX RATES ACTUALLY DROPPED, YOU KNOW, AND SO WE HAD KIND OF ANTICIPATED, IF YOU RECALL, AND KIND OF OUR LEVY MATERIALS THAT WE WOULD BE AT THAT $2.50 FOR THE E.P.A.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, PART OF THAT WAS VERY PURPOSEFUL.
WE WANTED TO WE DIDN'T WANT TO OVERPROMISE.
RIGHT. AND SO WE WERE CONSERVATIVE ON OUR ASSESSED VALUE ASSUMPTIONS.
SOME OF THE DEBT HAS DROPPED OFF.
RIGHT. AND SO THAT RATE DECLINED.
AND SO IT'S I WOULD SAY WE'RE NOT QUITE AS YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY STILL HIGHEST IN THE REGION, BUT NOT BY AS LARGE A MARGIN AS IN IN YEARS PAST.
HAVE YOU EVER LOOKED AT? I'M TRYING TO THINK.
YEAH. ON THE FIRST LINE ITEM BALANCE.
THE BUDGET IN THE 2526 YEAR WAS ANYONE THE BUDGET COMMITTEE PUSHING TO DO SOONER THAN THAT BECAUSE LIKE WE'RE SAYING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET FOR FOUR YEARS.
THAT'S A LONG TIME. AND DID ANYONE SAY, HEY, CAN WE DO THAT A YEAR SOONER? OR WERE THEY ALL OKAY WITH FOUR YEARS TO GET THERE? YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
AND YOU KNOW, I ASKED THAT VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION, YOU KNOW, THAT.
YOU KNOW, NOT. THERE HAS TO BE AN EXPECTATION THAT WE BALANCE THE BUDGET IN A IN A GIVEN YEAR. I KNOW IN MY KIND OF BREAKOUT MEETINGS WITH DIFFERENT MEMBERS, THERE IS SOME CONCERN AROUND THAT.
IF. AT LEAST THROUGH THEIR LENS IF IT WAS AN ISSUE.
AND I WOULD THINK THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS THAT KIND OF YOUR EXPERIENCE TOO? MATT THERE WAS A LOT OF I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND THAT AND AROUND THE VARIABLES IN THE MODEL, WHICH WE'LL PROBABLY SEE LATER AND HOW YOU CAN MANIPULATE THOSE TO GET TO YOUR END STATE.
AND I THINK SOME OF THE THE DEEPER LEVEL DISCUSSION WAS WHEN YOU START PLAYING WITH THOSE, WHAT WHAT HAPPENS CAN YOU GET THERE WHEN WHEN YOU KNOW, AND IT WAS ALL ABOUT TRADE OFFS, I THINK, TO A LARGE DEGREE TRADE OFFS IN THE NEAR-TERM VERSUS THE LONG TERM.
DOUG, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THE OTHER VARIABLE OF THAT, TRACEY, IS THE UNCERTAINTY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING. AND SO PEOPLE THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, IN MOST ORGANIZATIONS, FOUR YEARS IS NOT THAT
[01:00:03]
FAR OUT AND WE SHOULD KNOW THAT IT SHOULD BE A CRYSTAL BALL.BUT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS OF THESE UNCERTAINTY AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH REGIONALIZATION, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT LATER AND WHAT JASON ALLUDED TO WAS THE STAFF MIX.
AND SO I THINK THE CONCERN FROM THE GROUP THAT I SPENT MOST TIME WITH WAS REALLY MAKING SURE THAT NEXT YEAR, KNOWING WE'RE STILL IN A PANDEMIC AND COMING OUT HOPEFULLY OF THAT, OUR STUDENTS IN A COMMUNITY AND OUR STAFF ARE STILL GOING TO NEED QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT THAT WE'RE NOT WE CAN'T JUST GO BACK TO PRE-PANDEMIC AS FAR AS WELL THIS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. I THINK THERE WAS RECOGNITION OF THE VALUE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A BALANCED BUDGET, BUT IN UNDERSTANDING OF NOT DOING PRIORITIZING THE TRADE OFFS, LIKE MATT SAID, BUT IT WAS A PRIORITIZATION OF NEXT YEAR TRYING TO STAY LEVEL AND THE SAME WITHOUT DIPS.
I KNOW THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE TRADE OFFS FOR THOSE THINGS.
I WAS JUST LOOKING IN AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT LATER WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PLAY WITH THE NUMBERS ON THAT.
IS THERE AN OPTION THAT BALANCES IT SOONER? BECAUSE AS A BUSINESS OWNER, I STRUGGLE.
HAVING A FOUR YEAR TO GET TO A POSITIVE AS A AS MY OWN.
I CAN OPERATE THAT WAY I GUESS SO.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET THERE SOONER OR NOT? AND I'M OKAY WITH THE TRADE OFFS OF HOW WE GET THERE.
BUT THAT'S A BIG THING. WELL, AND I THINK THAT WILL EXPECT TO SEE SO MANY VARIABLES THAT WE'RE NOT BETTING ON TODAY THAT WILL HAPPEN.
COMING UP IS WHAT WE UNDERSTAND.
BUT IT'S STILL AND ALSO RESPECTING THAT THE UNCOMFORTABLENESS OF NOT BALANCING IT HAVING IT LAID OUT LIKE THAT AND NOT BETTING OR COUNTING ON THOSE VARIABLES TO COME IN AND SWOOP, BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE SOME VARIABLES.
SO THEN PRIORITIZING THAT NEXT YEAR AND AND MOVING FORWARD IN THAT WAY WITH THAT DEAL.
I ALSO THINK THERE'S SOME MERIT IN SHOWING OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AS WELL THAT LOOK AT ALL WE HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THIS IN ORDER TO GET THIS TO BALANCE, YOUR FUNDING MODEL IS STILL COMPLETELY OUT OF WHACK.
SO I KIND OF I HESITATE MAKING US TAKE ALL IT ON, ALL OF THAT NEGATIVE BURDEN OF THAT, WHEN REALLY, AGAIN, WE CAN'T CONTROL IT.
LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, WE CAN'T CONTROL OUR REVENUES.
AND IT'S A LOT OF IT IS A REVENUE SIDE, I UNDERSTAND, TO FROM AN EXPENDITURE SIDE, 88% OF OF OUR BUDGET BEING STAFFING IS A BIG NUMBER TOO.
BUT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE VOLATILITY THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. IT.
I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF A FOUR YEAR BUDGET SCENARIO THAT FOURTH YEAR.
JUST I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH, AGAIN, FOR GOING TO CONTINGENCIES AND CONFIDENCE AND ALL THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I TRUST WHAT THAT FOURTH YEAR WILL, IF THAT WILL ACTUALLY MATERIALIZE.
AND I GET THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT THOUGHT OF SHOW THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, HEY, LOOK, THIS IS WHAT WE CAN'T BUDGET WE CAN'T BALANCE THIS IN FOUR YEARS.
RIGHT. THAT HAS SOME SOME WEIGHT TO IT.
RIGHT. WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO OLYMPIA ASKING FOR THESE THINGS.
SO SO I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.
SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL WORKING THROUGH THIS, RIGHT? AND I KNOW WE ALL HAVE A HARD TIME WITH NOT BALANCING A BUDGET IN FOUR YEARS.
RIGHT. THAT'S A THAT'S A HARD THING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT AND TO VOTE ON.
RIGHT. SO HOW DO WE GET THERE AND WHAT ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH DOING? AND SO I THINK WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE THERE CONSIDERATIONS WERE SHOW THE WORK IN HAVING THE EXPENDITURES IN REVENUE PAYS EACH OTHER A LITTLE BIT MORE IN LINE WITH EACH OTHER TO SHOW THAT EFFORT THEN MAYBE THEY WON'T LINE UP AND [INAUDIBLE] BUT SHOW THAT SHOW THAT WORK. DID I INTERPRET THAT RIGHT AS WELL? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
I MEAN, THEY REALLY SAW THE THE NEED TO ALIGN OUR EXPENDITURE GROWTH WITH OUR REVENUE.
I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT IN BALANCING THE BUDGET.
AND WE HAVE SOME TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME FUND BALANCE AND WE HAVE A FEW OPTIONS.
WE CAN WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO SOME BUDGET CUTS.
WE CAN UTILIZE FUND BALANCE THAT WILL BUY US SOME TIME.
WE'VE GOT TO CONTAIN COSTS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE FUND BALANCE IS A ONE TIME THING.
[01:05:07]
YOU KNOW, IT'S A ONE TIME SOLUTION AND BUDGET CUTS ARE PRETTY PAINFUL.SO YEAH, WE ARE KIND OF WE ARE APPROACHING THIS KIND OF NEW AGE, RIGHT, FOR CAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE KIND OF WENT OVER THAT ENROLLMENT STUFF PRETTY FAST. BUT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH JUST BIRTH RATES ARE DOWN.
RIGHT. THE COST OF HOUSING IS VERY EXPENSIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
SO WE CANNOT EXPECT TO SEE 2.5% ANNUAL GROWTH IN ENROLLMENT IN THE FUTURE UNLESS SOMETHING SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES.
SO WE WERE ALREADY ON A PATHWAY TO FOR ENROLLMENT TO SLOW DOWN.
AND AND THAT WAS GOING TO CHANGE OUR REVENUE CURVE RIGHT THERE.
THEN THERE WAS MCCLEARY, THEN THERE WAS COVID.
SO YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT WAS MAYBE KIND OF SLOWLY SLOWING DOWN.
AND THEN WE GOT TWO PRETTY BIG EVENTS.
AND SO IT'S PUT A SHOCK TO OUR SYSTEM.
AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE LIKE, WHAT DO YOU REACT TO IMMEDIATELY AND WHAT DO YOU DECIDE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO MATERIALIZE? AND TO COREY'S POINT, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, CAN WE SOLVE ALL OF THE ALL OF THE STATE'S DEFICIENCIES? AND, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY NOT.
AND BUT COMING BACK TO YOUR POINT, TRACEY, YOU KNOW, IN MY POSITION.
IT. IT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD TO PRESENT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ANY BUDGET THAT DOESN'T BALANCE.
RIGHT. AND AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYONE IN THE ORGANIZATION THAT'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. BUT I THINK BEING TRANSPARENT AND OPEN ABOUT IT AND DISCUSSING, OKAY, WELL, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO AS AN ORGANIZATION? AND I THINK IT REALLY COMES, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY IT WILL COME FROM SCHOOL BOARD DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU EXPECT STAFF TO TO WHAT ARE THOSE GUARDRAILS OR TARGETS THAT YOU HAVE FOR US.
AND IT'S OUR JOB TO TURN THAT VISION INTO ACTION.
SO. IF IT WERE THE SCHOOL BOARD'S DESIRE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.
YOU KNOW, IN YEAR THREE AS OPPOSED TO YEAR FOUR.
OKAY. WELL, THEN THAT'S OUR JOB TO FIGURE THAT OUT, RIGHT? BUT THERE'S THERE'S TRADE OFFS EITHER WAY.
AND DO WE WANT TO DO A QUICK BREAK? ALL RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE PRESIDENT, BUT LET'S JUST SAY 10 MINUTES OR SO, COME BACK AT 5:48.
ALL RIGHT. WELCOME BACK TO THE BUDGET OR EXCUSE ME, THE BOARD WORKSHOP FOR, WHAT IS IT, APRIL 18TH, 2022.
OKAY. GAIL, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, CAN YOU PUT A PULL UP THE SCENARIOS PDF WE'RE GOING TO JUMP RIGHT INTO THE FOUR YEAR MODEL AND YES, THE OPTIONS.
SO WE'RE GOING TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE PRESENTATION AND KIND OF GET RIGHT TO THE MODEL BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE KIND OF SET ENOUGH BACKGROUND AND COVERED ENOUGH THERE.
SO LET'S TIME TO GET TO SOME OF THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES.
THERE WERE THREE EXCUSE ME, THERE WERE SIX DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT I'D PUT TOGETHER, AND THERE WERE REALLY KIND OF TWO SETS WITHIN.
SO SCENARIO ONE THROUGH THREE KIND OF WENT TOGETHER IN SCENARIO FOUR THROUGH SIX WENT TOGETHER AND WE DISCUSSED THESE VERY SAME ONES ACTUALLY WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.
THEY WERE THEY WERE GREAT TEST SUBJECTS FOR THIS FOR THE BUDGET, FOR THE WORKSHOP TONIGHT. SO AND I THINK IT REALLY WORKED WELL TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AROUND THESE OPTIONS AND SCENARIOS.
BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S SO MANY MOVING PARTS HERE THAT I THINK.
YOU KNOW, MATT AND I LIVED THIS STUFF, BUT IF YOU'RE COMING INTO IT COLD, SOMETIMES IT CAN BE INTIMIDATING.
WELL, WHAT DO I DO? AND WHAT IF I BREAK THE MODEL? YOU KNOW, IT'S OKAY.
WE'RE HERE TO TELL YOU IF YOU BROKE IT AND TO FIX IT.
BUT GAIL. GAIL WILL GET THESE THESE SCENARIOS UP.
SCENARIO ONE, ONE THROUGH THREE.
THAT WAS REALLY LOOKING AT IF WE HAD CERTAIN CONSTANTS.
[01:10:03]
IF YOU CAN GO TO PROBABLY THE SECOND PAGE, PLEASE.GO AHEAD AND SCROLL DOWN MAYBE THE THIRD PAGE.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR MODEL HERE, WE'VE HAD CERTAIN CONSTANTS AND THE CONSTANTS ARE WHERE THE BLUE ARROWS ARE.
AND SO I MENTIONED LIKE NOT HAVING CUTS FOR THAT LEVY YEAR, THAT'S THAT 24-25 YEAR.
SO RIGHT HERE IS THE IS THE LINE FOR BUDGET CUTS.
ALSO HERE WAS A CONSTANT IN THESE OPTIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE WAS THAT EXPENDITURE GROWTH WOULD WOULD COME DOWN FROM TRADITIONALLY 8%, 6% GO 5 4 3 AND SLOWLY THROTTLE DOWN 1% A YEAR.
THE OTHER CONSTANT IN SCENARIO ONE THROUGH THREE IS THAT.
THIS BUDGET, WE WOULD EFFECTIVELY NOT BE USING FUND BALANCE IN YEAR FOUR.
THE BUDGET WOULD BALANCE AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT UP HERE.
SO IN YOUR GALLEY, YOU CAN'T SEE THIS THING, CAN YOU.
MY LITTLE POINTER IS NOT WORKING SO.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT BALANCED BUDGET REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ARE BASICALLY THE SAME.
SO THE VARIABLE THAT WE PLAYED WITH ON THIS IS HOW MUCH IN FUND BALANCE WOULD YOU USE POTENTIALLY IN THAT YEAR, THAT FIRST YEAR, 22-23 AND OPTION ONE WAS $2 MILLION, OPTION THREE WAS $3 MILLION AND OPTION THREE WAS $3 MILLION.
SO THE ULTIMATELY, I'LL SAY THE DOWNSIDE TO ALL OF THESE OPTIONS IS REALLY THE CUTS.
I THINK I JUST DID THAT WITH A YEAH.
YOU'RE HAVING CUTS IN THREE OF THE FOUR YEARS.
AND IF YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT, THAT'S PRETTY PAINFUL.
THAT'S PRETTY DEMORALIZING FOR STAFF.
IT'S PAINFUL TO GO THROUGH AS AN ORGANIZATION.
AND SO REALLY THE KIND OF THE VARIATION THAT YOU END UP WITH, IT'S WORKING.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU USE A LITTLE BIT MORE FUND BALANCE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CUT QUITE AS DEEP IN THAT FIRST YEAR, BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO CUT IN THOSE OUT YEARS.
AND THAT'S AGAIN, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE ALLOWING EXPENDITURES TO GROW AT THAT 5 4 AND 3%.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE TWO SIDES OF THE COIN HERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PREFERABLE.
ANY QUESTIONS AROUND THOSE THREE OPTIONS? OKAY. CAN YOU SCROLL THAT A LITTLE BIT? IT'S JUST THE OTHER WAY.
SO, OPTION FOUR, AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE SOME OF THE SAME CONSTANTS.
NO CUTS IN 24-25, BALANCING THE BUDGET IN 25-26.
BUT IN OPTION FOUR THROUGH SIX, WE START TO PLAY WITH THAT EXPENDITURE GROWTH AS WELL AS HOW MUCH IN FUND BALANCE TO USE IN THAT FIRST YEAR.
AND SO THIS WAS KIND OF THROWING OUT DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT SCENARIOS HERE.
BUT THE EXPENDITURE GROWTH IS REALLY THE BIG ONE.
THAT'S WHAT HAS THE BIG IMPACT.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER TERM THAT I KIND OF USE AS FAR AS A LEVER IS COST CONTAINMENT. AND SO IF YOU'RE CONTAINING YOUR COSTS, YOU'RE YOU'RE CONTROLLING THE LEVEL AT WHICH YOUR EXPENDITURES ARE GROWING IN THE FUTURE.
AND SO IF WE'RE INVESTING IN SOME IN COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES, YOU WOULD KEEP THIS AT THREE, TWO OR ONE, WHICH WERE THE THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS HERE.
AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THIS FUND BALANCE LEVER THAT YOU CAN UTILIZE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT'S NOT NOTEWORTHY THAT IF YOU EVEN AT AN EXPENDITURE GROWTH OF 3%, YOU'RE HAVING TO GO UNDER OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME CUTS IN THREE OF THOSE FOUR YEARS.
[01:15:02]
AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THAT'S A TOUGH PILL TO SWALLOW.CAN YOU GO TO OPTION FIVE, PLEASE? THIS IS WHERE I THINK THE WATER STARTS TO CLEAR A LITTLE.
SKIP OVER THIS ONE I WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS.
THERE WE GO. THIS IS WHERE THINGS START TO CLEAR UP A LITTLE BIT.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IF YOU CAN CONTAIN COSTS TO 2% GROWTH, SUDDENLY, ALL RIGHT, YOU'RE ONLY CUTTING BASICALLY TWO OF THE FOUR YEARS.
THIS IS A PRETTY HEAVY INVESTMENT AND FUND BALANCE AT $4 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR.
YOU STILL DO SOME CUTS AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A SECOND YEAR OF CUTS, BUT THEN YOU CAN PRETTY WELL KIND OF FEATHER THIS THING OUT.
AND EVEN WHEN I LOOK AT YOU TALK ABOUT BALANCING THE BUDGET.
TRACEY WAS MENTIONING THAT EARLIER.
EVEN IN 24-25, WE'RE LOOKING AT USING FUND BALANCE OF 1.2 MILLION.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WITHIN WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A STANDARD DEVIATION OF ERROR.
RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING OUT THREE YEARS.
TO POTENTIALLY BE OFF BY 1.2 OR IN OTHER WORDS, GIVE ME THREE YEARS TO FIND $1.2 MILLION.
RIGHT. SO I THINK THIS IS WHERE THINGS START TO CLEAR UP, LIKE, OKAY.
IT JUST TAKES A COMMITMENT TO THE COST CONTAINMENT.
STILL USING FUND BALANCE, THERE'S THERE'S REALLY NO WAY AROUND THAT.
AND FRANKLY, I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S GOOD TO USE FUND BALANCE.
LIKE WE DON'T NEED TO CARRY $18 MILLION.
WE CAN CARRY A LOWER FUND BALANCE THAN THAT.
SO I THINK WE'RE ACHIEVING MULTIPLE GOALS WITH THIS PARTICULAR OPTION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO OPTION FIVE? GAIL THANK YOU. THIS GETS INTO THE REALM WHERE WE'RE REALLY STRONGLY MAKING EVEN A FURTHER COMMITMENT TO EXPENDITURE GROWTH OF 1%.
AND HERE YOU REALLY ONLY DOING CUTS ONE YEAR AND AND THEN YOU'RE RELYING ON FUND BALANCE AGAIN. WE'RE RIGHT IN THAT $1.3 MILLION REALM IN YEAR THREE.
WE COULD PROBABLY WE CAN PROBABLY BRIDGE THAT GAP BY THEN.
SO KIND OF THE SHORT THE SHORT STORY IS REALLY OPTIONED FIVE AND SIX, I THINK, PROVIDE SOME OF THE MORE APPEALING ASPECTS OR OPTIONS.
SOME OF THE OTHERS COME WITH RISKS OR CONSEQUENCES THAT MIGHT BE TOO MUCH FOR THE ORGANIZATION TO REALLY TAKE ON WHEN YOU CAN.
WHEN YOU HAVE. YOU KNOW, OTHER PATHWAYS THAT YOU COULD TAKE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ANY QUESTIONS? DID THAT CONNIE OR ERIKA TO YOU THIS LAST BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING, DID THAT KIND OF PROPERLY ENCAPSULATE WHAT THE WHAT THE THE COMMITTEE'S FEEDBACK WAS AND WHAT KIND OF WHAT DIRECTION THEY WERE GOING? THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE A FAIRLY HIGH FUND BALANCE RIGHT NOW AND PART OF THAT IS FOR A RAINY DAY AND IT'S POURING RIGHT NOW.
AND SO TO USE A BIGGER CHUNK OF THAT EARLIER SEEMS LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO, ESPECIALLY WHY WOULD WE SAVE IT WHEN THERE'S UNCERTAINTY OUT IN THE FUTURE THEN AND WE KNOW WE HAVE THE NEED FOR IT RIGHT NOW AND TO TO DO ANY SORT OF CUTTING AT THIS POINT.
IT WOULD BE SUCH A SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM THAT IT WOULD BE TOUGH TO RECOVER FROM.
AND I THINK THE OPTION SIX THEY KEEPING EXPENDITURE GROWTH AT 2% WAS WHAT WAS PLAYED AROUND WITH BUT EVEN USING MORE OF THAT FUND BALANCE THEN IS WHAT IS PROJECTED ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL SITTING AND YOU'RE NOT.
YEAH, YOU'RE NOT DIPPING DOWN.
I MEAN, THERE WERE SOME SOME PLAYING.
THAT'S WHERE THE FRICTION KIND OF WENT WHEN WHEN THE DIP WENT TO LIKE 7.9.
7.8. AND THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A RUSTLE.
GETTING IT FURTHER DOWN THAN THIS TO MAKE SURE AND MAKING SURE THAT IT DOESN'T GET BELOW 8. WHEN YOU SAY DIPPING DOWN MORE, WHAT?
[01:20:06]
THE ENDING FUND BALANCE WITH OPTION SIX NOT STAYING AT 12%, BUT BUT FURTHER USING MORE THAN $4 MILLION IN THAT FIRST YEAR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STEADY WITH NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN CUTS.I KNOW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LEVERS AND THE REVENUE LEVER BEING ONE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL OVER.
REMIND ME AGAIN ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING STUDENT.
BECAUSE I CAN SEE WHERE TWO YEARS OF HEALTHY RETURN ON STUDENT MIGHT FEEL DIFFERENT THAN IF WE MOVE TWO YEARS AND TWO YEARS IN, WE'RE STILL DECLINING OR FLAT.
BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DETAILS.
I HAVE A NUMBER IN MY HEAD THAT GIVES ME A SENSE OF THE RELATIVE MAGNITUDE OF STUDENT ENROLLMENT AND WHAT LEVEL OF CHANGE WOULD NEED TO BE WOULD NEED TO OCCUR IN ORDER TO BE VISIBLE IN AN AUCTION.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE'RE SHOWING $110 MILLION ON REVENUES.
AND I'M ASSUMING OUR REVENUES ARE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY STUDENT ENROLLMENT.
AND IF THAT ENROLLMENT WERE TO GO UP 200 TO 500, IF IT WENT UP 200.
JUST SAY. WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE ON THOSE NUMBERS? DO YOU HAVE A SENSE ON THAT YET OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D RATHER PENCIL PENCIL ON LATER? NO. I MEAN, WE COULD WE COULD BACK INTO THE MATH PRETTY FAST.
YOU JUST BASICALLY TAKE THE REVENUES, DIVIDE IT BY 7,000 KIDS, AND YOU KIND OF GET A BALLPARK RIGHT THERE.
RIGHT. WHAT'S THE REVENUE GENERATED PER STUDENT? AND WE CAN DO THAT, I THINK, ONCE.
I JUST DON'T SEE IT AS A LIKELY SCENARIO.
I REALLY I WOULD NOT WITH THE BIRTH RATES THE WAY THAT THEY ARE AND NOW TWO YEARS IN AND SEEING THAT WE'RE KIND OF TREADING WATER ON OUR ENROLLMENT, YOU KNOW, IT MEANS IT'S KIND OF OUR NEW NORMAL.
AND THIS IS DURING A TIME OF SOME HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT KEEP IN MIND, THE CITY WAS ISSUING PERMITS AT A RATE THEY HADN'T SEEN SINCE THE NINETIES.
WE HAD IMPACT FEES COMING IN AT A PRETTY HIGH RATE OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
IT REALLY WASN'T UNTIL SOME OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES CAME INTO PLAY.
DID SOME OF THIS DEVELOPMENT SLOW DOWN AS WELL AS THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT IS, YOU KNOW, GOT INFLATION KICKED OFF AND SOME MARKET UNCERTAINTY.
SO, YOU KNOW I THINK PARTLY THAT WE ARE STILL GROWING AS A COMMUNITY I JUST THINK.
WE'RE GROWING WITH SMALLER HOUSEHOLDS AND WE RECENTLY WILL GET INTO THIS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, WE HAD A GENERATION RATE OF ABOUT 0.75 PER HOUSING UNIT IN OUR COMMUNITY THE LAST TIME SIX YEARS AGO WHEN WE DID OUR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN. IT'S NOW DOWN TO 0.583.
WHEN WE RAN THE CALCULATION FOR THIS PLAN.
SO THAT'S THAT'S THAT SIGN THAT WE TALK ABOUT OF DECLINING BIRTH RATES, THE COST OF HOUSING. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE FEWER YOUNG FAMILIES, FEWER LARGER FAMILIES, JUST BECAUSE OF THE COST AND THERE'S JUST FEWER KIDS.
THE POSSIBILITY, NOT RELYING ON THE POSSIBILITY OF STUDENT GROWTH.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO RELY ON IT BEING OPTIMIST ABOUT WELL, GOSH, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK AT 7,200 PRETTY QUICK.
SO WHAT'S ALL THE WORRY? YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I WOULD WANT TO BUILD A BUDGET MODEL THAT RELIED UPON THAT. BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SORT OF A ROLL OUT OF CUTS AND ADJUSTMENTS COULD MAKE MOVEMENT OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT ALSO BE WATCHING FOR STUDENT GROWTH OVER THOSE COUPLE OF YEARS AND SEE IF THERE'S A TREND CHANGE AT ALL THAT EITHER TELLS US WE NEED TO ACCELERATE OUR ARE ADJUSTMENTS OR WE'RE WE'RE COMING CLOSE TO A GLIDE PATH THAT'S GOING TO LAND ZERO IN FOUR.
THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT COME TO MIND.
ONE IS OUR KINDERGARTEN CLASS THAT COMES IN NEXT YEAR.
SO WE HAD BEEN IN THAT 430 TO 450 KINDERGARTNERS A YEAR, AND THIS YEAR IT WAS AT
[01:25:04]
[INAUDIBLE].AND SO IF WE HAVE ANOTHER YEAR OF 400 THAT TELLS HAT BLOWS MY REVENUE MY REVENUE FORECAST UP A LITTLE BIT.
THAT SAID, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR CCA TO SERVE MORE STUDENTS OUTSIDE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
SO THAT COULD RESULT IN MORE STUDENTS BEING SERVED UNDER OUR DAILY PROGRAM AND SO THAT THERE'S SOME POTENTIAL THERE.
THE OTHER THING TO BE LOOKING AT AND I LIKE TO REMIND FOLKS IS WHEN YOU'RE GRADUATING CLASSES OF 600 AND YOU'RE BRINGING IN KINDERGARTEN CLASSES OF 400.
JUST REGULAR GROWTH HAS TO HAPPEN OF 200 KIDS JUST TO TREAD WATER.
SO. SO WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THOSE ENTRY POINTS OF SIXTH GRADE, NINTH GRADE TO SEE IF WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, WHICH IS THOSE ARE ENTRY POINTS FOR THE START OF MIDDLE SCHOOL OR THE START OF HIGH SCHOOL.
THAT'S AN ENTRY POINT FOR FAMILIES TO COME INTO OUR DISTRICT AND HOPEFULLY THAT TREND WILL CONTINUE BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S KEPT US BUOYANT, IF YOU WILL, DURING DURING THESE COVID TIMES.
SO THERE'S THERE'S SOME THINGS TO PAY ATTENTION TO, CLEARLY.
AND SHORTLY AFTER THIS, WE'LL GET TO DO SOME KINDERGARTEN ROUNDUPS.
YOU'LL START TO SEE SOME COMMUNICATION GOING OUT.
YOU'VE PROBABLY MAYBE HAVE SEEN ALREADY SOME OF THAT.
SO. AND WE'RE WE'RE PUSHING OUT SOME MARKETING AROUND THE CCA PROGRAM AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOR FAMILIES TO COME JOIN US THAT WAY AS WELL.
I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M SORRY I MISSED THE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
I KNOW THEY SEEM TO BE YOU GET SO MUCH INFORMATION FROM THEM.
BUT I JUST I APPRECIATE THIS KIND OF CONVERSATION, TOO, BECAUSE IT'S IT REALLY HELPS UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. AND EVEN THIS LITTLE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN LANDING ON LIKE FIVE AND SIX, WHICH SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR, BUT EVEN TALKING WITH CONNIE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAKING BUDGET CUTS IN A TIME WHEN IT'S HARD TO FIND LABOR, RIGHT? SO IF WE DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF BUDGET CUTS NEXT YEAR AND THEN WE NEED THEM BACK, HOW DO WE FIND THEM? RIGHT. AND SO SO KIND OF LIKE FIGURING OUT BECAUSE I KNOW NUMBER SIX HAS LESS IN BUDGET CUTS THAN NUMBER FIVE DOES.
SO KIND OF WEIGH IN THAT OUT AND AND WONDERING ON NUMBER SIX LIKE WHY CAN'T WE CHANGE THE EXPENDITURE GROWTH DOWN TO 1% AND PLAY AND I SHOULD PLAY AROUND WITH SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS ALSO JUST TO KIND OF SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT.
BUT I ALSO JUST WONDER WHY THERE'S NO OPTION HERE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET THE YEAR SOONER AND HOW WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? I MEAN, I MIGHT THINK THIS IS TERRIBLE IDEA, BUT LIKE THERE'S NOT EVEN NONE OF THESE BALANCED THE BUDGET IN THREE YEARS.
RIGHT. SO COULD I SEE WHEN THE BALANCE IS THE BUDGET IN THREE YEARS? THIS IS A PERFECT TRANSITION BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE MODEL ACTUALLY UP ON THE SCREEN AND BE ABLE TO TO TALK ABOUT IT.
OR THIS WOULD BE ALSO A GOOD TRANSITION IF YOU WANTED SOME INDIVIDUAL TIME WITH STAFF SUPPORT TO TO WORK WITH THE MODEL ON YOUR OWN COMPUTERS.
WE COULD WE COULD DO THAT AS WELL.
SO I COULD GO EITHER DIRECTION ON THAT.
IF THERE'S A BOARD PREFERENCE.
PERSONALLY. PERSONALLY, I'D RATHER I'D RATHER DO IT AS A FULL GROUP AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION AROUND THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THE SAME THING.
ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU BRING UP THE SPREADSHEET THERE? YOU COULD TRY AND GET RID OF THAT DOCUMENT RECOVERY OVER THERE.
HOPEFULLY THAT WASN'T IMPORTANT.
YEAH, I ACTUALLY. I GOT TO DRIVE, SO I'M GOING TO HEAD OVER THAT WAY.
DO YOU WANT TO YEAH I'LL WHILE THEY'RE WORKING THAT I'LL EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MODEL.
I THINK MOST OF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS AT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING, AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE NOT, I WON'T REHASH EVERYTHING.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THE TOP LINE BEING REVENUE IS BEING HELD FAIRLY CONSTANT IN THIS MODEL OR
[01:30:02]
CONSTANT IN THIS MODEL.AND THEN YOU CAN SEE WHAT WILL CHANGE.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY THING THE MODEL ALLOWS YOU TO CHANGE THE YELLOW BLOCKS, WHICH IS WHAT DO YOU THINK EXPENDITURE GROWTH IS GOING TO BE YEAR OVER YEAR? AND IT SPEAKS TO COST CONTAINMENT.
AND THEN WHAT DO YOU WANT THE FUND BALANCE UTILIZATION TO BE? AND THOSE TWO VARIABLES AFFECT EVERYTHING ELSE.
YEAH. AND REALLY FROM THERE AT THE BOTTOM, WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH IT, IT'LL GRAPH OUT DYNAMICALLY CHANGE THE FUND BALANCE THE ENDING FUND BALANCE YEAR OVER YEAR.
I THINK IT'D BE EASIER IF YOU JUST KIND OF START TO SEE IT.
AND IT'S, COMPLEX ENOUGH THAT SOMETIMES THE FIRST TIME YOU DO IT, IT KIND OF MAKES YOU TURN YOUR HEAD SIDEWAYS AND LOOK AT IT.
AND BUT ONCE YOU GET THE HANG OF IT, YOU'LL, IT CAN GET A LITTLE BIT ADDICTIVE TO KIND OF SEE WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH IT. SO.
I'M GLAD. SO I THINK JASON WILL TAKE OVER AND JUST KIND OF FOLLOW YOUR LEAD THERE.
SO LET'S SEE HERE THAT VIEW CAN PROBABLY GET A LITTLE BIGGER, RIGHT? IF YOU REMOVE THAT MENU AT THE TOP ON THAT THERE. THERE WE GO.
I GET DAILY EXCEL LESSONS FROM MATT.
[LAUGHTER]. SO, WELL, HERE'S A SCENARIO THAT BALANCES THE BUDGET SOONER.
IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THERE'S 0% EXPENDITURE GROWTH AND NO CUTS IN ANY YEAR.
ALL RIGHT. WE JUST WE USE FUND BALANCE AND ACTUALLY WE COULD RIDE THIS THING OUT.
I WILL SAY IN REALITY WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO YOU KNOW, TO IMPLEMENT SOME LEVEL OF CUTS JUST TO MAINTAIN KIND OF A STEADY LEVEL.
SO KEEP IN MIND, ALL OF THIS REALLY IS A THEORETICAL MODEL.
AND WHEN YOU START TO IMPLEMENT THAT AND MAKE IT REALITY, THERE ARE SOME TRADE OFFS.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO USE PROBABLY ALL THREE LEVERS JUST AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND AT DIFFERENT, LEVELS.
BUT IN THEORY, THIS IS ONE, IT COULD BALANCE THE BUDGET IN TWO YEARS.
OR EXCUSE ME. WELL, NO, THIS WOULD BE FOUR YEARS.
YEAH. YOU'RE AVOIDING ALL OF THESE CUTS AND YOU'RE AVOIDING ALL OF THIS.
YEAH. SO YOU WOULD BASICALLY BE THERE IN 24, 25.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS IS A TRADE OFF.
I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT USING FUND BALANCE, BUT IT'S SO VERY DIFFICULT TO USE FUND BALANCE AND CLOSE THIS GAP.
IF THAT MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE USING FUND BALANCE, YOU'RE NEVER REALLY ADJUSTING EXPENDITURES. AND SO THIS IS A TRADE OFF TO USING FUND BALANCE.
AND SO IN THIS CASE, THIS IS LIKE 5.6 MILLION AND BASICALLY DOING NO CUTS, HOLDING ON TO THE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME LEVEL OF STAFFING.
BUT YOU'RE DEFERRING BASICALLY THE PROBLEM TO ALIGN EXPENDITURES WITH REVENUES INTO FUTURE YEARS.
AND IN DOING THAT, THERE'S ANOTHER CONSTRAINT HERE.
SO IF YOU RECALL, IN 24, 25, WE DIDN'T WANT TO PERFORM ANY CUTS BECAUSE THAT WAS A LEVY YEAR. AND SO.
THAT LEAVES YOU, YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS HERE POTENTIALLY TO DO CUTS.
AND YOU WILL ENCOUNTER ANOTHER PROBLEM HERE.
I'LL SHOW YOU. THIS IS INTERESTING. WHEN YOU START TO PLAY WITH THIS MODEL.
IS THAT IF YOU WERE TO MAINTAIN 15.9, YOU REALLY CAN'T DO THAT IN THESE FUTURE YEARS AND WHAT YOU END UP DOING AS IT COMES DOWN.
AND THEN IT'S JUST NOT AN EVEN GLIDE SLOPE, RIGHT?
[01:35:01]
YOU'RE GOING FROM 109 TO 115.9, AND THEN BACK DOWN TO 114.SO WHEN I TALK ABOUT EXPENDITURE GLIDE SLOPE, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE, IS THAT. THIS INCREMENTALLY CHANGING EACH YEAR TO SOME LEVEL OF CONSISTENT GROWTH OR CONSISTENT DECLINE.
SO LET'S LOOK AT THE OPTIONS HERE.
SO YOU WANT TO START AT, SAY, 4 MILLION? YES. IS THAT.
ALL RIGHT. AND SO EXPENDITURE GROWTH.
BUT I WONDER IF WE PUT IT AT ONE.
WELL IT'S AT TWO ON NUMBER SIX? NO. IT'S LIKE.
DOES THAT WORK, CONNIE? HEY, JASON.
YES. HOW REALISTIC IS A 1% EXPENDITURE GROWTH? LIKE DO WE EVEN MESS AROUND WITH THAT? I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING REAL.
IF YOU'RE SAYING WHAT BASELINE THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS 6% IS A 1% REALLY THAT REALISTIC. IT WOULD TAKE A LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE, REALLY, AND IT WOULD CENTER ON YOUR LARGEST COST, WHICH IS LABOR.
AND I FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW TO GET THIS UNDER CONTROL AND THAT WE HAVE SET YOU KNOW, WE'VE TRIED TO SAY IN THE PAST, OH, LET'S GET OUR EXPENDITURE.
3% IS THE NUMBER THAT IS JUMPING OUT IN MY HEAD AND WE AREN'T EVEN AT THAT NOW.
SO I DON'T FEEL I MEAN, PERSONALLY, AGAIN, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT AS A GROUP, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE 1% IS EVEN WORTH OUR TIME.
LIKE, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.
WE HAVE NO HISTORY AND I DON'T SEE US HITTING THAT BEING ABLE TO HIT THAT IN WITHIN A FOUR YEAR BUDGET CYCLE HERE.
THAT REALLY GETS BACK TO THAT OPTION, 1, 2 AND 3.
WHAT YOU END UP EXPERIENCING AS AN ORGANIZATION ARE BUDGET CUTS IN THREE OF THE FOUR YEARS. SO THAT'S THE TRADE OFF IS IF WE DON'T THROTTLE THAT BACK PRETTY VERY SIGNIFICANTLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK OUT I'M JUST TRYING TO WONDER HOW REALISTIC IT IS.
WELL, ULTIMATELY, THERE'S YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS ARE OPEN NEXT YEAR.
SO IN EFFECT, WE'RE NEGOTIATING FOR THE FINAL THREE YEARS OF THIS FOUR YEAR MODEL NEXT YEAR. IF HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF, WHICH IS WE TYPICALLY GO IN FOR THREE YEAR CONTRACTS AND IS OUR EMPLOYMENT BASE CURRENTLY PREDICATED ON OUR HISTORIC 7,200 STUDENT CAPACITY OR STUDENT LOAD VERSUS A 69.
6800. WHAT DOES THIS MODEL TRY TO SUPPORT A 7200 STUDENT OR EXCUSE ME, 7200 INSTRUCTIONAL CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE DURATION? YES. WELL, THERE'S NO WAY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET IF YOU'RE CARRYING INSTRUCTIONAL CAPACITY FOR 7200 AND YOU'RE NEVER AT 7200, AT LEAST NOT THROUGH THE FOUR YEAR WINDOW BECAUSE YOUR CHART DIDN'T HAVE US ON A RETURN SLOPE ANYWHERE NEAR THAT.
SO WE'LL NEVER BALANCE IN THIS WELL.
OUR INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF TO OUR DROP IN ENROLLMENT DURING COVID? AND NO, WE MAINTAINED THE SAME LEVEL OF STAFFING, EVEN THOUGH OUR ENROLLMENT DROPPED.
AND SO DO YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STAFF TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT REDUCTION IN STUDENTS. SO NOT THROUGH A CUT, BUT THROUGH AN ATTRITION.
YOU HAVE MADE NO ASSUMPTIONS THEN IT'S JUST HOLDING THAT NUMBER.
OK. AND THAT'S THE, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF OUR STARTING POINT EVERY YEAR AROUND A
[01:40:03]
BASELINE BUDGET IS IF YOU HOLD CERTAIN THINGS CONSTANT SUCH AS STAFFING, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SAME LEVEL, WHAT DOES THAT STAFFING LOAD COST YOU IN THE NEXT YEAR IF YOU'RE TO KEEP THE SAME LEVEL OF STAFFING? AND THAT'S WHAT THE BASELINE NUMBER OF 115.9 MILLION REPRESENTS.SO IF YOU ADJUST, LIKE IN THIS CASE, 1.6 MILLION IN CUTS OR BASICALLY STAFF REDUCTIONS COULD REPRESENT A RESPONSE TO THAT DROP IN ENROLLMENT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE BEEN HOPING AND ANTICIPATING A REBOUND, BUT IT HASN'T MATERIALIZED. SO WE'RE STILL DOWN ABOUT 5% IN ENROLLMENT TO PRE-COVID LEVELS.
YEAH. I STOPPED KIND OF PLAYING WITH THIS, TO SO WE COULD.
BUT I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COREY, IS LIKE.
I LIKE THE 1% BECAUSE I'M LIKE, WE GOT TO HOLD THE LINE SOMEWHERE.
BUT IF THAT IS NOT DOABLE AT ALL, WHY ARE WE EVEN, LIKE, PUTTING IT OUT THERE? BUT THERE'S LIKE, THERE HAS TO BE SOME THINGS THAT HAPPEN.
RIGHT? BUT IS IT? IS IT. IF WE'RE PUTTING IT OUT THERE AND THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN HIT THAT.
BUT IF IT FORCES US IF IT FORCES US TO HIT THAT, THEN WE WOULD.
THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL OR WE'LL BE DOING THIS FOREVER.
AND WE DON'T HAVE AN UNLIMITED FUND BALANCE.
AND SO THE COMMITTEE WAS REALLY TALKING ABOUT THAT OUR EXPENDITURES HAVE TO FOLLOW REVENUE. AND WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THAT THAT SMALL GAP, THAT 1 TO 2%.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT 1% IDEALLY.
AND JASON, YOU HAD SAID WHAT A SHOCK.
TO THE SYSTEM GOING FROM 6% TO 1% IN THAT SHORT TIME IS GOING TO BE HARD.
MM HMM. AND I THINK THE COMMITTEE RECOGNIZED THAT.
YOU CAN IMPACT SOME OR YOU CAN SACRIFICE ALL IN THAT SCENARIO.
AND SO A SHARED SACRIFICE WOULD BE A COST CONTAINMENT.
A BUDGET CUT WOULD BE IMPACTING A SELECT NUMBER.
AND FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, THEY VIEWED IT AS MORE PALATABLE TO HAVE A SHARED SACRIFICE VERSUS JUST IMPACTING CERTAIN CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.
SOME BUDGET CUTS AND SOME EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.
[INAUDIBLE] THE COMMITTEE MADE THESE CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL.
AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ONE THING THAT'S GOING TO JUST BE THE MAGIC AND THAT YOU WON'T TOUCH THE OTHER TWO LEVERS.
BUT WHERE THE COMMITTEE REALLY FOCUSED ON IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S EXPENDITURE GROWTH.
WHAT'S THE ONE THING THAT WE CAN CONTROL CONSISTENTLY? VERSUS ENROLLMENT VERSUS TOTAL REVENUES.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY LISTENING TO THEM ON THURSDAY, THEY WERE OKAY WITH TAKING A LARGER CHUNK OUT OF A FUND BALANCE, KNOWING THAT THE DISCIPLINE IS GOING TO COME IN EXPENDITURE GROWTH.
SO IF YOU PUT THOSE 1% BACK TO 2%.
THIS WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY BALANCING THE BUDGET IN SECOND YEAR.
RIGHT. SO SO WE'RE PUTTING 3 MILLION THOUGH, IN THAT SECOND YEAR.
AND FOR THOSE OF US THAT HAVE SEEN THIS MODEL BEFORE, THAT IS EVERY CHOICE HAS AN OUTCOME DOWN THE ROAD. RIGHT.
IF YOU TAKE MORE RIGHT NOW, THIS IS WHAT IT DOES IN YEARS, TWO, THREE AND FOUR.
[01:45:01]
IF YOU TAKE LESS, THIS IS WHAT IT DOES IN YEARS, TWO, THREE AND FOUR.AND THAT'S THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THIS MODEL.
HE'S MORE THAN FOR THE FIRST YEAR.
WELL, LET'S SEE. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
BUT NOW WE'RE DOWN TO EIGHT. LIKE, THAT'S THE YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THIS IS THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT IN ORDER TO BALANCE HERE, YOU'RE CUTTING 1.2.
WELL, EVEN IN THIS SCENARIO THAT'S PRINTED RIGHT HERE, THERE'S NO CUTS THE SECOND, THE THIRD AND FOURTH YEAR. AND WE'RE ONLY AT 1.2 MILLION THE THIRD YEAR IN YEAR, 1.5.
SO JUST THIS ONE HERE IS BETTER.
THIS IS NUMBER SIX, BUT THE ONE.
YEAH, NO, I HAD TO TWO IN THAT SCENARIO THAT YOU'VE GOT UP THERE RIGHT NOW, THE YEAR AFTER PASSING A LEVY, LET ME BE OPTIMISTIC FOR JUST A SPLIT SECOND.
WE TURN AROUND AND WE CUT 1.2.
YEAH. AND THAT'S HARD TOO LIKE.
WE WON'T CUT THE LEVY YEAR, BUT THEN YOU'RE GOING TO CUT THE YEAR AFTER THE LEVY.
LIKE WHAT'S RIGHT? THIS ONE RIGHT HERE DIDN'T CUT AFTER THE LEVY.
NUMBER SIX DIDN'T CUT AFTER EITHER.
I MEAN, WE PASSED THE LEVY IN 2021.
THERE'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE WHEN YOU START KIND OF WORKING WITH THIS IS.
THE MORE FUND BALANCE WE ARE USING NEXT YEAR, YOU'RE DEFERRING THE ACTIONS OF ALIGNING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES INTO THOSE FUTURE YEARS.
AND THERE'S JUST SOME DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS.
THERE'S A SWEET SPOT POTENTIALLY IN THERE.
I THINK IT STARTS TO KIND OF COME OUT AND I THINK IN OPTION SIX OR WHAT HAVE YOU, WHERE YOU START NOT HAVE TO CUT IN THAT YEAR FOUR.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN IN ANSWER TO REALLY, WHICH WAS A VERY GOOD AND A VERY TOUGH QUESTION, OF [INAUDIBLE], WHICH IS.
IT'S A GUARDRAIL SET BY THE SCHOOL BOARD.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NOT ACHIEVABLE.
I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HARD.
YEAH I MEAN, AT WHAT POINT DO WE REALLY START TO FEEL THAT, TOO? I MEAN, IN THE ORGANIZATION, I MEAN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPENDITURE GROWTH.
I DON'T KNOW. I JUST FEEL LIKE GOING FROM 6 TO 1 IS JUST.
I MEAN, TWO IS AT LEAST BETTER THAN ONE.
I DID THE MATH. YEAH. EMPLOYMENT BASE OF 1000 EMPLOYEES SPLIT 60 40 OR 50 50. CLOSE ON CLASS VERSUS CERTIFICATED.
SO IT TAKES TEN RETIREMENTS TO GET YOU A PERCENT.
AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS THE EASY WAY, NOT THE DIFFICULT WAY.
RIGHT. IS THAT ACCURATE? SO. SO.
[01:50:02]
AND THE SECOND HALF OF THIS QUESTION IS.OF DOLLARS BY EMPLOYEE GROUP BECAUSE NOT ALL RETIREMENTS ARE UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED.
RIGHT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT $1,000,000 WOULD COVER ABOUT 7.75 TEACHING POSITIONS ON AVERAGE. THAT WOULD BE ABOUT FIVE ADMINISTRATOR POSITIONS.
MM HMM. AND IT WOULD BE ABOUT THE 11 CLASSIFIED.
RIGHT. RIGHT. BUT IF YOU REALLY HONE IN ON RETIREMENT, IT'S NOT 7.75 IS PROBABLY CLOSER TO LIKE FIVE.
RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY'RE USUALLY ON THE HIGH END OF THE SCALE.
ABSOLUTELY. NOW, CONVERSELY, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT BUDGET REDUCTIONS, WHERE ARE THOSE? THOSE ARE IN YOUR [INAUDIBLE] SENIOR POSITIONS.
WELL, IT IS IF THE REDUCTIONS ARE APPLIED IN THAT MANNER VERSUS AN ATTRITION MATTER.
CORRECT. AND I'M ASSUMING THERE IS A BALANCE THAT YOU STRIKE WHERE YOU SAY SOME OF THOSE RETIREMENTS HAVE TO BE REFILLED AND SOME OF THE NEW HIRES CAN BE AVOIDED IF YOU'RE IN A CUTTING MODE. CORRECT.
GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. IT'S ALWAYS ATTRITION IS NUMBER ONE.
AND WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES THAT MIGHT BE PRESENTED THROUGH ATTRITION VERSUS A REMOVAL OF SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO STAY.
RIGHT. WHO DIDN'T MAKE A DECISION ON THEIR OWN IS MUCH MORE CHALLENGING.
AND TO YOUR POINT, DOUG, I THINK THAT SWEET SPOT THAT JASON TALKS ABOUT IS LOOKING AT THIS MODEL OR ONE WHERE IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE OUT OF FUND BALANCE.
WHAT CAN WE GET TO THROUGH ATTRITION? AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS THAT SWEET SPOT.
CAN WE NOT ONLY GET TO THIS THROUGH ATTRITION, BUT NOW REBALANCE OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT TO KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT 7200 STUDENTS ANYMORE? CAN WE DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? AND I DO BELIEVE WE CAN.
IT'S NOT GOING TO COME OUT PERFECTLY FOR 22-23.
BUT IF WE CONTINUALLY DO THAT AND WE CONTINUE TO BE DISCIPLINED ABOUT THAT WITH THE EXPENDITURE GROWTH, THAT'S WHEN AN ORGANIZATION MAKES THOSE MOVES.
YEAH. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, THERE REALLY IS ONLY ONE PATHWAY OUT.
AND THAT IS TO CONTAIN COSTS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FUND BALANCE YOUR WAY OUT OF IT. YOU'RE GOING TO RUN OUT AND YOU CAN'T DO CUTS EVERY YEAR BECAUSE THAT JUST BRINGS THE MORALE DOWN. RIGHT.
THE MODEL HAS TO ADJUST TO OUR STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN ORDER TO BE SUSTAINABLE.
AND IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CUTS AT THOSE LEVELS.
AND I JUST RAN IN BACK OF THE ENVELOPE, WHICH IS REALLY SILLY TO DO IN A SETTING LIKE THIS, BUT 1000 EMPLOYEES AND IF THEY HAVE A 30 YEAR LIFESPAN, TYPICALLY FROM THE DAY YOU GET EMPLOYED TO THE DAY YOU RETIRE, IT'S 30 YEARS.
THAT'S RUNNING AN AVERAGE RETIREMENT OF ABOUT 30 EMPLOYEES A YEAR.
DO WE EXPERIENCE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT CHANGE.
SO WE DON'T DO 30 A YEAR? NO, WE I WOULD TWO YEARS AGO WE DON'T EMPLOYEE EVERYBODY OH, MY GOSH. THAT'S A HARD MODEL.
I JUST THINK ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO, DOUG, IN THAT NUMBER, THOUGH, WE'LL HAVE RETIREMENTS OR SEPARATION FROM THE DISTRICT.
SO WE AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THIS WORK.
AND I CAN TELL YOU IT'S LARGER THAN SIX.
BUT THAT BECOMES IMPORTANT WHEN YOU START APPLYING CUTS AND YOU THROW A BRIGHT RED NUMBER UP THERE AND YOU SAY 2.6 MILLION IF IT TAKES 8 TO 10 EMPLOYEES TO GET A MILLION.
AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT EIGHT OR TEN A YEAR, THEN THAT'S HALF, HALF THE PROBLEM BEING SOLVED THROUGH RETIREMENTS WITH ANOTHER HALF THAT TAKES SOME ADDITIONAL REMOVAL.
THAT'S TOUGH. IT IS GIVEN THAT THE BUILDINGS THE MAINTENANCE THAT THERE'S KIND OF A FIXED OPERATIONAL ELEMENT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE WITH STUDENT ENROLLMENT.
I'M ASSUMING PRETTY, PRETTY CAUTIOUS THERE ALREADY, I HOPE.
AND THAT REALLY CAME OUT IN THE STUDENT TO STAFF RATIOS FOR CLASSIFIED.
YEAH. THAT'S WHY THOSE BARS WERE RIGHT. OKAY.
I WISH YOU'D MAKE THIS A CLEARER SOLVE.
[01:55:05]
YOU KNOW, I LOVE TO PROVIDE PATHWAYS AND SOLUTIONS.THIS ONE IS TOUGH BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ONE THAT DOESN'T COME WITHOUT SOME SACRIFICE OR SOME PAIN OR ORGANIZATIONAL STRIFE.
AND IT'S THE SITUATION WE'RE IN.
IT'S JUST WE HAVE TO ADJUST TO THE NEW FUNDING MODEL AND WE MIGHT GET SOME WINS.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE GET A REGIONALIZATION WIN.
MAYBE WE GET AN EXPERIENCE FACTOR WIN.
YOU KNOW, IS THAT GOING TO BE TO THE TUNE OF $5 MILLION DOLLARS? I THINK PROBABLY NOT.
BUT IT MIGHT BE 1 RIGHT. AND SO MAYBE OVER TIME THAT HELPS SOFTEN SOME OF THE MOVES THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
BUT WHAT'S REALLY CLEAR IS ONCE YOU START, YOU KNOW, YOU START GOING, OKAY, YEAH WE'RE GOING TO BE WILLING TO ACCEPT COST CONTAINMENT AT 5%, 3%, 2%.
THINGS JUST START TO GET VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE.
IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION YOU ASK COREY BECAUSE IF YOU ASKED ME WHAT I BELIEVE, LIKE OUR HISTORICAL TREND HAS BEEN AND WHAT I MIGHT EXPECT, I MIGHT EXPECT SOMETHING CLOSER TO THIS. BUT WE AND. YEAH, WE'RE NOT IN.
CORRECT. SO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT.
YOU FEEL LIKE A LOWER NUMBER THAN IS MORE REALISTIC? I CAN SEE AN ARGUMENT FOR A LOWER NUMBER.
I HONESTLY DON'T BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE JUST. SO EXPENDITURES ARE GOING UP AT 40 6% CORRECT. CORRECT.
YEAH, THERE'S. IT JUST MEANS IN THOSE FUTURE YEARS, WE MAY HAVE LESS MONEY TO TAKE TO THE TABLE. ONCE, YOU KNOW, ONCE THESE.
BUT THIS HELPS SET THOSE BUMPERS AROUND.
WHAT IS THE PATHWAY OF THE DISTRICT GOING FORWARD? YOU KNOW, AND WE NEED THAT AS AN ORGANIZATION TOP DOWN, ULTIMATELY WHERE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. AND WE'VE BATTED AROUND ALL THE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES.
AND THERE'S WE'RE GETTING TO OK WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE OR OF LEAST RISK.
AND IT TENDS TO ALWAYS COME BACK TO SOME COST CONTAINMENT.
NOW, IF YOU CAN'T, YOU END UP.
YOU KNOW, A SHARED SACRIFICE MODEL NOW YOU'RE INTO TARGETED.
SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND ONE MORE VARIABLE.
AND IS THAT TOP IT'S THAT TOTAL REVENUES ACROSS THE TOP LINE.
IT'S A 3% GROWTH ON A 3% GROWTH RATE ON A $110 MILLION DOLLAR BASE.
WHAT ASSUMPTION DID THAT MAKE ABOUT ENROLLMENT? I MEAN, THAT SHOWS A 3% ACROSS THAT.
WHAT DID IT ASSUME RELATED TO THE ENROLLMENT OF STUDENTS IN THAT WINDOW? DID IT LEAVE THEM AT 69? ON AVERAGE ABOUT A GROWTH RATE OF 0.7% PER YEAR? AND THAT GETS BACK TO MY EARLIER PROBE, WHICH WAS IN A MODEL THAT GAVE US A CHANCE TO SEE STUDENT GROWTH OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, IT GIVES ME A BETTER SENSE OF HOW SEVERELY WE HAVE TO CUT TO KEEP OURSELVES ON TRACK.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TWO YEARS TO WAIT, SO I WOULD NOT WANT TO JUST RELY ON STUDENT
[02:00:05]
GROWTH, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT, I THINK, IN AN EARLY YEAR.BUT ALSO I WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH REGIONALIZATION, OUR EXPERIENCE FACTOR AND STUDENT GROWTH. THOSE ARE THREE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES THAT I JUST DON'T HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT THE HECK IS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE? THEY ARE. AND PROBABLY THE YEAR AFTER THAT, THERE WILL BE SOME OTHER POTENTIAL UNKNOWNS THAT.
TOTALLY. YOU'RE RIGHT. THINK ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON FOUR YEARS AGO BETWEEN NOW AND FOUR YEARS AGO. I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S SO VOLATILE RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S WHY I GO BACK TO WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THIS, WHERE I JUST I DON'T KNOW.
EXPECTING SOMETHING TO MATERIALIZE FOUR YEARS OUT.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO DO SOME SEMBLANCE OF THAT, BUT I JUST DON'T PUT A WHOLE LOT OF WEIGHT INTO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IT'S AND TO USE CONNIE'S ANALOGY.
IT'S STILL RAINING. YOU KNOW, IT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'VE GONE FROM A STEADY DOWNPOUR TO SHOWERS, BUT.
[LAUGHTER] WELL, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SCENARIO IF WE DIDN'T GET 10.4 MILLION IN ONE TIME REVENUES. YEAH.
THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE A CHOICE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE FUND BALANCE.
IT ONLY GETS US SO FAR AND THERE'S CONSEQUENCES TO JUST SOLELY RELYING ON IT IN THAT.
YEAH, BUT I DO THINK THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR SHOWING THAT WE HAVE A PLAN FOR WHAT TO DO WITH THAT FUND BALANCE. YOU BET.
IT'S THAT CONUNDRUM, RIGHT? LIKE, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE FUND BALANCE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SOLVE THAT PROBLEM OF GETTING EXPENDITURES IN LINE WITH REVENUES.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE IT KIND OF COMES BACK TO.
YOU GOT REVENUE GROWTH OF 2% A YEAR.
SO. YOU KNOW, CAN YOU GET EXPENDITURE GROWTH AT OR BELOW THAT? THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR THE TWO TO INTERSECT.
THEY NEVER, EVER WILL AND WE'LL BE CUTTING IN EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, TRYING TO FIND A PATHWAY.
AND IT'S THAT'S WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO REALLY IS GETTING EXPENDITURE GROWTH IN LINE WITH REVENUE GROWTH. AND WE COULD EXPERIENCE A SLIGHT CHANGE IN ENROLLMENT.
IT COULD GO DOWN JUST AS EASILY AS IT COULD GO UP.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT? WE CAN ABSORB A 1% VARIATION ON THAT.
WE HAVE FUND BALANCE TO DO SO.
HEAVEN FORBID WE WERE OFF THAT MUCH, BUT THAT COULD BE A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING.
I THINK THESE YOU KNOW, I DO LIKE THE CONCEPT OF USING FUND BALANCE IN 22-23.
RIGHT. I THINK THAT SEEMS TO BE A COLLECTIVE.
AND LIKE I TOLD THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH SINCE WE'RE GETTING BASICALLY 2 MILLION NEXT MONTH IN ENROLLMENT STABILIZATION, THAT'S REALLY A NO BRAINER TO PUT IN TO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.
SO YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, 2.6 MILLION OR 2.7 MILLION IS REALLY THE DECISION POINT.
WELL, NO, WE'LL BE SPENDING IT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
YEAH, WE'RE GETTING 2 MILLION AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH IS PUSHING INSTEAD OF A $16 MILLION DOLLARS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE.
SO WE'VE GOT AN EXTRA TWO TO PLAY WITH.
WHAT HAPPENS IF IN 25, 26 WITH THE EXPENDITURES DOWN TO 1% IN THAT LAST YEAR WHAT HAPPENS 2%. NO, BUT HE ADDED IT.
THIS ONE HAD IT AT 2% AND STILL CUTS AT ZERO.
I THINK BECAUSE WE ONLY USE 4 MILLION IN FUND BALANCE.
YEAH. BECAUSE YOU MADE THE CUTS EARLIER.
OH. INSTEAD OF 1 MILLION THE FIRST YEAR IN CUTS WE MADE 1.6 MILLION.
YEAH. IT'S EITHER IN ONE SPOT OR THE OTHER
[02:05:04]
YEAH. AND.I'M NOT AN ACCOUNTING PERSON. MM HMM.
SO IF YOU PUT YOUR DEFICIT IN THE CUTS AND YOU DON'T USE FUND BALANCE, THEN IT'S A BALANCED BUDGET. BUT IF YOU USE FUND BALANCE AND DON'T DO ANY CUTS, THEN IT'S NOT A BALANCED BUDGET? ISN'T THAT KIND OF SEMANTICS? NO, ACTUALLY.
[LAUGHTER] BECAUSE THINK OF IT THIS WAY.
BECAUSE IT'D BE LIKE IN THIS YEAR, RIGHT? YOUR EXPENDITURES ARE 116.9 AND YOUR REVENUES ARE 115.3.
SO YOU'RE AT A DEFICIT POSITION USING FUND BALANCE DOWN HERE.
SO AS SOON AS THIS HITS ZERO, THEN YOU SEE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN YOUR EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES, WHICH IS A BALANCED BUDGET.
IS IT BECAUSE OF THE CUTS? BECAUSE THE CUTS ARE LOWERING THE EXPENDITURES OR THE FUND BALANCE IS JUST PAYING FOR IT.
CORRECT. IT'S ALSO COMING RIGHT? YES.
SO YOU THOUGHT I WAS KIDDING WELL, THAT'S WHERE.
YEAH. SORRY, CONNIE, GO AHEAD.
JUST GOING TO SAY, OUR LEVY'S ALREADY BUILT INTO THE REVENUE.
THE NEW FUNDING MODEL FOR SEL.
WE PUT A SLIGHT IPD ADJUSTMENT, ASSUMING THAT IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN 2% THAN WHAT JUST BECAUSE OF INFLATION.
SO WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
NOT AGGRESSIVE, NOT TOO CONSERVATIVE.
JUST THIS IS KIND OF A REAL BASELINE AND THEN GO OFF OF THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTINGENCY.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH AS FAR AS A BUDGET, I'VE GOT TO ADD SOME CONTINGENCY ON THERE.
I'D PROBABLY PUT IT EQUAL PARTS REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE, SO IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE BOTTOM LINE, BUT I WOULD NEED SOMETHING IN THERE.
RIGHT. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE HAD OUR OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, 4.3 MILLION AND WE HAD A CONTINGENCY AND AN ACCURACY COMPONENT THAT WAS ABOUT 4% MORE, WHICH GOT US TO OUR 8%.
AND I THINK THAT SETS US AT AN 8% FUND BALANCE TARGET AS A MINIMUM FRICTION MINIMUM.
YES. OBVIOUSLY HOLDING IT ABOVE THAT.
BUT IF YOU'RE UP AT A TEN, IN ESSENCE, YOU HAVE ABOUT A $2 MILLION DOLLARS, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT YOU AND I MEAN THE LEVEL OF THE CONFIDENCE NUMBERS.
I WAS LOOKING AT THAT BETWEEN ONE AND 3 MILLION ON TWO ELEMENTS.
I COULD LIVE OPTIMISTICALLY AND MAKE THAT A $2 MILLION DOLLAR RISK.
AND IF WE LIVE CONSERVATIVELY, IT'D BE A $6 MILLION DOLLAR RISK.
AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE LEVEL OF CONSERVATIVENESS WE'RE BUILDING IN.
BUT REGARDLESS, BUILDING A BUDGET THAT IS BALANCED IN FOUR YEARS, I THINK WE HAVE TO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OPTION.
I DON'T BELIEVE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN GO NEGATIVE FOR A FIFTH AND SIX BECAUSE THINGS ARE JUST REALLY UNCLEAR.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME SENSE OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH STUDENT GROWTH.
HOW THAT AFFECTS US MORE ACCURATELY, BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY IS AS
[02:10:06]
ATTRACTIVE AS IT IS, EVEN IF WE HAVE 400 COMING IN AND THAT'S IT, AND THAT BECOMES OUR NEW NORM. LIKE WE START RUNNING CLASSES AT 400 AND 400 AND 400 THROUGH THE SYSTEM.WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO A MODEL THAT WORKS IF WE'RE PROPERLY STAFFED FOR A 400 STUDENT ANNUAL GROWTH RATE.
I HOPE. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE TELLING ME NO, THERE'S NO WAY IF WE GO FROM A 7200 CAPACITY DISTRICT DOWN TO A SUSTAIN 68.
I MEAN, I GOT TO BELIEVE WE CAN.
WE HAVE BUILDINGS AND ASSETS, BUT 88% IS LABOR SO. THE OTHER FACTOR HERE THAT IS DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY, BUT IT IS A BARRIER TO MAKING SOME BUDGET CUTS.
IS YOUR CONTRACTUAL CLASS SIZE MAXIMUM.
THERE'S SOME FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES AT THE END OF THE DAY.
YOU KNOW, CAN WE AFFORD OUR CONTRACTUAL LIMITS WITH THE RATE AT WHICH WE'RE OBLIGATED TO PAY OUR EMPLOYEES.
I THINK IT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE DRIVING AT.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ALIGNMENT IN THE FUTURE.
IF YOU KNOW, IF OUR CONTRACTS ARE TIED TO INFLATION PLUS 1%.
AND OUR REVENUES ARE CONSTRICTED TO INFLATION.
THEY'LL NEVER, EVER INTERSECT.
THEY'RE ALREADY OUT OF BALANCE AND TO CONTINUE ON THAT PATH WOULD.
WE COULDN'T MEET OUR CONTRACTUAL.
WE END UP HEARING A LOT OF YEAH. I THINK WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT IS SOME SORT OF KIND OF A RAMP UP OR A RAMP DOWN IN THAT EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
SO WHEN THEY FIRST ROLLED IT OUT, IT WAS, HEY, IF YOU QUALIFY, YOU GET AN EXTRA 4%.
WELL, SINCE THEN, SOME HAVE FALLEN OUT OF QUALIFYING, BUT THEIR FUNDING HASN'T CHANGED.
AND TO GET A 4% HIT ON REVENUES IN ONE YEAR IS TOUGH.
SO I WOULD EXPECT THEM TO DO SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE EXPERIENCED WITH REGIONALIZATION, WHICH IS PAINFUL.
YOU KNOW, ANY SORT OF FUNDING MODEL THAT REDUCES IN FUTURE YEARS IS JUST IS BRUTAL.
ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE COST OF LIVING IN A COMMUNITY.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT WAY, AT LEAST FROM AN EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
AND IF THEY MODELED US OUT AND SAID, YOUR EXPERIENCE FACTOR, IS THIS BECAUSE OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT NET BASE, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE BUT OUR COMMUNITY.
YEAH. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT IT'S REDUCED.
BUT THEN THAT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME THAT OUR LEGISLATURE WOULD JUST KIND OF DUMP THAT ON TO US AND SAY, THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND YOU.
BOARD DIRECTION ON THIS FUND BALANCE, COST CONTAINMENT, BUDGET CUTS, KIND OF THE THREE LEVERS THERE.
I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FUND BALANCE OF 4 MILLION IN 22-23.
WE NEED TO KIND OF. WE SHOULD COME TO SOME CONSENSUS ON.
THAT'S MAYBE NOT QUITE AS TIME SENSITIVE AS USE OF FUND BALANCE AND BUDGET CUTS FOR 22-23, BUT PRETTY CLOSE, RIGHT? I THINK WE NEED TO WE NEED TO REPRESENT SOMETHING ULTIMATELY WHEN WE PUBLISH A FOUR YEAR
[02:15:06]
BUDGET THAT SOMEWHAT ALIGNS WITH THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO, AND IT WON'T HAVE CUTS ON THE FOUR YEAR BUDGET, IT WON'T HAVE THE EXPENDITURE GROWTH.RIGHT. THAT WON'T BE SPELLED OUT IN WHAT GETS WOULD, ULTIMATELY WHAT GETS PUBLISHED.
BUT THE NUMBERS WILL BE THERE AND THERE WILL BE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE'RE REFLECTING IN THAT BUDGET ARE COMMENSURATE WITH THE VALUES THAT YOU HOLD AS A SCHOOL BOARD AND THE DIRECTION.
SO. ANY THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS ON FUND BALANCE? LESS ON FUND BALANCE, BUT MORE I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
SO THE INTENT IS TO NOT DO A CUT THE YEAR WE VOTE LEVY OR THE YEAR? IT'S THE YEAR AFTER THAT WE ARE GOING TO THEN STEP UP AND DO AN ADJUSTMENT, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING DOING.
THE LEVY OCCURS, WHAT, PROBABLY EARLY SPRING OF THAT YEAR.
SO THEN COME THAT AUGUST YOU END UP DOING A POTENTIAL CUT.
NO, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO EXACTLY AVOID.
EXACTLY. I GUESS I'M SAYING THAT KIND OF IN A CLUMSY WAY, BUT THAT'S.
OKAY. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIX THAT'S PRINTED OUT, THERE IS NO BUDGET CUTS IN 24 OR 25 OR 25, 26, OH WAIT.
OH, SORRY. I DON'T HAVE GLASSES ON.
I DO FEEL LIKE JUST IF I'M READING IF I'M READING THE ROOM AND FEEL FREE TO SPEAK IF IT'S NOT. BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE ARE GRAVITATING TOWARDS SOME SORT OF ITERATION OF OPTION SIX.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH.
BECAUSE WHAT I WAS HOPING TO GO BACK TO WAS TO PLAY AROUND A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH THE MODEL THAT WE WERE PLAYING WITH.
SO IF WE CAN MAYBE START WITH THIS NUMBER SIX, RIGHT? RIGHT. PUT IT AT THIS AND THEN.
HOW ARE WE DOING YOU'RE LOOKING FOR US TO SPEAK ON FUND BALANCE, COST CONTAINMENT AND BUDGET CUTS FOR 22-23. OKAY.
OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO KEEP YOU HERE ALL NIGHT.
SO WE LOVE TALKING ABOUT BUDGETS.
THAT'S SIX RIGHT THERE. THAT'S SIX.
AND IT IS POINT NINE IN THE LAST YEAR, I JUST COULDN'T READ IT.
IF YOU WENT TO 1% THEN 4.5. OVERALL 4.7. THE FIRST YEAR.
ARE WE DOING ANYTHING WITH THESE NUMBERS UP HERE? COST CONTAINMENT? NOTHING.
OKAY. SO HERE'S ONE THING I'M GOING TO.
THAT'S HOLDING EXPENDITURES AT THE SAME LEVEL.
WELL, THEN THAT CUTS 0.7 AND THAT YEAR.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO IN THIS YEAR? I DON'T KNOW. DO WE WHAT DO WE DO IN 22-23 LIKE 4.3. LET'S SEE WHAT.
[02:20:21]
YOU HAVE 2.6 AND THIS ONE PRIOR HAD 2.3 CUTS THE IT'S JUST SPREADED IT OVER.SPEND MORE NOW AND THEN IF WE CAN'T GET [INAUDIBLE].
BUT THEN IF WE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT, WE HAVE 2.6 MILLION CUTS TO DO THE NEXT YEAR.
RIGHT. THAT'S A BIG NUMBER, BUT.
BUT WE'RE MAYBE HOPING WE DON'T HAVE TO DO WITH 2.6.
BECAUSE IT CUTS COST YEAH. AND THEN 22-23 WOULD BE 1.3 CUTS AND 4.3 MILLION RIGHT? MM HMM. AND I'M NOT OK.
SO IF I GO BACK TO OPTION FIVE.
OPTION FIVE DOES $2.6 MILLION DOLLARS IN CUTS THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN THE OTHER THREE YEARS. BUT IF WE USE THIS MODEL, WE'RE CUTTING MORE.
YEAH, I ONLY CUT 2.6 MILLION OVER FOUR YEARS INSTEAD OF.
RIGHT. AND YOU'RE MAINTAINING OUR MINIMUMS ACROSS.
OH, RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT'S TRUE.
CAN YOU GO BACK? I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET THAT FOUR YEAR COST IN FOUR YEARS ARE WE DOING WAY MORE CUTS OR DO WE AT THE BEGINNING OF IT? THAT'S A GOOD. YEAH.
RIGHT. IT SEEMS THE MORE YOU DO EARLIER SOME THAT IT KNOCKS IT DOWN A LITTLE EARLIER AND WE DON'T GROW IT. WE'RE NOT ADJUSTING FOR IT.
IT DOES. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THURSDAY AND JUST WORKING IN THE SYSTEM IS. AGAIN.
WE STILL HAVE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DEAL WITH NEXT YEAR.
WELL, AND THE LABOR, LIKE WE SAID, IT'S HARD TO FIND LABOR [INAUDIBLE] AGAIN.
ALSO. BUT WOULD THAT HELP BECAUSE I THINK EXPENDITURES ARE PRETTY MUCH.
KIND OF LANDED ON WHAT YEAH. JASON, CAN I.
OH, SORRY. NO, I JUST HAD A QUESTION.
WANTED TO SEE THE KIND OF A DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY IF YOU TOOK GOING BACK TO THAT MODEL SIX WHEN YOU JUST HAD US UP THERE.
AND YOU DID A IF YOU USED A $5 MILLION DOLLARS AND THEN YOU USE $2 MILLION DOLLARS.
WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE YOU FOR FUND BALANCE? YOU'RE AT FOUR. IF YOU'RE AT FOUR AND ONE IN THIS MODEL, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU WENT TO FIVE AND TWO ON THOSE FIRST TWO YEARS? FIVE AND TWO. SO YOU'RE PULLING SEVEN.
YEAH. SO WE'RE STILL ABOVE OUR MINIMUM.
SO YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT IN THAT IF YOU THREW A NO YOU WOULD BE RIGHT AT ABOUT NINE.
SO IF YOU THINK OF IT THIS WAY.
FIVE AND TWO THAT'S SEVEN MIL OFF OF 18.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT AT. PROBABLY 9.
SOMEWHERE IN THERE IF I HAD TO GUESS.
BUT I WAS TRYING TO I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF YOU DID A FIVE TWO WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR EXPENDITURE GROWTH. WHAT DOES THAT? OH I SEE. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET EVEN ON THAT. SO PUT THAT FIVE.
THEN WE HAVE TO GET THAT TO ZERO.
GO TO ZERO. BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT WE SPENT EARLY.
OH, LOOK HOW LOW IT GOT THERE IN THE END.
OH, THEY DID. WELL, LET'S SEE.
WELL, WHAT YOU'VE DONE IS YOU'VE MINIMIZED THE CUTS TO.
SO HERE'S. YOU'RE CLOSE WITH THE FIVE AND THE TWO.
[02:25:02]
WHAT I'M NOT LIKING IS THAT YOU'VE ELIMINATED THE CUTS TO GET US OUR FUND BALANCE BELOW A FRICTION. SO I'M WONDERING, IS THERE A WAY NOW YOU CAN GO BACK UP TO THOSE EXPENDITURE GROWTH OR THE CUT SIDE AND ADJUST THAT TO GET US TO ZERO.NO, NO, PUT ONE, BUT THEN PUT ONE AND IN A COLUMN OVER.
SORRY, THE CUTS CAN'T GO NEGATIVE, SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.
NO, I'M TRYING. THERE'S OUR 8S.
THAT'S IT. WHERE IS IT AT? IT'S GOT TO BE HERE SOMEWHERE.
UP UP. YEAH YOU GOT TO GET THE 8% RIGHT.
OKAY. THERE'S THAT BREAK EVEN POINT RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S JUST A FRONT LOADED FUND BALANCE USAGE IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT, BUT IT ALSO WENT THE EXPENDITURE TO 1%.
BUT I DO LIKE USING LET'S SEE AND THAT'S ONLY 0.6 IN THE FIRST YEAR BECAUSE YOU USE THE FUND BALANCE WAY UP FRONT.
AND IT GIVES YOU A SPAN OF TIME TO PREPARE AND TO MANAGE A BIG CHUNK OF CUTS IN 2024.
AND SO KEEPING THE FUND BALANCE ABOVE THE 8.
BUT IT'S A LITTLE I'M LIKE ONE.
BUT THIS ONE WAS 1.2 MILLION IN YEAR THREE AND THAT'S 1 MILLION.
WE GOT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO BALANCING IN YEAR THREE BY 200.
AND I THINK THIS IS MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN THE COMMITTEE IN THAT WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP THE FUND BALANCE AROUND TEN.
BUT USING A LITTLE BIT MORE EASES UP THE CUTS.
[INAUDIBLE] WE SAID EIGHT AND A HALF.
BUT IT ALSO PRIORITIZES WHAT THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED IN TRYING TO LET THIS NEXT YEAR NOT BE VERY DRASTIC.
RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING YEAR TWO LOOKS A LITTLE DRASTIC.
RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE SOME GRACE PERIOD WITH FINGERS CROSSED AND OPPORTUNITIES TO TALK TO LEGISLATURE.
I WOULD ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, WHICH IS, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE USING ONE THIRD OF YOUR FUND BALANCE IN ONE YEAR? YEAH. SORRY.
YEAH. THAT USING IF WE'RE STILL MANAGING AND WE EMPLOY IF WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN AN INCREASED LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT TO ACCOMMODATE OUR COVID COMPLIANCE WORK.
YES, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
WE'RE NOT BACK TO NORMAL, I GUESS I'VE BEEN THINKING THAT WE'RE CLOSER TO BACK TO NORMAL AND MOVING FORWARD IN MANY OTHER SECTORS OF THE COUNTY.
BUT ON AN 18 BASE USING FIVE, WHICH IS STILL FIVE ABOVE OUR MINIMUM.
AS OPPOSED TO IF A $2.4 MILLION DOLLAR CUT IN 23-24 COMES OUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A HARD CUT TO BE SITTING ON 14 OR 15% OF A.
[02:30:04]
IF YOU'RE SITTING ON A RESERVE BALANCE.I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU BUT FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, BARGAIN, SOMETHING THAT IS.
HERE'S THIS WAR CHEST BUT WE'RE NOT USING THAT.
BUT WE NEED YOU TO MAKE THIS ADJUSTMENT.
AND I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
SO IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME TO GO FROM 1813 KNOWING THAT WE'RE VERY QUICKLY AND WE HAVE A MODEL THAT WE CAN RESPECT THAT BUYS A LITTLE TIME TO LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH EXPERIENCE FACTOR, REGIONALIZATION, STUDENT GROWTH.
AND IF WE GET TO 23, 24 AND IT'S TIGHTER THAN WE EXPECT BECAUSE IT HASN'T RECOVERED AND STUDENT GROWTH, HAS NOT WE HAVE TO MAKE EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE ADJUSTMENTS, BUT WE STILL HAVEN'T LOST OUR PLACE WITH OUR MINIMUM FUND BALANCE.
WE STILL EVEN AFTER FIVE, WE'RE STILL SITTING AT 13.
THAT WOULD JUST BE A LEVER WE CAN'T USE AS MUCH.
EXACTLY. WE TOOK IT DOWN SO FAR.
I MEAN, JUST IN AND OF ITSELF, IT PUTS US MORE AT RISK AS A DISTRICT, AND I CAN FEEL THAT SENSE. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IF YOU'RE SITTING ON 13, IF YOU'RE SITTING IF WE'RE SITTING ON 15% FUND BALANCE.
AND YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO DO A $2.4 MILLION REDUCTION IN A STAFF REDUCTION THAT'S A REALLY HARD SELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
I JUST I. YEAH, I GET WHERE ARE YOU GOING? IT'S WHEN DO YOU WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE IT'S ALSO DIFFICULT TO POTENTIALLY NEGOTIATE 12 MONTHS FROM NOW AND BE DOING 2.4 MILLION IN CUTS AND TALKING ABOUT EXPENDITURE.
YOU KNOW, COST CONTAINMENT CONTROLS IN THE FUTURE.
THERE'S NO LIKE PATHWAY THAT ISN'T WITHOUT SOME RISK.
RIGHT. BUT IT'S AS LONG AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AND CONSIDERED IT, THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT. AND I ASKED THE QUESTION OF, ARE WE OKAY TO USE ONE THIRD? I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IT'S ONE THAT I HAVE TO.
IT SEEMS MORE SINCERE AND MORE AUTHENTIC.
TO USE WHAT WE HAVE IN A RESERVE TO AVOID THE CUTS THAN TO GO SIT AT A TABLE AND SAY WE FEAR CUTS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE.
AND WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE, WE DIDN'T.
BUT WE WANT YOU TO BEAR THIS BURDEN.
THAT SEEMS DISINGENUOUS TO A DEGREE.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS AROUND THIS? IF THERE'S. YOU KNOW, I THINK.
DOUG HOOD BROUGHT UP A REALLY GOOD POINT OF YOU KNOW, IS THERE SOMETHING HERE WHERE YOU WANT TO PROVIDE POTENTIALLY A RANGE AS OPPOSED TO A DEFINITIVE NUMBER? THAT'S FINE AS WELL.
WE CAN KIND OF MASSAGE SOME THINGS AROUND.
I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING, THOUGH, IS WE DO HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS AROUND WHAT OUR MODEL LOOKS LIKE FOR NEXT NEXT YEAR ON STAFFING, AND THAT HAS TO BE DONE LIKE RIGHT AWAY.
AND SO. THIS IS VERY, VERY HELPFUL FEEDBACK TONIGHT.
IT GIVES US THOSE BUMPERS, RIGHT, THAT I THINK WE NEED.
CAN YOU THINK OF ANYTHING [INAUDIBLE].
WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION WHEN YOUR THIRD QUESTION ABOUT TO POSE TO US OF WHAT LEVEL OF SAVINGS SHOULD WE TARGET FOR 22 23? WHAT ARE YOU ASKING US TO LOOK AT IN THE MODEL TO GIVE YOU THE RANGE? IT'S JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THIS BASELINE CUTTING POINT, 6 MILLION, 600,000 OUT OF THE BASELINE BUDGET.
ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? OKAY. YEAH.
THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, THOUGH, HAD 2.3 MILLION THE SECOND YEAR.
SO. SO, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S 100,000 MORE, BUT IT WAS STILL HIGH, BUT WE REDUCED THEM IN THIS FIRST YEAR AND JUST USE MORE OF THE
[02:35:02]
SO I ACTUALLY THINK THIS HAS BEEN OUR BEST.I MEAN, I LIKE THIS ONE. YEAH.
I JUST KEEP GOING BACK TO WITH THINGS STILL BEING UNCERTAIN.
THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE A FUND BALANCE.
I'M GLAD THAT WE DID THIS BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING I COULD LIVE WITH.
DO YOU LIKE 211? WE HAD TALKED ABOUT 221.
THAT PART MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS THE 211.
THE 1% IS, IT'S TOUGH, BUT WE'LL FIND OUT.
I MEAN. WE'VE GOT NO HISTORY HAVING GOTTEN THERE.
CORRECT. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T DO IT RIGHT.
IT'S POSSIBLE. SOUNDS LIKE A JOB FOR AN INTERIM.
[LAUGHTER] SO IT'S POSSIBLE. IT'S JUST TOUGH, THAT'S ALL.
THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO EVENTUALLY GO BANKRUPT.
RIGHT. AND IF WE'RE CONSTANTLY OUT, IF WE DON'T KEEP IN LINE.
WE'LL RUN OUT OF FUND BALANCE.
WELL, BUT I THINK IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE LEGISLATURE TOLD US, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS ONE MORE SHOT OF STABILIZATION.
AND THIS IS THE LAST TIME I THINK WE CAN KIND OF ADOPT SOME OF THAT SIMILAR MESSAGING WITH OUR GROUPS AND ALL THAT.
I MEAN, THIS IS WE HAVE PUSHED IT.
THIS SHOWS WE ARE PUSHING THIS OUT AS FAR AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
BUT YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUR LIMIT.
YES, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO SAY ANYMORE THAN THAT.
RIGHT. AND IT JUST I'M JUST WE'RE ALL SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN A ROUGH TWO YEARS. RIGHT.
AND THEN TO HAVE THIS LOOMING IN THE FUTURE IS IT'S HARD TO SWALLOW, BUT IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN DO ANYTHING TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT, THAT IT'S JUST WE HAVE TO MANAGE THAT VERY CAREFULLY. [INAUDIBLE] I THINK I ALSO WOULD THINK IT'S WORTHY TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A NEW SUPERINTENDENT COMING IN AND IT'S HARD TO BRING HIM INTO A YEAR AND SAY, HEY, WELCOME TO THE CLUB. AND NOW YOU NEED TO CUT ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OUT OF OUR ORGANIZATION. IT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, TIMING.
YEAH. WE'VE GIVEN THAT A LOT OF THOUGHT AND I KIND OF COME BACK TO THERE IS NO SINGLE PERSON THAT'S LARGER THAN THE ORGANIZATION.
YEAH. YEAH. I HAVEN'T SEEN A NORMAL YEAR SINCE I'VE GOTTEN HERE.
REGARDING OUR BUDGET AND EVEN TO THE POINT OF TALKING ABOUT BALANCE, USING FUND BALANCE MORE THE FIRST YEAR VERSUS SECOND.
AND THIS MODEL ACTUALLY WOULD ALIGN WITH THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE AND I HAVE HAD.
AND AGAIN, TO JASEN'S POINT, IT'S GOING TO BE THE WORK OF ALL OF US, RIGHT? IF IF 23, 24 IS THERE WITH THAT REDUCTION, IT'S GOING TO BE ALL OF OUR WORK SUPPORTING THE SUPERINTENDENT. OKAY.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS.
RIGHT NOW, SHOULD WE? DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE WE DO CAPITAL FACILITIES? ARE WE ON A TIMELINE FOR THOSE? MEANING IS MAY WORKSHOP TOO LATE.
DO WE NEED TO GET IT TODAY? IS THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.
I'D RATHER DO IT I THINK WE HAVE TIME TO MAKE AN OVERALL DECISION ON IT AND I CAN MAKE IT EXTREMELY QUICK.
OKAY. YOU WANT TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK OR A.
QUICK BREAK, OKAY? PRESS BREAK.
JASEN DO YOU HAVE EVERY. ALL RIGHT.
WELCOME BACK TO OUR BOARD WORKSHOP.
[3. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN REVIEW]
WE HAVE COME BACK FROM BREAK AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JASEN REGARDING CAMAS SCHOOL[02:40:03]
DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES.OKAY. SO EVERY SIX YEARS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE TO UPDATE THEIR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND THIS BECOMES THE BASIS FOR THE IMPACT FEES THAT ARE CHARGED TO DEVELOPERS AND THOSE BUILDING HOMES IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH.
NOT ONLY JUST AROUND SETTING THE IMPACT FEE, BUT IT'S WHEN WE CAN ALL COLLECTIVELY KIND OF START TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE OUR CAPACITIES IN OUR SCHOOLS, WHAT'S OUR ENROLLMENT TRENDS, AND WHAT ARE TRULY OUR FACILITY NEEDS GOING INTO THE FUTURE? AND HAVING JUST COME OFF THE DISCUSSION AROUND ENROLLMENT FOR BUDGET PLANS HAVE CHANGED.
RIGHT. THINGS HAVE SLOWED DOWN.
WE JUST GOT DONE WITH OUR 2016 BOND THAT THE VOTERS APPROVED.
AND WE'VE PRETTY MUCH COMPLETED WELL WHAT WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL THE PROJECTS THERE THAT WE SAID THAT WE WOULD DELIVER.
AND THEN WE'VE HAD THE ENROLLMENT DECLINE.
SO WE'RE REALLY SITTING FROM A DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE IN A PRETTY GOOD SPOT CAPACITY WISE FOR OUR FACILITIES.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME PAIN POINTS AND I DO WANT TO POINT THOSE OUT AND I'LL JUST QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THIS PLAN.
SINCE WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A WHILE THIS EVENING.
WE'VE BEEN ASSISTED THROUGH I CANNOT REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE LAW FIRM, BUT ANYWAYS, IT'S A LAW FIRM THAT COLLECTIVELY DISTRICTS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THIS REGION. WE AGREED TO ENGAGE WITH.
AND SO THERE'S SOME CONSISTENCY AND SOME CONTINUITY THERE.
SHE'S DONE A WONDERFUL JOB IN HELPING ME PREPARE THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE TYPICALLY THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HEIDI ROSENBERG WOULD BE DOING, RIGHT? IT'S A SEPARATE PRIVATE FIRM, SO IT'S OUTSIDE OF ESD 112.
AND ACTUALLY, HEIDI, THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT THING TO HER, AND SHE REALLY LEFT A NICE KIND OF STARTING BLOCK AND DID A LOT OF THE HEAVY LIFTING AS FAR AS SETTING UP SOME OF THE FRAMEWORK AROUND THIS.
WE HAVEN'T TECHNICALLY CALCULATED OUT THE IMPACT FEES.
I'M WORKING WITH LEANNE TO REFINE SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT GO INTO THAT CALCULATION.
SO BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S PROBABLY AT THAT 95% LEVEL OF COMPLETION.
AND IT CAN GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
SO THE PLAN TYPICALLY KIND OF GOES THROUGH I'M GOING TO GO QUICKLY TO SOME TABLES HERE.
SO. TALKS ABOUT WHAT OUR CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY, BASICALLY WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS BROKEN OUT IN THE ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH.
AND THEN SPEAKS TO THE CAPACITY OF THOSE RESPECTIVE BUILDINGS AND NUMBER OF TEACHING STATIONS. IN LATER TABLES WE ALSO INTEGRATE THE NUMBER OF PORTABLES THAT WE HAVE.
RIGHT. SO WE HAVE PORTABLES THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
NOT A GREAT NUMBER OF THEM, REALLY.
FOR THE MOST PART, THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR STUDENTS ARE IN BRICK AND MORTAR.
BUT WE DO HAVE SOME SCHOOLS THAT WE HAVE UTILIZED PORTABLES OVER THE YEARS.
WE ALSO HAVE OTHER NON DIRECT STUDENT SERVICE BUILDINGS, BE IT TRANSPORTATION CENTER, THE ZELLERBACH ADMIN CENTER HERE HEIGHTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
PART OF OUR INVENTORY BUT NOT SERVING STUDENTS.
THIS IS THE OLD UL SITE CALLED LEADBETTER.
WE'VE GOT ABOUT 80 ACRES OUT THERE THAT WE HAD GOTTEN FROM, I THINK, DNR BACK.
I'M NOT SURE IT WAS BEFORE MY TIME.
AND WE HAVE ABOUT 20 ACRES RIGHT OFF OF PARKER, KIND OF THE ADJOINS [INAUDIBLE] THERE.
THIS IS 19.6 ACRES IS WHAT WE PRESENTLY HAVE UP FOR SALE.
[02:45:05]
IN LOOKING AT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, I KIND OF GO THROUGH AND DESCRIBE SOME OF THE [INAUDIBLE] FORECAST, GIVE THAT OUT TO 2028, WHICH IS THE TIME SPAN FOR THIS PLAN.AND YOU START TO LOOK AT OK WHAT'S THAT GROWTH IN ACTUAL OUT TO 2028.
AND SO WE'VE GOT SOME THERE'S SOME GROWTH THERE, RIGHT.
WHICH YOU WOULD EXPECT WE ALWAYS HAVE THAT.
ONE THING TO NOTE, AND THIS IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
WE HAVE SOME MULTI FAMILY UNITS THAT ARE GOING IN, BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T A HISTORY AROUND HOW MANY STUDENTS THOSE MULTIFAMILY UNITS GENERATE.
AND SO THIS WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A COMPOSITE RATE USING RATES FROM SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS. BATTLEGROUND EVERGREEN, VANCOUVER.
THIS WAS ON THE SINGLE FAMILY THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE FOR THE MULTI FAMILY GENERATION RATE. BUT WE'LL SEE.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT NUMBER, SO IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO. AND THEN WE LOOK AT BUILDING CAPACITY AND THIS KIND OF GETS INTO KIND OF WHAT ARE THOSE SITES THAT WE SEE AS HAVING SOME POTENTIAL ISSUES? SO TAKE LIKE CAMAS HIGH SCHOOL HERE, YOU'VE GOT A BUILDING CAPACITY OF 1834, NUMBER OF STUDENTS, YOU'VE GOT PORTABLE CAPACITY OF 310.
THAT'S WHAT GETS YOU THE TOTAL CAPACITY.
PRESENTLY LOOKING AT ABOUT 87% FULL, LOOKING AT DIFFERENT AT THE REVENUE FORECAST.
THEY'RE OUT AT THEIR CAPACITY AT 2040.
DISCOVERY THIS IS ANTICIPATING THAT WE ARE YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY CHS IS CONTINGENT UPON WHAT HAPPENS AT DISCOVERY AND HAYES.
SO BUILDING CAPACITY AGAIN AT HAYES IS ABOUT 200.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE NEED TO GET FILLED UP AT SOME FUTURE POINT IN TIME.
SO, YES. JUST TO BE CLEAR, FOR THIS EXERCISE, IT IS ONLY BRICK AND MORTAR, SO THE CCA SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED? CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH.
SO WE HAVE TO FACTOR OUT CCA IN THIS MODEL.
SO WE'RE NOT OVER COUNTING, IF YOU WILL.
YEAH. SO SOME OF THE PAIN POINTS THAT FIT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF THIS PLAN ODYSSEY, WHICH BASICALLY IS AT CAPACITY, ROUGHLY.
THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE ABOUT 350 STUDENTS.
THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A WAITING LIST AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE TO INCREASE CAPACITY.
LIBERTY, THE FEEDER SCHOOLS THERE IN LACAMAS AND WOODBURN ARE WHAT'S GOING TO DRIVE ITS ENROLLMENT UP.
AND SO THERE'S A PAIN POINT THERE.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WOODBURN.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
WE'VE GOT ROOM TO FIT ANOTHER PORTABLE THERE.
WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO DO THAT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
WE COULD GIVE LIBERTY SOME RELIEF WITH A PORTABLE.
IT MIGHT TAKE UP SOME OF THAT PLAYFIELD IN THE BACK THERE.
KIND OF KITTY CORNER FROM HAYES THERE.
REALLY, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY POTENTIALLY THE LARGEST INVESTMENT THAT WE COULD MAKE THAT WOULD IMPROVE SOME CAPACITY THERE.
WE COULD UTILIZE THAT SPACE MORE EFFICIENTLY IF THINGS WERE RECONFIGURED.
IT ALSO WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A CONNECTION, A TANGIBLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT BUILDING AND DISCOVERY, BECAUSE STUDENTS ARE, YOU KNOW, IT'S PART OF A PROJECT BASED LEARNING CAMPUS. SO HAVING THAT CONNECTION WOULD BE GOOD.
SO WHEN YOU START TO KIND OF GET BACK, GET DOWN TO OKAY WHAT COULD THINGS POTENTIALLY
[02:50:02]
COST? AND THIS IS SOME OF WHAT'S BEING WORKED ON PRESENTLY.I'M TRYING TO GET SOME COMPARABLE COST ESTIMATES FROM LEANNE AS SHE'S WORKING ON SEVERAL PLANS. BUT WE COULD PLACE A WOODBURN ELEMENTARY PORTABLE.
WE COULD DO AN ODYSSEY MIDDLE SCHOOL EDITION.
POTENTIALLY ACQUIRE PROPERTY DURING THAT TIME FRAME.
A LIBERTY MIDDLE SCHOOL PORTABLE.
AND THEN IF WE START TO ADDRESS REALLY THE MIDDLE SCHOOL ISSUE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW, MIDDLE SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE A PINCH POINT FOR US.
NOW THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
SOME OF THE IMBALANCE IN THE DISTRICT, OBVIOUSLY, TOO, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER.
AND WHEN DO YOU AS A DISTRICT EMBARK UPON THAT BOUNDARY DISCUSSION? RIGHT. BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAN THIS DOESN'T ENTERTAIN ANY SORT OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. IT'S A CONSTANT.
PRESENTLY. THEN I HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS DOWN BELOW OF ESTIMATING WHAT OUR FINANCING MIGHT BE.
THIS WOULDN'T INCLUDE ALL OF THE PROJECTS ABOVE, BUT WOULD BE SOME.
SECURED IS GOING TO BE BASICALLY WHAT SORT OF MONEY DO YOU PRESENTLY HAVE IN THE BANK? UNSECURED IS LIKE A FUTURE POTENTIAL.
OUT OF THAT, THOSE FACTORS GET PLUGGED INTO A VERY LENGTHY FORMULA THAT I AM SO THANKFUL LEANNE KNOWS AND IT'LL RENDER SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY IMPACT FEES.
BUT I WOULD EXPECT JUST KIND OF GIVEN OUR TREND, THAT I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO RENDER A LOWER IMPACT FEE . ANY QUESTIONS? I KNOW I MOVED THROUGH THAT FAST, BUT I'M LIKE, WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR AWHILE. CAN I JUST SEE THE MIDDLE SCHOOL? THE PORTABLE YOU HAD A TABLE THAT HAD THE PORTABLES ALL LAID OUT, AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHERE THE MOST CAPACITY OR THE MOST.
THERE THEY ARE RIGHT THERE. THIS MIGHT GIVE YOU.
YEAH. BECAUSE THIS INCLUDES NOT ONLY BUILDING BUT PORTABLE CAPACITY AND WHERE WE'RE AT AS FAR AS PERCENTAGE [INAUDIBLE] PRESENTLY.
YEAH. BUT IF YOU WERE TRYING TO HOUSE THOSE UNHOUSE STUDENTS AND I'M ASSUMING FROM AN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION, THE UNHOUSED STUDENTS ARE THE ONES THAT IMPACT, FEES CAN BE USED TO HOUSE. YEAH.
THAT'S. THAT'S WHAT IT HAS TO BE.
SO IT CAN'T BE FOR, LIKE MAINTENANCE, BUT.
AND IF WE WERE TO DO ANYTHING WITH ODYSSEY, IT WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE CAPACITY OR A PORTABLE. I'M KIND OF CONFUSING THE STATE MATCH WITH OUR IMPACT FEES AND THE ISSUE OF UNHOUSED VERSUS HOUSED DOESN'T MATTER.
SO THE PORTABLES WERE JUST WE JUST HAVE STUDENTS WHO ARE LIVING IN A PORTABLE WHICH IS THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
I GUESS SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT, WAS WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO BE HOUSING IF YOU WERE TRYING TO BUILD? YOU SHOWED A MIDDLE SCHOOL AT 100 MILLION ON THERE.
DID THAT ALIGN WITH OUR PORTABLE POPULATION AT ALL? SO. REALLY WHAT I, THINK IF WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF THROUGH A PORTABLE TO LIBERTY, WE COULD AVOID A MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION.
POTENTIALLY. BUT IT'S KIND OF THE TIMING OF THIS PLAN GOING OUT TO 2028 AND PUTTING US RIGHT AT THE BRINK WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO OF OUR THREE MIDDLE SCHOOLS POTENTIALLY FULL. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? YOU WOULD BE ACQUIRING PROPERTY OR POTENTIALLY STARTING CONSTRUCTION ON A NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL. SO IF OUR ENROLLMENT DOES COME IN AS SUCH OR HIGHER, ONE COULD REASONABLY EXPECT THAT WE MIGHT BE GOING OUT FOR A BOND IN SIX YEARS.
YOU KNOW, WHICH SO I WAS TALKING WITH LEANNE.
[02:55:01]
SO WHAT DO YOU INCLUDE IN THE PLAN? WHAT DO YOU NOT? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY FACILITIES NEEDS DO NOT FIT NEATLY INTO SIX YEAR BLOCKS AND NOR DO YOU GET RESOURCES AS SUCH.AND SHE SAID, WELL, IF IF THERE'S A POTENTIAL OF IT HAPPENING, YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE IT IN YOUR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN.
OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND REVISIT IT AND REPUBLISH ANOTHER PLAN WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD. SO IF IT'S NOT ON THE LIST OR IF IT WASN'T ANTICIPATED, DON'T ADD IT.
I'M SORRY THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO. OKAY.
A SIMILAR CASE COULD BE MADE FOR AN ELEMENTARY, BUT I THINK WITH A PORTABLE WE CAN GET BY WITH WOODBURN AND THE REMAINING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SEEM TO HAVE CAPACITY OVER THAT TIME PERIOD. YOU THINK LACAMAS WE REALLY BUILT THAT THING TO ACCOMMODATE QUITE A FEW KIDS AND THEY'VE GOT QUITE A BIT OF CAPACITY LEFT THAT THEY COULD.
SO. AS THAT NORTH SHORE TAKES OFF.
WE SHOULD BE IN GOOD PLACE IN A GOOD SPOT WITH THAT SCHOOL.
THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS? OKAY. NEXT STEPS WILL BE.
I'LL PROBABLY BE BRINGING THIS BEFORE YOU AT A REGULAR BOARD MEETING FOR APPROVAL.
THE COUNTY NEEDS THIS FROM US.
INITIALLY, WE WERE THINKING BY THE END OF THIS MONTH.
BUT WE THINK WE CAN GET PROBABLY BY THE END OF MAY.
BECAUSE WE GOT A SMALL EXTENSION.
I WANTED TO GET THIS IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU KNOW, GIVE YOU SOME TIME TO READ IT ON YOUR OWN.
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS POSSIBLY A NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL OR THERE'S NO SPECIFICS.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT SIX YEARS.
HERE'S WHERE THE PAINS COULD BE VERY GENERIC.
WE'RE NOT COMMITTING OURSELVES TO ANYTHING.
NO, IT'S MORE OF WHAT CAN YOU REASONABLY ANTICIPATE IN THAT TIME PERIOD AND WHAT THOSE COSTS MIGHT BE AND.
YOU KNOW, DOES THAT RESULT IN AN IMPACT FEE OR NOT? AND IF SO, HOW MUCH? AND THERE'S A VERY IT IS QUITE THE CALCULATION.
SO. YOU NEED THEN AT THE END OF MAY.
IT'S OUR REGULAR BOARD MEETING.
I THINK SO. I THINK THAT'LL BE FINE.
I NEED TO CONFIRM WITH LEANNE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WANT TO REMAIN GOOD PARTNERS, OBVIOUSLY, WITH THE COUNTY.
SO. ONCE WE PASS THE SIX YEAR PLAN, ARE THERE IDEAS OF PUTTING A CAPITAL FACILITIES COMMITTEE TOGETHER AGAIN? I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN FACILITIES COMMITTEES TOGETHER.
I KNOW CAC WENT THROUGH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW.
IS THERE SOME SORT OF IDEA TO TAKE THIS AND INVOLVE PEOPLE IN THE IMAGINATION OF HOW WE WANT TO GROW AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE? I THINK THAT'S A GREAT TASK FOR OUR NEW SUPERINTENDENT.
I REALLY HONESTLY, I THINK SO.
I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE, HONESTLY, IN GOING THROUGH THAT.
JUST BECAUSE WE'RE DONE WITH OUR BOND, I THINK IT IS GOOD TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AND THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT ARE OUR FUTURE NEEDS.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AS WELL.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT IT'S A LOT TO MAINTAIN THESE BUILDINGS.
OUR OPERATIONS FOLKS DO A WONDERFUL JOB.
I THINK I WOULD WANT A CONVERSATION IN A WORKSHOP TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT FIRST BEFORE A COMMITTEE IS MADE, OR I THINK IT WOULD BE BEHOOVE US TO TALK THROUGH FUTURES.
WHAT? OUR PLANNING SESSION OR SOMETHING.
THE IDEA THAT THIS COMES IN SLIGHTLY BELOW MAKES SENSE GIVEN THE RECENT HISTORIC INVESTMENTS WE'VE MADE IN THE DISTRICT.
[03:00:02]
BUT IT WOULD BE REALLY UNFAIR TO SOMEHOW REDUCE IT SO FAR THAT IT BEGINS TO TRANSFER AN INCREASED AMOUNT TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF VISITORS THAT COME TO OUR COMMUNITY.SO, YOU KNOW, TO WHAT DEGREE YOU'RE HOLDING IT ROUGHLY STABLE AND YOU'RE CLOSE, REFLECTING NEW INVESTMENTS, WHICH I THINK YOU HAVE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB UP THERE.
THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. AND I LIKE THE IDEA.
I'D LOVE TO SEE THE COMMUNITY GET ENGAGED AND HAVE OUR NEW SUPERINTENDENT MEET PEOPLE THAT WAY. AND FACILITIES PLANNING IS A REALLY WONDERFUL WAY TO DO THAT.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS YOUR LONGEST WORKSHOP.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S BOARD WORKSHOP.
THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION THIS EVENING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.