[0:05] [music]
[0:06] Welcome everyone. I'd like to call the
[0:08] September 23rd, 2026th meeting of the
[0:11] Ashkosh Area School District Board of
[0:13] Education uh meeting to order. Are we in
[0:16] compliance with open meeting law?
[0:18] >> Yes, we are.
[0:19] >> Please take the role.
[0:20] >> Snake
[0:21] >> here.
[0:21] >> Wolf
[0:22] >> here.
[0:22] >> Write
[0:23] >> here.
[0:23] >> Wyman.
[0:24] >> Bor
[0:25] >> here.
[0:26] >> H
[0:26] >> here.
[0:27] >> We have a quorum.
[0:28] >> All right. All right, I'd like to invite
[0:29] our students from Jefferson Elementary
[0:30] up to help us recite the pledge of
[0:33] allegiance. Yeah, right there is
[0:35] perfect. Flag's right over here.
[0:38] >> You guys ready? Ice
[0:42] to the flag of the United States of
[0:45] America and to the republic for which it
[0:48] stands. One nation under God,
[0:52] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:56] for all.
[0:56] >> Nice job, guys. CERTIFICATES
[0:59] [applause]
[1:02] for you. We got Billy.
[1:05] There you go. Delila, you want to stay
[1:08] up here for a picture?
[1:11] Is that right?
[1:12] >> All right.
[1:14] >> Brian, you want to be in this?
[1:16] >> Yes.
[1:17] >> All right. I'll come on side.
[1:22] » Well done.
[1:23] >> And three, two.
[1:27] Smart for dead.
[1:32] » Awesome. Well done.
[1:34] >> Great job, guys.
[1:41] » Now, I'd like to invite uh the
[1:43] principal, Tanisha Jones of Jefferson
[1:44] Elementary, up to tell us a little bit
[1:46] about what's going on at Jefferson.
[1:55] Good evening everyone. I am the
[1:58] principal of Jefferson Elementary
[2:00] School. You may have heard Lady Jones.
[2:02] And I'm excited to share some news about
[2:05] what's happening at Jefferson.
[2:08] Our theme this school year is one team,
[2:10] one goal, champion mindset. And for us,
[2:14] building a champion team starts with
[2:17] making sure every student know that they
[2:19] belong. We've tipped off the first
[2:21] quarter with a focus on safety and
[2:23] belonging. We want our students to know
[2:26] that Jefferson is a place where they are
[2:28] safe, supported, valued, and an
[2:31] important part of our team. At the same
[2:33] time, we are challenging them
[2:35] academically. They are learning every
[2:37] day, um, doing hard things, making
[2:40] mistakes, trying again, and experiencing
[2:43] success. We want them to have the
[2:45] confidence to stick with it even when
[2:47] learning gets tough or challenging. And
[2:50] I can say that I can already see that
[2:52] happening when I walk through Jefferson.
[2:54] I see joy. I see students engaged in
[2:57] learning. I see relationships being
[2:59] built. I see staff problem solving
[3:01] together and stepping outside of the
[3:03] roles to support students and each
[3:06] other. And one of my favorite things has
[3:09] been hearing the students use our IC
[3:11] values. So their integrity, safety,
[3:15] engagement, and excellence. Our students
[3:18] are beginning to understand I belong
[3:20] here. I'm a part of this team and I can
[3:23] do hard things. And when students feel
[3:25] like they belong, they want to show up.
[3:27] We recently had our third Friday count.
[3:30] And to help celebrate or bring in a day,
[3:32] we played music. We had bubbles out
[3:34] front and we had teachers and myself
[3:36] outside with pompoms cheering them on
[3:39] and welcoming them in. Our attendance is
[3:42] currently up this school year. to start
[3:44] we're at 97.3%
[3:46] compared with how we ended last school
[3:48] year at 93.1%.
[3:51] Um that shows that students are excited
[3:53] to show up and they're feeling more like
[3:56] they belong in our space. And we also
[3:59] saw what that growth can look like last
[4:01] school year in I Ready. We went from
[4:04] 25.9%
[4:05] students on target to 58.6 in um
[4:08] reading. In math, we went from 20.3%
[4:12] um to 51% of students on target. We saw
[4:15] gains in our state data as well. Our
[4:17] four ELA proficiency increased from
[4:19] 28.1% to 37.5 and our math went up from
[4:24] about 29% to 40% of students who were
[4:27] showing proficiency. Those results um
[4:31] really did set a bar for the work ahead
[4:33] of us this school year. and our focus is
[4:35] going to be continuing to move forward
[4:38] our students forward. We saw a lot of
[4:40] growth and consistency last year with
[4:42] Jefferson and we have an encouraging
[4:45] start with our fall already reading data
[4:48] thus far. We already seeing a 2.5 um
[4:52] increase of students who are on target
[4:54] in reading the same time last school
[4:57] year. You don't win a basketball game in
[4:59] the first quarter, but you definitely
[5:02] set the tone. That's where we are right
[5:05] now. We're focused on safety and
[5:06] belonging, strong instruction, knowing
[5:09] what our data is telling us, and
[5:10] adjusting the game plan based on what
[5:12] our students need. We have had a strong
[5:15] tip off, and we're excited to see what
[5:17] our Patriots do with the rest of the
[5:19] season. One team, one goal, Jeff um
[5:22] championship mindset. Thank you very
[5:25] much.
[5:26] >> Thank you.
[5:27] >> Very impressive results.
[5:28] >> Yes. Keep up the good work.
[5:30] >> Any questions or comments?
[5:34] Okay. Thank you for your time.
[5:35] >> Thank you so much. Thank you.
[5:39] >> All right. Uh, Superintendent Davis with
[5:41] the land acknowledgement.
[5:42] >> Yes. As we gather today, we'd like to
[5:44] acknowledge that in Oshkosh, we are on
[5:45] the ancestral homelands of the Ho Chunk
[5:47] Nation and Monomony Indian tribe of
[5:49] Wisconsin who lived along the western
[5:50] shores of Lake Wnebago, Wisconsin's
[5:53] largest freshwater lake entirely within
[5:54] its borders. We acknowledge these
[5:56] indigenous sovereign communities who
[5:58] have stewarded this land throughout the
[5:59] generations and pay respect to their
[6:01] elders past and present. We welcome the
[6:03] duty and opportunity to share
[6:05] stewardship of these lands.
[6:07] >> Thank you, Superintendent Davis.
[6:09] Approval of agenda. Are there any
[6:12] changes
[6:13] to the agenda?
[6:18] » Thank you very much for coming.
[6:20] >> Um if not, we'll move on to our mission
[6:22] moment. Now, we have our actual formal
[6:24] mission moment today, but I'm going to
[6:25] go a little bit off script. Um, as most
[6:28] of you know, we had a scary uh situation
[6:30] at North today. Um, because of our
[6:32] partners and the Oshkosh Police
[6:34] Department, specifically those in the
[6:35] SRO program, the professionalism of our
[6:38] district staff, district administrators,
[6:40] and the patients and caring of our
[6:42] families and our students. We have 1,200
[6:43] North students, including my own two
[6:45] sons, and the children of others on this
[6:48] board that are home safe tonight. You
[6:50] know, in this body, we often approve
[6:51] plans and we debate hypotheticals, but
[6:54] today was real and you all met the
[6:56] moment. And you know, thank you is not
[6:58] enough, but on behalf of this board, I
[6:59] want to thank everyone who was involved
[7:00] today.
[7:03] >> So, sorry to get emotional there, but it
[7:05] was a big day. It was a tough day. Now,
[7:08] the formal mission woman
[7:10] um is celebrating an inspiring
[7:12] partnership uh between the Oshkosh Area
[7:14] School District and the Oshkosh YMCA
[7:16] made possible through a generous grant
[7:17] from the Oshkosh Area United Way.
[7:19] Through this collaboration, students in
[7:21] the multicultural outreach pro, excuse
[7:23] me, in the multicultural outreach
[7:25] program, which is MCO, gain vital water
[7:27] safety skills and build lasting
[7:29] confidence through swimming lessons. We
[7:31] extend [clears throat] our sincere
[7:32] gratitude to Aayak Deng OSD student and
[7:34] family engagement coordinator and the
[7:36] entire MCO team for their dedication to
[7:38] empowering our students. Please enjoy
[7:40] this brief video highlighting the
[7:42] powerful impact of our community coming
[7:43] together around a shared mission.
[7:50] [music]
[7:55] for multicultural [music]
[7:56] outreach um serves students and families
[7:58] with refugee and immigrant backgrounds
[8:00] in um the Oshkosh area school district.
[8:02] So when families uh come into Oshkosh,
[8:05] our team [music] helped them navigate
[8:07] our school system as well as our
[8:10] community.
[8:10] >> This is my first summer with the
[8:12] multicultural outreach program with the
[8:14] Oshkosh Area School District. Um yeah,
[8:17] the summer started off coming to swim
[8:18] lessons at the YMCA. the kids weren't
[8:21] super familiar with being at the pool
[8:22] with the pool rules and weren't very
[8:25] confident in the water. But as the
[8:27] summer progressed, you know, you start
[8:28] to see some of the kids that weren't
[8:30] super
[8:31] um that weren't confident jumping in the
[8:33] water, you know, the first ones [music]
[8:34] out of the pool running out there. You
[8:35] also see some of the kids that already
[8:37] knew kind of their way around the pool,
[8:39] start to develop their skills more in
[8:41] depth.
[8:43] I I I [music]
[8:44] did know how to swim a little bit, but
[8:47] when I really do like myself like some
[8:49] [music] new stuff, I was I was not like
[8:52] the best of it. But almost in the end, I
[8:55] did learn how [music] to like like do
[8:58] like I went back with this. I didn't
[9:00] know how to do that. But now I kind of
[9:03] we are able to provide [music] the um
[9:06] the funds through a grant that we
[9:08] received through the United Way, the
[9:10] Ashka Sharers. [music] Um, and it's
[9:13] beneficial for our families because it
[9:15] takes away that financial barrier that they have, but also um, take away
[9:19] the next step of not necessarily [music]
[9:21] knowing that this resource is here. So,
[9:23] we're able to connect them with the
[9:25] resource and then on top of it, like
[9:27] take away that financial piece. [music]
[9:28] So, um, it's really easy for our
[9:30] families to be a part and for our
[9:32] students to to be here knowing that
[9:34] there isn't financial burden. actually
[9:38] used to be a lifeguard at the YMCA here.
[9:40] I just taught swim myself and it's
[9:42] really heartwarming to see some kids
[9:44] that you know were never able to swim,
[9:46] not confident, you know, scared of the
[9:48] water and to see them develop their
[9:50] skills. It's really it's really just
[9:54] heartwarming to see them uh grow up and
[9:56] be able to be more confident in the
[9:58] field. I think the collaboration between
[10:00] the school district, the YMCA, and all
[10:02] the um grant organizations that we work
[10:04] with uh is really integral to bringing
[10:08] opportunities like this to kids in the
[10:09] communities that otherwise wouldn't have
[10:11] um [music] a chance to participate in
[10:13] programs like this.
[10:16] >> Yeah. And it's also really um
[10:19] heartwarming. It's nice. It's nice to
[10:20] know that our community through
[10:22] different sections that we are all
[10:24] pouring into our families into our
[10:26] students and that we are willing to do
[10:29] our part to, you know, [music] help help
[10:31] uplift those students and empower them
[10:33] to be confident and to feel like they
[10:36] belong here in Washington. [music]
[10:38] >> I love swimming the Olympic.
[10:45] » Excellent.
[10:47] Can I just add I I work
[10:49] pretty closely with them uh
[10:51] professionally and in my private life
[10:53] and they are the epitome of what this
[10:55] district should be doing for family
[10:56] engagement and belonging and and working
[10:58] with families where they're at. And uh
[11:01] they're also really really good at doing
[11:03] things efficiently and uh at a low cost
[11:06] and finding grants and and making things
[11:08] work. Uh and it's a gem of a program and
[11:10] I I'm just we're very lucky to have that
[11:13] program in this district.
[11:15] >> Great.
[11:16] Any other comments?
[11:19] >> Excellent. Well, on to the verbal report
[11:21] from our September 9th, 2026 board
[11:24] listening session. Um, so one individual
[11:26] shared requests aimed at helping the
[11:28] community build a stronger connection
[11:30] with the district. Uh, specific points
[11:32] including a preference for identifying
[11:33] individuals and videos, providing names
[11:36] and sites of new administrators,
[11:37] considering a family contact directory,
[11:40] allowing community members in school
[11:41] PTO's, and a reminder about the dangers
[11:43] of excessive screen time. Another
[11:45] individual requested information on the
[11:47] criteria and process for adding student
[11:49] names to the eligible list for automatic
[11:51] entry into UW locations, including where
[11:54] the list is generated and if there are
[11:55] differences between Oshkosh North and
[11:57] Oshkosh West high schools. Um I shared
[11:59] my knowledge during this session and uh
[12:01] Dr. Davis um was following up with the
[12:03] high school principles and this is
[12:04] referencing the direct admit program
[12:07] where um students that um meet certain
[12:09] criteria are directly admitted to
[12:11] certain universities of Wisconsin. Um, a
[12:14] third individual inquired if the Black
[12:15] Student Union will be available at
[12:17] Oshkosh North High School this year and
[12:18] if there are adults to oversee it. This
[12:20] individual also asked about the start of
[12:22] the school year, which was noted as
[12:23] positive with consistent expectations
[12:25] shown through core values. Um, Ayaken,
[12:28] who was in the meeting, is following up
[12:29] with Oshkosh North High School regarding
[12:31] Black Student Union support. And a
[12:33] reminder, our next uh board listening
[12:35] session is October 14th at 5:00 PM. If
[12:38] you haven't been to one of those, it's
[12:40] kind of nice because unlike um the
[12:42] public comment hearing here, it's a back
[12:44] and forth. It's a little less formal, so
[12:45] it's a nice way to have more of a
[12:47] conversation as opposed to us not really
[12:49] be able to respond to you.
[12:51] Um superintendence report.
[12:55] >> All right. Um so, a lot of great things
[12:57] going on around the around the district.
[12:58] I wanted to uh lift some up and we'll
[13:00] start at uh uh Eook. Um, EUK is proud to
[13:03] enter the second year of partnering with
[13:05] Integro uh numerousy solutions um to
[13:08] strengthen fund uh found fundamental
[13:11] multiplication and division instruction.
[13:13] Recently, the school's math
[13:14] instructional support teacher led third
[13:16] and fourth grade classrooms through an
[13:17] engaging strategy sharing sessions, math
[13:20] games, and targeted assessment lessons.
[13:22] These interactive sessions were filmed
[13:24] and will serve as professional
[13:25] development tools uh to help educators
[13:27] in our district and across the country
[13:29] master best practices in math
[13:31] instruction.
[13:32] A week ago, we gathered to celebrate the
[13:34] ribbon cutting of Carl Trager Elementary
[13:36] School's new four room four classroom
[13:38] expansion and inclusive playground made
[13:41] possible by the support of Oshkosh
[13:42] voters in the April 2025 referendum.
[13:45] This phase 2 facilities project ensures
[13:48] kindergarteners have dedicated space to
[13:50] learn and thrive. The upgraded, fully
[13:52] accessible playground guarantees that
[13:54] students of all abilities can play,
[13:56] grow, and connect side by side. Thank
[13:58] you to our community for investing in
[14:00] the future of our students and our
[14:02] schools.
[14:04] The communities program at Oshkosh North
[14:06] was recently featured on the Wisconsin
[14:08] Association of Environmental Education
[14:11] Education's Healthier, Happier, and
[14:12] Smarter podcast. Teacher Rick Leeb and
[14:16] senior student Ella uh shared how
[14:19] place-based authentic learning empowers
[14:21] students uh to move beyond studying
[14:23] classroom environmental challenges to
[14:25] actively solving them. The episode
[14:27] highlighted studentled initiatives
[14:29] tackling real world issues such as storm
[14:31] water pollution, plastic waste, and
[14:34] community service.
[14:36] Across our district, our fourth graders
[14:38] are taking part uh are taking their
[14:39] science lessons to the open water this
[14:41] fall during hands-on sailing expeditions
[14:44] at Monomony Parks Miller's Bay. Guided
[14:46] by experts from International Youth
[14:48] Sailing of Oshkosh, uh students learn
[14:50] the fundamentals of navigating the small
[14:53] catamarans on Lake Wnebago. Plus, back
[14:55] in the classroom, the young sailor apply
[14:57] these experiences to their curriculum by
[14:59] investigating energy transfer and
[15:01] designing custom sails to test wind
[15:03] efficiency. This unique partnership
[15:05] highlights how our local natural
[15:07] resources are and amazing community
[15:09] partners provide powerful, memorable
[15:12] extensions um to classroom learning
[15:14] across our district.
[15:18] Sixth graders at South Park and Perry
[15:20] Tipler Middle School recently kicked off
[15:21] their science unit with a hands-on lab
[15:24] uh with hands-on lab equipment uh
[15:26] gallery walk. Students explored
[15:28] essential scientific tools while
[15:30] mastering key lab safety protocols.
[15:33] Additionally, students are sharing and
[15:35] comparing their findings across the
[15:36] middle schools, which u was an
[15:39] intentional shared experience uh created
[15:41] by by Miss Brown as a way to build some
[15:43] early connections between peers before
[15:46] uh uniting as one class at the new
[15:48] Westside Middle School in the fall of
[15:50] 2028. So, well done.
[15:53] Oaklan second graders uh recently
[15:55] conquered tricky words during their core
[15:58] knowledge and language arts or CKLA
[16:00] skills lessons. To help students master
[16:03] irregular spellings like would, could,
[16:05] and should, Miss SM introduced, "Oh, you
[16:08] lucky duck." The catchy phrase helps
[16:10] students easily recall the correct
[16:13] letter order um for these non-decodable
[16:16] words. The practice uh the hands-on
[16:18] practice created great energy in the
[16:20] classroom as students celebrated their
[16:22] spelling breakthroughs and built
[16:24] confidence in their reading skills.
[16:27] PBS Kids star Daniel Tiger recently made
[16:30] some special visits to our elementary
[16:31] schools uh across the district to
[16:33] inspire our youngest learners. Joined by
[16:36] Dr. Sam Sam Coleman, Daniel led
[16:38] interactive storytime sessions focused
[16:40] on understanding big emotions and
[16:42] developing self-regulation skills. We
[16:44] extend a huge thank you to the ReadMore
[16:47] Oshkosh for partnering with us to bring
[16:49] these memorable high impact learning
[16:51] experiences directly to our schools. And
[16:53] there were smiles all around as every
[16:55] student received their own book to keep
[16:58] and read again with their families.
[17:02] Our first two surveys um uh the first of
[17:05] our two surveys is still open for people
[17:07] to submit naming ideas for the new
[17:09] Westside Middle School. This survey will
[17:11] close on Monday, September 28th. So,
[17:13] coming up soon, this initial feed uh
[17:16] this initial feedback will help the
[17:18] district facilities and finance
[17:19] committee and actually be the facilities
[17:21] committee um select the top finalist um
[17:24] for the second community vote in October
[17:27] uh before the school board makes the
[17:28] final decision. Visit the district
[17:30] website to gain access to the survey
[17:32] link and to learn more.
[17:34] And finally, um just a uh place that I
[17:37] places that I've been as we've kicked
[17:39] off the first month of the school year.
[17:40] So, thanks for everybody for the welcome
[17:42] and uh we're off to a great start.
[17:45] >> Thank you, Superintendent Davis. Uh now
[17:47] on to the district administrator
[17:48] supplemental reports and we have the
[17:50] healthcare strategy um written/verbal
[17:52] report from Brian Yorkie.
[18:11] Yeah, we need the other presentation of
[18:15] the
[18:18] » Yeah.
[18:24] Okay. Um so tonight we're going to talk
[18:25] about um have an initial discussion
[18:27] about our healthc care um strategy um
[18:30] and some recommendations that will come
[18:32] uh for the 2027 uh plan year for us. Um
[18:36] so first of all, just to set some
[18:38] context, it's important to know that as
[18:39] we're talking about our healthcare
[18:40] strategy, our healthc care year is
[18:43] different than our school year uh and
[18:45] our fiscal year. So our healthc care
[18:47] year actually goes on a calendar year
[18:49] from January 1st to December 31st. Um,
[18:52] and so that's important to know as we're
[18:54] talking about the budget implications uh
[18:57] related to this plan. Um, if we're
[18:59] looking at savings that we would have
[19:00] from a district standpoint, we would
[19:02] need to cut those savings in half
[19:04] because only half of the plans
[19:05] experienced in every fiscal year um
[19:07] where our fiscal year goes July 1st to
[19:09] January uh to uh June 30th um as we move
[19:13] forward. So, just some some context. But
[19:15] tonight, we want to um to uh focus on um
[19:18] a healthc care strategy to be more
[19:20] sustainable as we're moving forward. I
[19:22] do want to start with um some budget uh
[19:25] context um to uh to the conversation
[19:28] tonight. And again, this is uh certainly
[19:30] kind of a a recap of the work that we've
[19:32] done for the 2627 budget. But the
[19:35] healthc care strategy that we're going
[19:37] to be talking about tonight is directly
[19:38] related to um helping us uh reduce costs
[19:42] um from a district standpoint um as
[19:44] we're thinking about this year's budget
[19:46] and landing this year's budget in the
[19:48] next month. Um so you have a summary
[19:50] there of the two points in time over
[19:52] this past year that we were preparing
[19:54] for the 2627 budget both this uh January
[19:57] and April staff and non non- staff
[19:59] budget reductions um totaling 7.7 about
[20:03] $7.8 $8 million um total.
[20:07] Um as we um had some improved for
[20:10] forecasting as we moved throughout the
[20:12] year um had some turnover in our
[20:14] business department to get us to a
[20:16] stronger place um with our forecasting
[20:18] models. Um also um using the expertise
[20:21] um that we had for our consultants uh
[20:23] both from Baird Financial along with
[20:26] Todd Gray who came and spoke with us um
[20:28] we were able to work through some
[20:29] improved forecasting um and know that
[20:32] our our uh deficit that we were
[20:33] projecting that was originally 5.5 um is
[20:36] now at a target of 14.8. So that's
[20:39] something that we've worked through um
[20:41] throughout the last uh couple months um
[20:44] and landed at a at a a firm target uh
[20:47] for us to be able to hit. So the the
[20:50] reason um the path I should say um to
[20:53] those and that'll come on in just a
[20:54] second.
[21:00] So the the path from the 5.5 to the
[21:03] 14.8. So as again we were doing our our
[21:06] forecasting places that we saw a need to
[21:08] increase what our forecast was from our
[21:11] previous um work um which was not well
[21:13] done to where we are right now um was in
[21:16] those four areas. So you can see
[21:18] employee health insurance um was the the
[21:21] one area that we made the most uh
[21:23] increases on to be able to make sure
[21:25] that we have confidence in a budget um
[21:28] uh forecast um that we can uh land based
[21:31] on on what our uh historical data has
[21:33] looked like. So you can see three other
[21:34] categories there, but health insurance
[21:36] is certainly an area um that we need to
[21:38] be able to uh focus on as we're moving
[21:40] forward. So with a $14.8 8 million
[21:43] number to be able to hit um for the
[21:46] balance for 27 for the 2627
[21:49] uh uh school year um this year and $7.8
[21:53] million um that we've completed in
[21:55] January and April. That gets us to a $7
[21:58] million target that we still need to be
[22:00] able to to approve um over the next
[22:02] month to be able to to uh balance our
[22:05] budget for this year. Um now we have
[22:07] some um
[22:10] uh structures that we've used and this
[22:12] again is using what Todd Gray had shared
[22:14] with us um earlier in the year um
[22:17] related to a if then scenarios um that
[22:21] he had recommended um to make sure that
[22:23] the board can um kind of see what the
[22:26] give and takes are uh for um for our
[22:29] categories that we would look at u
[22:31] possible reductions um in addition to
[22:33] what we've already done. And so again,
[22:35] with $7 million being our goal, uh we
[22:38] have a list of those five areas um that
[22:41] we can look at to make reductions. Um as
[22:44] you can see, um we have uh the uh
[22:47] employee healthcare. So number four is
[22:49] uh 12% employee share of health
[22:51] insurance premiums and plan adjustments.
[22:53] That's going to be our area of focus
[22:55] tonight. Um so our consultants are here
[22:57] to be able to provide some of those uh
[22:59] details and just to be able to start our
[23:01] dialogue on that. Um and so um the the
[23:05] proposed plans um that we'll look at
[23:07] tonight um would net us about $1.6
[23:09] million um as we as we would move
[23:12] forward. Um and so again the the total
[23:14] amount being $8 million um is certainly
[23:17] obviously you know easy subtraction
[23:19] about a million more than what our our
[23:21] goal is in $145 million budget. It's
[23:24] important to keep that in context. Uh,
[23:26] but I think it's important for us um
[23:29] just from a risk mitigation standpoint
[23:31] because of where we are currently in our
[23:33] fund balance to make sure that we're not
[23:35] cutting it too close um to be able to
[23:38] give us um some play within what our uh
[23:41] goals are and our targets are to be able
[23:42] to land that because um as I'll show you
[23:45] on the next slide, we're at a
[23:46] dangerously low uh place for our fund
[23:48] balance at this point and we need to
[23:50] make sure um that we're um in a space
[23:52] that that we can have some confidence
[23:55] that we can hit the dates that you have
[23:57] on the bottom again would be recommended
[24:00] um upcoming dates that we would want to
[24:02] um to hit ideally. Um so October 14th
[24:06] which would be our next board meeting um
[24:07] recommending a vote on the 27 uh health
[24:11] plan. Um the reason why that date is
[24:13] important because um from ch if we make
[24:15] changes in the plan we need to prepare
[24:18] that for our employees to be able to
[24:19] select uh during their open enrollment
[24:21] process. the open enrollment process um
[24:24] starts the first week in November
[24:26] historically and that's important so we
[24:28] can hit the actual plan change that
[24:30] would take place on January 1. So
[24:32] there's there's some sequencing that we
[24:34] need to be able to to hit in that in
[24:36] that process.
[24:37] >> Can I interrupt you for just a second?
[24:39] I'm curious about I don't know that I've
[24:41] seen the presented like this before.
[24:43] >> Yes.
[24:44] >> The OPED the notes is that is that an
[24:48] error? Not quite sure what the fun 127
[24:51] has to do with OPED.
[24:53] >> Um, so there's reimbursement um that
[24:56] comes with uh I'll have to check. Yeah,
[24:59] let me let me check on that. Let me
[25:01] check on that. Bring that bring that
[25:02] back. Um I think that there Yeah, let me
[25:04] check on that.
[25:05] >> Sounds good.
[25:06] >> That has been there before, too.
[25:07] >> Yeah, hasn't it?
[25:08] >> It has. Okay, I didn't catch that
[25:10] before. That would have sparked
[25:11] questions.
[25:12] >> Thank you. Y
[25:12] >> that's we'll uh we'll take that. Um,
[25:16] so, uh, October 15th is when we would
[25:19] get our final state aid, uh, verified.
[25:22] So, that'll be the last number that
[25:23] we'll need for our budget. And then
[25:25] we'll need to vote on the 2627 budget by
[25:28] the end by state statute by the end of,
[25:30] uh, October. For us, the regular meeting
[25:32] would be on October 28th. Um, and so
[25:35] that would be when we'd need to um,
[25:37] approve the budget formally. Now, I will
[25:40] tell you that the October 15th aid
[25:42] number really um has implications around
[25:44] property taxes and not necessarily the
[25:47] budget um you know variance around $7
[25:51] million or $8 million. It's really about
[25:53] just the impact for uh for property
[25:55] taxes. But to put the whole thing
[25:56] together that those are the numbers that
[25:58] we're um that we're looking at. So as
[26:00] we've uh projected as we move forward.
[26:05] So, as we as I talk about a dangerously
[26:08] low fund balance, I just want to ground
[26:10] us in where we're at um from our
[26:14] standpoint. Um so, as we've gone
[26:16] throughout the last six years, again,
[26:18] you can see the significant decline,
[26:20] especially in this past year. Um and
[26:23] again, this is a result of number one,
[26:25] poor budgeting practices. Um, so that's
[26:27] been turned over in the business office
[26:29] and we're getting ourselves to where
[26:31] we're grounded in best practices along
[26:33] with using our consultants um to make
[26:35] sure that we're verifying what work that
[26:38] we're we're uh doing um along with and
[26:41] what we'll see tonight again is
[26:42] increasing health care costs um uh as as
[26:46] we progress throughout the year. So we
[26:48] want to make sure that's a number that
[26:50] $8 million number lands us at about
[26:53] 5.2%. By policy we should be around 12%.
[26:57] Um so that should be within the between
[26:59] 17 and 21 million dollars. So between
[27:02] where we were in 23 24 and 2425
[27:06] um is about where we need to be able to
[27:07] work back to in policy. Now certainly
[27:09] we're not going to do that in one year
[27:12] uh per se, but it's important for us as
[27:14] we're working through our budget numbers
[27:16] and landing our budget for this year
[27:18] that we just keep in mind because I
[27:20] think there's some risk mitigation um
[27:22] that we I just want board members to
[27:24] know as you're making decisions about
[27:26] the budget um that we're just eyes wide
[27:28] open and what the um what the
[27:31] implications u would be um as we as we
[27:34] move forward.
[27:36] >> M question. I have a general question be
[27:37] if on this before we go into healthcare.
[27:40] Are you done with this part of the
[27:41] presentation?
[27:42] >> I am. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Then we
[27:43] transition
[27:44] >> then. So for slides three and four I
[27:46] just want to make sure I am
[27:47] understanding and that the public is
[27:49] understanding correctly. We
[27:52] have a deficit of 14.8 million. We have
[27:55] or for this school year we have already
[27:57] made $7 million in cuts for this school
[28:00] year. We need to make another
[28:02] >> uh we made we've made 7.8
[28:05] >> 7.8. So we need to make another 7 to 8
[28:07] million for this school year only. And
[28:10] then so that's going to happen through
[28:13] October.
[28:13] >> Yes.
[28:14] >> Then we still also next start working on
[28:17] next year basically starting in
[28:18] December. Uh, no, earlier than that,
[28:20] like probably October 29th after we
[28:23] passed this year's budget, like right
[28:25] away
[28:25] >> and for cuts
[28:28] >> 27 28
[28:29] >> 14 million this year
[28:32] and then
[28:33] >> yeah, as as we said, it's going to be a
[28:34] multi-year process for us to to be able
[28:36] to to work through it. Yeah. And we'll
[28:38] have that forecast. We'll be able to
[28:40] refine that forecasting a little bit
[28:41] better um as we go throughout the next,
[28:44] you know, couple weeks. I mean,
[28:45] certainly the next month as we as we go.
[28:48] >> Okay. Thanks as well.
[28:49] >> Yeah.
[28:51] Okay. So, with that, I'll kick it over
[28:53] to uh Brian to introduce our uh
[28:55] consultants and open up for discussion.
[29:01] » I'll give you that.
[29:05] » So, good evening board. I'm going to
[29:07] introduce Drew Leberry, Sherry Freeman
[29:10] from Agent. In a minute they will go
[29:13] through the the specific details of our
[29:15] current plan pricing recommendations
[29:19] moving forward. There's a lot of details
[29:22] within healthcare and Drew and Sherry
[29:24] have been great to work with. It's
[29:25] important for me. I just want to circle
[29:26] back to a couple of things that Dr.
[29:28] Davis mentioned and then add a couple
[29:31] notes and that'll be important for our
[29:33] board, our our staff and our employees
[29:36] just to hear as we move forward through
[29:38] this process. It's certainly an
[29:40] emotional
[29:41] thing to discuss anytime you're talking
[29:43] about salaries and benefits uh for
[29:46] people and it impacts on their
[29:47] livelihood. We understand that. So, as
[29:49] Brian stated, you know, we're at a
[29:51] dangerous point in our fund balance.
[29:54] Healthc care has been a primary driver
[29:56] of some of our budget issues, how we've
[29:59] done that in the past, but it's also a
[30:02] really important tool for us to help
[30:03] manage those costs. and and we're going
[30:06] to talk about our plan and we believe
[30:09] it's still the right plan. We believe
[30:11] that when budgeted correctly, when used
[30:15] properly, this is the best plan for the
[30:17] Oshkosh Area School District. And I
[30:19] think Drew and Sherry will be able to
[30:21] show some of those details going
[30:23] forward. We're not looking to change the
[30:26] basic structure at the point, who our
[30:28] people can see, how it functions, how
[30:31] they operate, going to a doctor,
[30:33] billing, any of those things at this
[30:35] point. We're not we're not exploring any
[30:37] of those changes. It's important to also
[30:39] state we're committed to providing
[30:41] quality health care to our employees.
[30:44] Uh, and that may come with a market
[30:46] adjustment or comparable market
[30:48] adjustment when it comes to premium
[30:50] share. Again, the the process, the
[30:53] quality of our healthcare will not
[30:54] change. If any if anything, it will
[30:57] improve. Some of the things we have in
[30:59] play with clinic
[31:02] processes will actually, I think,
[31:04] improve as we go forward based on the
[31:06] work we're doing. We've not discussed
[31:08] any changes to OPED or other
[31:11] post-employment benefits. I get a lot of
[31:13] questions about what's going to happen
[31:15] to my retirement next year.
[31:18] We have not discussed any of those
[31:19] things. We are planning on putting a committee together who will
[31:24] explore and evaluate all of our health
[31:26] care and benefit packages. I think it's
[31:28] important to have our employees at the
[31:30] table when we have those discussions
[31:32] about everything from top to bottom, but
[31:34] we have not discussed a change to how
[31:37] OPED functions in this process.
[31:40] And then a really something I want to
[31:43] get across is in our close work with
[31:45] Drew and Sherry and a virgin in this one
[31:48] of the things we've identified is they
[31:50] were not involved in the budgeting
[31:51] planning or processing previously. So as
[31:54] we go have gone through the last I don't
[31:57] know how many weeks I've pestered them I
[32:00] would say daily and we've had numerous
[32:02] conversations and I think what we've
[32:05] come to the realization and with our
[32:07] budgeting our practices and our plan is
[32:10] we have not collaborated on those things
[32:12] some of those decisions have been made
[32:14] in a silo in here which I think has
[32:18] impacted some of the the end outcomes of
[32:20] our insurance and and we've committed to
[32:23] working together to build a quality plan
[32:26] where there's no surprises, where we've
[32:28] agreed upon budgets and plan design that
[32:32] are sustainable and put us in a in a I
[32:35] think you've probably all heard this, health plan should put us in a
[32:38] position to be successful or to to maybe
[32:42] not adjust premiums. And that's what we
[32:44] want to get to with collaboration. So,
[32:46] we're not going to make those decisions
[32:47] in isolation. They're not going to make
[32:50] decisions in isolation. Now, as a
[32:52] partnership where we've had a lot of
[32:53] these conversations, I think we're
[32:55] feeling better about what got us in
[32:57] trouble and how to get out of that. So,
[33:00] Drew and Sherry are the experts. They're
[33:01] going to take you through again where
[33:04] we're currently at, what our
[33:05] recommendations are, options to move
[33:08] forward with so we can begin discussing
[33:11] some of those things tonight. And if you
[33:13] have questions along the way, feel free
[33:15] to at any point jump in, ask a
[33:17] clarifying question, and Drew and Sherry
[33:20] and I will do my best to jump in as well
[33:21] if there's district specific questions
[33:24] you might have. Okay.
[33:26] >> All right.
[33:27] >> Thanks, Brian. And thank you for the
[33:29] opportunity to uh be here and share some
[33:31] information with you on the healthc care
[33:33] strategy for the uh plan, the health
[33:36] plan. Uh before we get started, um what
[33:39] we're going to do here in this uh
[33:41] session is walk you through the budget
[33:44] buildup. Um what happened uh leading up
[33:47] to this last fiscal year's uh budget
[33:49] estimate. Um we'll talk about how it was
[33:53] uh how the district had calculated what
[33:56] they calculated and um we will talk
[34:00] about what that looks like in comparison
[34:02] to the actual performance of the plan.
[34:05] We'll talk about how we got to the
[34:08] recommendation for the budget for this
[34:10] uh uh fiscal year and um and then we
[34:14] will also show you a comparison of what
[34:17] a comparable plan would price out on the
[34:21] fully insured market. Um we'll talk to
[34:24] you about some different benchmark
[34:26] values that um regionally and locally uh
[34:31] other health plans for school districts
[34:33] what it looks like in terms of total
[34:35] cost uh plan design and contribution
[34:38] share between the employer and the
[34:40] employees. Um and then we'll round out
[34:42] with uh the recommendations as Brian
[34:44] said. First thing I want to just lead
[34:47] off with is um the Ashkosh school
[34:51] district has chosen to self-fund its uh
[34:55] health plan for the last several years.
[34:58] Um 80%
[35:00] uh in the 80% of employers in the
[35:03] country that have more than 200
[35:06] employees enrolled on uh a sponsored
[35:10] health plan do self-fund their health
[35:12] plan. Uh so that's stated to say that
[35:15] self-funding is normative. Uh it's not
[35:19] the only thing that you can do. You can
[35:20] certainly go to an insurance company and
[35:22] purchase a fully insured plan, but
[35:25] self-unding is normative. Uh
[35:28] self-funding does bring inherent risk.
[35:31] It is not a dollar for-dollar risk
[35:33] transfer like purchasing a plan from a
[35:35] fully insured carrier. Self-funding
[35:38] brings variance to cost and that's one
[35:41] of the things that was experienced in
[35:43] the last uh fiscal year particularly in
[35:46] 2025 we had a higher prevalence of
[35:49] highcost shock episode uh uh healthc
[35:54] care events. Um that's code for you're
[35:57] going to have situations that happen and
[36:00] are not going to be recurring costs. Um
[36:03] to give you one specific example, uh a
[36:06] premature infant born that has to go
[36:08] into the NICU is going to typically cost
[36:11] in the six figures. Um there were events
[36:15] like that. Those are not necessarily
[36:17] going to be recurring events, but when
[36:19] those do happen, they're going to drive
[36:21] the total net expense um that an
[36:24] employer uh is going to incur during
[36:26] that period of time. And that's
[36:27] certainly what happened in 2025. When we
[36:30] look back um from fiscal year 2022 23 23
[36:36] 24 25 and 2526
[36:39] and you average the total paid expenses
[36:44] all in the average cost those four years
[36:47] is uh $28.5 million.
[36:51] uh there isn't a dramatic variance
[36:54] across those four years when you look at
[36:56] the average. But when you compare fiscal
[37:00] year 2425 to 2526,
[37:04] we had an increase in paid claims of
[37:08] about $4 million.
[37:11] When you self-fund a health plan, you're
[37:14] going to purchase stop-loss reinsurance,
[37:17] which is going to allow you to take off
[37:20] the top end of large dollar claimments.
[37:24] The district currently has a stop-loss
[37:26] limit of $225,000.
[37:29] So that means if an individual has
[37:31] claims that exceed $225,000, that
[37:33] liability no longer sits with the plan.
[37:37] In fiscal year 2526,
[37:40] we had $3 million of claims that were
[37:44] reimbursed off the top of that uh 30 uh
[37:48] $31 million of claims. And I'm going off
[37:50] the top of my head because I don't have
[37:51] it on a slide for you, but that is to
[37:54] say, there's a lot more detail that goes
[37:56] into what we're sharing here. uh Sherry
[37:59] and I Sherry and I a virgin we will
[38:01] avail ourselves to any of you to have
[38:03] those individual conversations if you
[38:05] want to uh dive deep. Uh tonight is not
[38:08] necessarily designed to do that. Tonight
[38:10] is uh designed to give you hopefully a
[38:13] useful uh snapshot view of the items I
[38:16] mentioned before.
[38:18] So what we start with is how did we get
[38:20] to the fiscal year 2526
[38:24] budget value? Uh it's our understanding
[38:27] that on the right hand side uh the
[38:30] school district took the per employee
[38:34] per month average cost of the prior 3
[38:39] years. And again per employee per month
[38:41] means uh the total cost divisible by the
[38:46] number of enrolled employees on average
[38:49] that were on the plan. So, if you look
[38:51] at uh the 2023
[38:54] uh expense average, it was right on the
[38:57] numbers $2,000, 24 was 1841, and 25 uh
[39:02] was 1990.
[39:04] As Brian mentioned before, we do have
[39:07] one thing that um kind of uh creates a
[39:12] bit of a challenge with the way that we
[39:14] look at the health plan expense and how
[39:16] you budget. and that is the staggering
[39:18] in the fiscal year to the actual plan
[39:21] year. So when you're looking at this
[39:22] number, that budget value was calculated
[39:25] looking at the plan year and not the
[39:29] fiscal year. Why that matters is when
[39:32] you look at the plan year, you're going
[39:33] to have overlapping expenses.
[39:36] For example, if I look at 2023 as a plan
[39:39] year and I say the average was $2,000
[39:42] per employee per month, well, that
[39:43] actually is crossing over claims that
[39:46] counted towards 2022
[39:50] fiscal year and 2324
[39:53] fiscal year. That average across the
[39:56] three years was 1944
[39:59] per employee per month. that was taken
[40:02] then and uh multiplied by the average
[40:05] number of employees that were enrolled
[40:07] in a month over uh the prior year to get
[40:12] to the budget value.
[40:15] We will uh first tell you there are
[40:17] different ways to establish a budget.
[40:21] um looking backwards and doing a blended
[40:25] average across prior years
[40:28] uh is not exactly an actuarial or
[40:32] underwritten
[40:33] um approach that we would recommend
[40:36] doing. And the reason why we wouldn't
[40:38] necessarily recommend just going off of
[40:40] a blended average per employee per month
[40:42] value is that health plan risk is driven
[40:45] by uh health risk inside of a plan. And
[40:49] when you're looking at establishing your
[40:51] budget moving into the next year, uh
[40:53] especially when you're self-funded, you
[40:55] have access to population information
[40:57] that allows you to do some forecasting
[41:00] forward of the actual risk. To go back
[41:02] to my example of a NICU uh baby, if you
[41:06] had a $500,000
[41:08] uh NICU inpatient hospitalization charge
[41:12] that hit a fiscal year, that $500,000 is
[41:15] going to be blended into that average.
[41:17] and you may not see that again in the
[41:19] next year. So you wouldn't necessarily
[41:20] want to budget for that specific risk.
[41:23] In other words, you'd want to understand
[41:25] inside of our population, what
[41:27] percentage of of that population is
[41:29] going to be recurring risk versus shock
[41:31] risk. That is something that we did do
[41:35] as we made a recommendation for the
[41:37] budget for fiscal year 2627.
[41:41] Uh and it is a sound practice that we
[41:43] would recommend. And to Brian's point,
[41:44] this is how uh a Virgin is going to help
[41:48] the district moving forward. So that
[41:50] when you establish that budget, you have
[41:51] a riskbased uh forecast value.
[41:56] When you take that blended net, uh you
[41:59] are ultimately going to split that out
[42:02] into the rate tiering. The district has
[42:05] a two-tier rate. Single enrollment or
[42:08] family enrollment. It's what you're
[42:10] going to see in the upper uh left.
[42:12] You're going to subtract out your
[42:13] monthly employee contributions to get to
[42:17] an equivalent budget rate for single and
[42:20] family. That's what you are seeing here
[42:22] on this screen across the bottom. Uh
[42:25] when we look at the actual plan paid
[42:29] spend, uh the total for the claims admin
[42:35] and stop-loss premium cost for the plan
[42:38] between uh July of 25 through end of
[42:41] June 26 was $30.5 million. Uh when your
[42:46] budget value is coming in underneath
[42:48] that, of course, you're going to be over
[42:50] budget. uh based on the PEPM uh
[42:53] calculation we were according to the
[42:56] actual paid expense 7% over. Now what
[43:01] I'm going to tell you is that when you
[43:03] look at the value of claims
[43:06] there's different ways to look at how
[43:08] you're going to apply those claim values
[43:12] against the budget. And uh two of them
[43:16] historically drive the way that you
[43:18] would establish a budget. One is that
[43:20] you look at the date that the claim is
[43:23] incurred and the second is that you look
[43:26] at the date that the claim is actually
[43:27] paid. To say it much more simply, uh
[43:31] when I go into a clinic for services,
[43:35] it's going to take approximately 30 to
[43:37] 90 days for that claim to actually
[43:39] mature, get to the insurance carrier,
[43:41] and be paid. Do I value the dollar
[43:45] amount of that claim as the date that
[43:47] it's actually paid or the date that it's
[43:49] incurred? Uh there's not a right or
[43:52] wrong necessarily, but if we look at the
[43:54] values differently and we apply them to
[43:56] the the budget, you're going to get
[43:58] variance in what was actually uh
[44:00] attributed to the fiscal year.
[44:05] This is a perspective slide. So again in
[44:09] the uh purple color you're going to have
[44:12] the budget for fiscal year 2526
[44:16] again with that pepm blended average.
[44:19] Then you're going to have on the far
[44:21] left a pm equivalent based on the total
[44:25] costs that were uh that were paid out
[44:28] during that 12-month period of time uh
[44:31] divisible back into a per employee per
[44:33] month. Again, that's why you see the
[44:36] budget was or the actual expenses were
[44:39] over the budget.
[44:41] The teal color is the proposed per
[44:45] employee per month value, the 2197.
[44:49] And on the far right hand side, it's our
[44:52] job as consultants uh when we're working
[44:55] with an employer to make sure that
[44:57] they're aware of all options that are on
[44:59] the market. So, I started out talking
[45:01] about fully insured versus self-unding
[45:03] because that certainly is a market
[45:04] option. Uh, we do want to do routine
[45:07] market checks and that's what we did for
[45:09] the district just to make sure that
[45:11] self-funding
[45:13] uh still is the most um budget feasible
[45:16] option. We did go to the market. We
[45:19] looked at fully insured carrier options.
[45:21] We also looked at regional carrier
[45:23] options. Um, the response back was not a
[45:26] positive one. this was the best fully
[45:28] insured option for a comparable plan to
[45:32] what is currently offered. That uh value
[45:35] compared to the uh new budget number
[45:39] came in at 19% over. Um when we look at
[45:43] the actual plan design, your current
[45:45] plan does not the district's plan does
[45:47] not have a deductible, has co-pays. uh
[45:51] it's very affordable in terms of market
[45:53] comparable plans uh in a fully insured
[45:56] landscape. That was almost an applesto
[45:58] apples comparison.
[46:00] The reason why I think this is so
[46:02] important is this shows you what a fully
[46:04] baked offer would be from an insurance
[46:07] company when they look at the risk
[46:09] instead of the school district and they
[46:10] say this is what we think it would cost
[46:12] for us to take on all of that risk. What
[46:16] you should get from this is that it's
[46:18] still the best option to self-fund even
[46:22] with uh potential variance in claims
[46:24] risk against the fully insured value.
[46:28] I'm going to hand it over to Sherry to
[46:30] talk through some benchmarks.
[46:31] >> Yeah. So, um just like we want to make
[46:33] sure that we're looking at all of the
[46:34] options for the ways that you can ensure
[46:37] your employee population, we also want
[46:39] to be looking at what are others in the
[46:42] market doing. So, we did a few different
[46:44] looks at benchmarking options. This
[46:47] first one and a couple of different
[46:49] sources for those benchmarking options
[46:51] as well. This one is looking at um both
[46:54] regional and national. Looking at
[46:57] employers of 1,00 employees or greater.
[47:01] Um the regional of course is in the
[47:02] Great Lakes region, national is
[47:05] national, and they're looking
[47:06] specifically at schools in this data. So
[47:10] when you look kind of on the left hand
[47:12] side of the screen there, you can see
[47:14] the Oshkosh area school districts, the
[47:16] dark um the the dark row or column I
[47:20] should say. Um next to that is the
[47:22] cohort. The cohort is going to be the
[47:24] regional comparison of where you're at.
[47:28] Um and then the lighter teal color is
[47:31] going to be the national comparison to
[47:33] where you're at. So you can see that
[47:35] both your single and your family premium
[47:38] that the employees are contributing is
[47:41] far below what's happening from this
[47:44] benchmarking comparison. Um so I think
[47:47] that's really the most important
[47:49] takeaway. There's more the specific data
[47:51] is kind of on the right but I think the
[47:53] visual shows you that's a good quick
[47:55] question. I'm not sure if anyone would
[47:56] know the answer to. Does anybody know
[47:58] why we were set at 5150 for singles and
[48:02] $100 for family? Okay.
[48:06] >> We do not. I believe when we took uh
[48:09] when we came in, I believe those were
[48:10] the rates and they've stayed the same
[48:12] since we've been working with your
[48:13] group. Okay.
[48:15] I think it's important to note if you
[48:17] look in that chart under OASD and you
[48:20] look at the employer share
[48:23] uh on the single and family you can see
[48:25] that uh the district is picking up over
[48:28] 90%.
[48:30] And when you compare that to the cohort
[48:32] in the nationally you can see the
[48:33] averages are uh in the 70s. Now, when we
[48:37] get into comparing this to some of the
[48:39] other districts, you're going to see
[48:41] that that percentage share uh jumps up a
[48:44] little bit. Um, but that's that's one
[48:46] other metric that you should be keeping
[48:48] an eye on.
[48:50] We did discuss um going into last year's
[48:54] renewal whether or not there should
[48:57] potentially be an increase to the
[48:59] premium for employees. Um, and at that
[49:01] time because the health plan was still
[49:04] fairly new, there were still a lot of,
[49:06] you know, changes that employees were
[49:08] getting used to, uh, the intent was to
[49:11] try not to change anything to try to
[49:14] ensure that people stayed focused on
[49:15] just getting used to the plan. So, just
[49:17] want to give you that as well. Uh, the
[49:20] next source that we looked at, this is
[49:22] going to be a look at Wisconsin as a
[49:24] whole. So, these are again going to be
[49:26] school districts across the the state of
[49:28] Wisconsin. And there are 421
[49:31] districts in this benchmark. This is
[49:33] self-reported data. So just be aware of
[49:36] that. Certainly there could be a mistake
[49:38] in here if it were entered incorrectly.
[49:40] But um basically we're comparing Oshkosh
[49:43] more specifically to the ones that
[49:45] you're probably most curious about that
[49:47] are local that are about your same size.
[49:50] So what this is showing you again the
[49:51] single premium uh 759 is where the
[49:55] Ashkosh Area School District is at. And
[49:57] when you go down the list, 830 for
[50:00] Appleton, Green Bay is at almost 800.
[50:03] Um, Lacrosse is a little bit lower. Uh,
[50:06] they also are a fully insured plan. And
[50:10] typically those fully insured plans are
[50:12] going to have a high deductible health
[50:14] plan. So, they'll bring the premium down
[50:16] a little bit and they'll pass that same
[50:18] cost on. They just do it through the
[50:20] deductible instead of through the
[50:22] premium. So, just um some of the
[50:24] differences there. Um and then again as
[50:27] you kind of go across you can see that
[50:29] whereas um the employees are paying
[50:32] about 7% of the premium for single and
[50:36] about 12% of the premium or excuse me
[50:38] I'm looking at the wrong one about 4% of
[50:40] the premium for family. As you go down
[50:42] the list and you're looking at those
[50:44] percentages in each of the other school
[50:46] districts they're paying a a pretty a
[50:49] pretty significantly higher amount of
[50:51] the premium um of the total premium. So
[50:54] that's what's happening in Wisconsin.
[50:56] And then um Brian helped us to gather
[50:59] data from Baird that looked um more
[51:02] specifically at CISA 6 information. So
[51:05] we wanted to add that in there as well.
[51:06] So we kind of start out a little bit
[51:08] broader and keep getting closer and
[51:10] closer to exactly where you guys are at.
[51:13] Um so again you can look at the Oshkosh
[51:16] numbers in the teal column start
[51:19] comparing across what um is happening
[51:22] across CISA 6 and um understand once
[51:25] again that for the most part um in each
[51:29] area you can see that your employees are
[51:32] sitting in a a position where they're
[51:33] paying much less than most um of these
[51:37] districts are. Well, one thing just to
[51:39] note, excuse me.
[51:40] >> Yes.
[51:40] >> Is most of this is lagging data. It's a
[51:43] year old.
[51:44] >> Yes.
[51:45] >> So, most of these premiums have
[51:47] increased over the last year, but that
[51:50] model is a year behind. So, like looking
[51:53] at Appleton's current slide up there. We
[51:55] just got updated numbers last year and
[51:57] they're about $100 more for a family
[51:59] fund than that what's actually listed up
[52:02] there because that's lagging data.
[52:06] It's also important to note that when
[52:08] you're comparing
[52:10] uh contribution share and you look at
[52:12] the values that are coming out on a
[52:14] monthly basis from the employee
[52:17] when you look at it from a percentage
[52:19] perspective you also have to factor in
[52:22] the value of the plan. Uh arguably when
[52:26] we just go back a slide and you look at
[52:29] the different plans Sherry mentioned
[52:31] this on the right hand side uh three of
[52:35] those plans have a deductible meaning a
[52:38] member is going to have out-of- pocket
[52:40] expense for any major amount of care
[52:42] that they are going to consume. The
[52:44] Oshkosh plan not only doesn't have a
[52:47] deductible but does afford many
[52:50] opportunities um thousands of services
[52:54] actually inside of the plan uh are
[52:57] available at no cost to a member. Um now
[53:00] they have to use uh specific programs to
[53:04] access that. On the primary care side,
[53:06] uh the employer sponsored primary care
[53:09] options
[53:10] um through the clinic and uh the
[53:14] specialist side and with pharmacy they
[53:17] have to work through the collaborative
[53:19] care program which is a clinic uh
[53:21] clinically le concierge uh program but
[53:25] that does afford them access to a number
[53:27] of services that would be paying at out
[53:29] of out uh $0 out of pocket. when you
[53:33] weigh that type of value into the plan
[53:36] that probably on a fully insured uh
[53:39] basis is going to add another 10 to 20%
[53:42] of actuarial value. So in terms of the
[53:45] richness of the plan, the Oshkosh plan
[53:48] has a lot uh more value to the plan than
[53:51] the rest of the plans do. I think it's
[53:54] worth pointing out quickly too just
[53:56] there's the if you can't read the fine
[53:57] print there, this is not secret data.
[54:00] The this is reported to the Department
[54:01] of Administration. And so there's a
[54:02] public website that has the school
[54:04] district healthcare benefits report. So
[54:06] if anybody wants to verify any of this,
[54:08] they can go and check out all of this
[54:10] information themselves.
[54:11] >> Thank you.
[54:12] >> Mhm.
[54:13] >> Okay. It's it's very valuable to note um
[54:16] that it is publicly available. It's also
[54:18] valuable to note that when you look
[54:20] across not just the public sector,
[54:22] private sector, a lot of the benchmark
[54:24] information would which would support
[54:26] the fact that uh the district has had a
[54:29] very rich contribution
[54:31] uh approach and I think in terms of when
[54:34] we look at um a a healthier budget
[54:38] moving forward, this is the uh simplest
[54:40] place to [snorts] start with is the
[54:42] contribution share and that's why we
[54:44] started there.
[54:46] Um ultimately we're going to look at a
[54:49] couple of things uh mechanically. One is
[54:52] you have a two-tier plan. So what that
[54:56] ultimately does is it pushes everyone
[54:58] who's going to enroll a spouse
[55:02] or dependent into the same bucket as
[55:05] someone that's going to enroll a spouse
[55:07] and dependent. Most employer sponsored
[55:10] plans are going to have a three tier or
[55:12] a four tier uh rating. Meaning, if I'm
[55:15] going to enroll just my spouse, I pay
[55:17] one rate. If I'm going to enroll my
[55:19] spouse and my kids, I pay a separate
[55:20] rate.
[55:22] This is going to show you keeping the
[55:24] same two-tier rate. Uh there is a slide
[55:27] after this that's going to show you what
[55:28] it would look like to move to uh a more
[55:32] normal four tier structure. Along the
[55:35] top, we have those 2026 rates per month.
[55:39] When we uh do the budget equation, uh
[55:43] the budget calculation on the
[55:44] recommendation for the $31.5 million
[55:47] budget,
[55:49] uh the rate build back into a two-tier
[55:52] structure essentially lands it at about
[55:54] a 9.2% rate equivalent increase.
[55:59] When we looked at the current
[56:01] contributions, 50 and 100, and we said,
[56:04] okay, we're definitely below market.
[56:07] Let's take that up to what would be
[56:08] comparable in the market. You can see we
[56:10] kind of straddled the line with um what
[56:13] were uh reasonably comparable in the
[56:16] market. So we went with a 10% of premium
[56:18] equivalent, 12% and 15%. On the two-tier
[56:22] rate, uh this is what the rates would go
[56:25] to for employees. So if I'm single, we
[56:28] go to 12%, my number is going to go from
[56:30] 50 a month to 99 a month. Family, I'm
[56:33] going to go from 100 to 337. What this
[56:36] does in an annualized budget savings is
[56:39] across the bottom. And again, as Brian
[56:41] led off with, we have to keep in mind
[56:43] that you have staggered fiscal years to
[56:46] plan years. So these contributions would
[56:48] not take effect uh until January of
[56:51] 2027. And you wouldn't fully realize
[56:53] those savings until you complete uh plan
[56:56] year 2027.
[56:59] If we look then at the four tier
[57:01] structure, what's going to happen is
[57:04] you're going to take that uh PEPM target
[57:07] uh at the 31.5
[57:09] and you're just going to do an actuarial
[57:11] calculation to get you to a four tier
[57:14] rate. The four tier rate is shown across
[57:17] the bottom. And one more time, if you go
[57:20] with a 10% a share, 12% a share, and 15%
[57:24] a share, that's where those rates uh are displayed here. The reason why you
[57:30] would look at a four tier is that any
[57:32] rate increase uh from a contribution
[57:35] perspective for a family who only has a
[57:37] spouse or a dependent uh could be uh
[57:42] cushioned a little bit by going to a
[57:44] four- tier strategy and vice versa with
[57:46] family. That's really why we would want
[57:48] to look at a four tier administratively.
[57:52] Uh once you make the swap from two-tier
[57:56] to four tier, um that that switch is
[57:59] just a one-time administrative burden
[58:02] moving forward. Four tier is going to be
[58:04] more normal in the market. Um again,
[58:07] this is not something that you have to
[58:08] force uh this year. Two to four tier,
[58:11] but we did want to show that as an
[58:13] option. I will say just to pause there,
[58:16] I think from a as a board member in
[58:18] thinking about decisions to be made for
[58:20] the plan again as we're targeting um
[58:23] October to be able to make those
[58:25] decisions really I want you to think
[58:27] through kind of two aspects of this. One
[58:30] is the tiering process. So whether it's
[58:33] two-tier or four tier like that would be
[58:35] a decision point to be able to think
[58:38] through and weigh in on. And then the
[58:40] other point would be the percentage of
[58:42] contribution. um would be the other
[58:44] decision that we would want to make. So
[58:46] those are the two when thinking about
[58:47] what we would be approving for a new
[58:50] plan design. Those are are in in the
[58:53] last two slides, those are the pivotal
[58:55] points that we'd want to have
[58:57] discussions on and be able to have you
[59:00] understand um as you would be voting for
[59:03] uh for that plan. Um and again, there's,
[59:05] you know, pros and cons to um to all of
[59:08] it. Um and just wanted to make sure
[59:10] again going back to the bigger context
[59:12] of the budget um that we're you know
[59:14] also keeping that in mind as we move
[59:16] forward
[59:18] >> when you think about these uh
[59:19] contribution shifts whether two-tier or
[59:21] four tier the reason why we let off with
[59:23] the benchmark is when you look at the
[59:25] benchmark uh if an individual was saying
[59:28] this is for me and my family uh this is not very competitive now I'm
[59:34] going to have to pay more and they would
[59:35] want to look at a competing district uh
[59:37] from a higher ing perspective, they're
[59:40] not likely to find something that's
[59:42] going to be less. So again, um this
[59:45] seems like and seemed like the most
[59:46] logical step to be taken.
[59:50] Last couple of comments here uh before
[59:52] we get to the recommendations.
[59:56] Another common uh practice uh in the
[59:59] market is to uh do a what's called a
[1:00:02] coverage buyout. Uh this um is something
[1:00:06] that would allow people that do not that
[1:00:09] are currently enrolled in the district's
[1:00:11] plan. So again, current currently
[1:00:14] enrolled
[1:00:16] uh who have access to a spouse's
[1:00:19] coverage
[1:00:21] to wave out of the district's plan
[1:00:23] whether they have single or family
[1:00:25] today.
[1:00:26] And in exchange for them waving out and
[1:00:28] taking that spouse's plan, which again
[1:00:31] there would have to be an administrative
[1:00:33] process that is set up and um and
[1:00:36] administered for this to be possible.
[1:00:38] They would uh receive in exchange a a
[1:00:42] flat buyout annually of $3,000. What
[1:00:46] this equates to on a monthly basis is
[1:00:48] $250. And then of course it will be
[1:00:50] split into the two uh pay periods per
[1:00:53] month. So it will be spread over 24 pay
[1:00:56] periods. Uh considered wages really just
[1:00:59] think of it as a bonus.
[1:01:01] And um when we look at this as an
[1:01:05] opportunity from a budget savings
[1:01:07] perspective, the dollars that are going
[1:01:09] to be spent, you can run the the savings
[1:01:12] projection by just simply saying we're
[1:01:14] going to have individuals who were on
[1:01:17] the average or rate equivalents are, you
[1:01:19] know, 830 for a single on a monthly
[1:01:21] basis and over two $2,000 for family.
[1:01:25] And if we move to a flat 250, that's the
[1:01:27] savings value.
[1:01:29] What I would offer to you is that when
[1:01:31] we look at it, we wanted to actually dig
[1:01:34] into the claims and give you a more
[1:01:35] conservative value um on the basis of
[1:01:38] what we would actually expect for
[1:01:41] average claim savings for people that
[1:01:43] would exit. And we gave you that uh
[1:01:45] calculation. We think it's less than
[1:01:48] $2,500
[1:01:49] um uh or or we think it's about $2,500
[1:01:53] uh a month if it was a family. And so
[1:01:57] what we're looking at is calculating the
[1:01:59] number of opt outs on the right hand
[1:02:01] side. Um the cost for those opt outs,
[1:02:04] again the $3,000, but then netting back
[1:02:07] what we would expect uh for savings to
[1:02:10] the plan. To say it a much different
[1:02:13] way, if an individual that's
[1:02:15] accumulating uh a certain amount of
[1:02:18] claims, you know, maybe 10 $20,000 in a
[1:02:20] year exits, this is capping that risk at
[1:02:24] 3,000. And that's why you would want to
[1:02:26] uh look at this. The other reason uh to
[1:02:29] do this is that currently today, if
[1:02:31] someone has access to a spouse's plan
[1:02:33] and they look at this plan, they really
[1:02:35] have no incentive to not take that plan.
[1:02:38] Most large employers um particularly
[1:02:42] self-funded employers in the market
[1:02:44] today actually have carveout provisions
[1:02:46] where if you have access to a spouse's
[1:02:48] plan, you have to take that or some type
[1:02:50] of additional premium contribution
[1:02:53] searchcharge credit. Those were things
[1:02:55] that we evaluated and those are going to
[1:02:56] be things that we continue to evaluate
[1:02:58] moving forward. This seemed like the
[1:03:00] most uh logical additional option. Do
[1:03:04] they get the benefit for like so if they
[1:03:05] were in it currently in our our plan and
[1:03:08] opt out for next year, do they just get
[1:03:10] that benefit for the next year or do
[1:03:11] they get it every so each year a
[1:03:13] different group of people would get that
[1:03:14] benefit for one year if they opt out?
[1:03:16] >> It's recurring. That's correct.
[1:03:18] >> Yeah. The only year but not for the same
[1:03:20] person.
[1:03:21] >> They get it every year.
[1:03:23] >> Every year. That's correct. We don't
[1:03:24] want them necessarily hopping back on.
[1:03:26] >> Okay. Okay. Yep. Yep. Great question.
[1:03:33] So the recommendations at this point uh
[1:03:36] narrowed down to the premium
[1:03:38] contribution again we had we looked at
[1:03:40] the 10 12 and 15 we feel like the 12% of
[1:03:44] premium shares very competitive in the
[1:03:47] market. Uh annualized savings 2.6 again
[1:03:51] you can just take that in half uh to
[1:03:54] show what would be realized in the uh
[1:03:55] coming fiscal year. And then the uh
[1:03:58] coverage buyout um as well. That
[1:04:01] coverage buyout number is obviously
[1:04:04] going to be dependent on the number of
[1:04:06] optouts. That value that is shown here
[1:04:09] is a very cons conservative
[1:04:12] 5% uh opt out rate.
[1:04:16] The reason why we went with the 5% is we
[1:04:18] look at the Oshkosh plan and we still
[1:04:19] think even with the premium
[1:04:20] contributions as they are uh the the
[1:04:23] benefit is very strong and don't want to
[1:04:27] overestimate that.
[1:04:28] >> So as as you would think back to um the
[1:04:31] if then structure um tool that we had uh
[1:04:35] previously we had about 1.6 uh million
[1:04:38] dollars that was in there. So again, if
[1:04:39] you if you take these two in half
[1:04:42] because we only get benefit of the
[1:04:44] savings for half the year because the
[1:04:45] way the insurance plan is, that's where
[1:04:47] we come up with the um with the uh one
[1:04:50] 1.6 and again from a premium
[1:04:53] contribution again from just thinking
[1:04:55] about decision-m process um as I've
[1:04:57] mentioned you know whether it's a tiered
[1:05:00] plan or a four- tier plan or a two-tier
[1:05:02] plan the savings is really equivalent to
[1:05:06] the district. Um, if we stay at well, if
[1:05:10] we stay at the 12%, it would be the 2.6.
[1:05:13] It would be if you move uh down to 10%,
[1:05:16] right? It would be a little bit less in
[1:05:18] savings. If you'd move up to 15%, it
[1:05:20] would be a little bit more in savings.
[1:05:22] But the tiering, we'd have to make a
[1:05:24] decision on the tiering um because that
[1:05:26] makes a difference for employees. But as
[1:05:28] far as the budget number and the
[1:05:29] savings, um it would be the same in the
[1:05:31] four tier plan as in the two-tier plan.
[1:05:34] the coverage buyout um that was
[1:05:37] described as number two would be uh like
[1:05:40] yes or no, right? I mean certainly if
[1:05:42] you wanted to go in there and tweak the
[1:05:44] amount of the buyout um you can do that.
[1:05:46] would have some budget
[1:05:48] implications. Um but generally that's
[1:05:50] going to be uh do we want to do that or not do that. Um so this has been our
[1:05:55] discussion um especially intensely this
[1:05:57] week um with the finance committee on
[1:06:00] Monday night uh with all of our union
[1:06:01] groups last night um having the
[1:06:03] conversations uh I think and and this
[1:06:06] presentation has evolved based on that
[1:06:08] feedback. Um that's why you know I
[1:06:10] wanted to be able to have the finished
[1:06:12] product here tonight. Um, so feedback
[1:06:14] from the finance committee, which
[1:06:17] members here can can speak to, uh, but
[1:06:19] the the coverage buyout, I think, was
[1:06:21] something that was looked at as
[1:06:22] something that would employees would
[1:06:24] have a choice for. Um, that would be a
[1:06:26] good uh helpful move. Um, and and that
[1:06:28] also was um, you know, I think generally
[1:06:31] supported as we talked with our union
[1:06:32] groups yesterday. Uh the premium
[1:06:34] contribution again from a union
[1:06:37] conversation um they had asked to have
[1:06:39] that tiering um uh the four tier version
[1:06:42] as part of the options to look at. So
[1:06:44] that's why we included it um in there.
[1:06:47] Um and then um you know there was
[1:06:49] advocacy around dropping from 12% to
[1:06:52] 10%. Um like in our model to see if that
[1:06:55] would um make it from a budget
[1:06:56] standpoint. So again, those are that's
[1:06:59] just the feedback that we've got this
[1:07:01] week with, you know, the both the uh
[1:07:04] board committee along with the uh union
[1:07:06] conversations to I think good
[1:07:08] conversations. Um and I just wanted to
[1:07:10] be able to zero in on, you know,
[1:07:12] decisions that board members are going
[1:07:13] to need to make um as we would go
[1:07:16] through go through this process. So
[1:07:18] >> can can you go back and just what would
[1:07:20] the savings be for the 10%
[1:07:27] uh one 1.9 which again is in half. So I
[1:07:31] mean
[1:07:32] >> given that the what we discussed earlier
[1:07:34] was based on the 12% what would be the
[1:07:36] recommendations for additional cuts if
[1:07:38] we went with the 10%.
[1:07:40] >> That's what the board that would need to
[1:07:42] be the decision right I mean that would
[1:07:44] need to be that needs to come from
[1:07:45] somewhere.
[1:07:47] Okay.
[1:07:49] >> Are there
[1:07:51] I mean obviously the current model
[1:07:54] they'll there'll have to be some
[1:07:56] adjustments to are there any
[1:07:58] self-insured plans that incentivize
[1:08:01] like health and activity, you know, cuz
[1:08:04] I know I've been in a plan before and
[1:08:06] it's like if you do a wellness check,
[1:08:08] you get 500 bucks in your HSA. If you
[1:08:11] walk eight to 10,000 steps a day, you
[1:08:15] get money knocked off of your plan
[1:08:17] really because this cost and some of it
[1:08:20] is unavoidable cuz we all have health
[1:08:23] incidents and we all have you know
[1:08:25] things that genetically happen or
[1:08:27] whatever, right? Like but you know this number is you know reflection of
[1:08:34] where we're at for healthcare needs. And
[1:08:36] there's certainly some things where
[1:08:38] maybe if we incentivized,
[1:08:40] you know, different things like we could
[1:08:42] knock down our total cost as a group,
[1:08:46] you know what I mean? And then when you
[1:08:48] knock down your total cost, we knock
[1:08:50] down the cost of everything and have
[1:08:52] more money for different things. So, um,
[1:08:56] >> is there any plans that so because this
[1:08:59] is our plan, right?
[1:09:00] >> Are there plans that do that type those
[1:09:02] types of things, right? where we can get
[1:09:04] together as, you know, make an
[1:09:06] initiative maybe like we're going to
[1:09:08] knock these costs down and we're going
[1:09:10] to all get cheaper health care because
[1:09:12] of it and, you know, and the districts
[1:09:15] can be in a better place.
[1:09:16] >> Yeah, Chris, that's a that's a great
[1:09:17] point and a good question. There are so
[1:09:20] in our exploration of what districts
[1:09:22] around us are doing, there are a lot of
[1:09:24] health incentives built in. And so
[1:09:26] [snorts] that's something we would take
[1:09:27] to our committee certainly to help
[1:09:30] design and look at and evaluate.
[1:09:32] The the point you also make is education
[1:09:34] for our staff on how to use this plan
[1:09:37] correctly.
[1:09:38] >> And Drew hit on it earlier. If if we
[1:09:41] educate better, if if we provide
[1:09:44] accurate, timely information on how to
[1:09:46] utilize our plan to to save money as a
[1:09:49] whole, that will start to level things
[1:09:52] out. taken advantage of collaborative
[1:09:54] care all the free services and I don't
[1:09:57] know that there was a lot of incentive
[1:09:59] to do that when your premium is only 50
[1:10:02] or 100
[1:10:04] >> Mhm. when the premium becomes gets
[1:10:07] closer to market, there's more incentive
[1:10:09] to use the PR plan properly. So, as a
[1:10:11] district, those costs can come down. I
[1:10:14] think that's also one of our initiatives
[1:10:17] is to make sure we're looking at that.
[1:10:19] But to your original point, we'll have
[1:10:21] that committee explore every option
[1:10:24] under the sun. When this first iteration
[1:10:26] came out, I think we had five or six
[1:10:28] options within the healthcare plan from
[1:10:31] the the credits to the search charges to
[1:10:33] tiers, which we would like to take to
[1:10:36] the committee and have them vet how can
[1:10:38] we do this collectively as a group with
[1:10:40] the time frame we have and the and the
[1:10:42] current budget situation. We have to
[1:10:46] make some decisions rather quickly about
[1:10:47] moving forward, but the the plan is in
[1:10:50] place to move forward with things like
[1:10:52] you're talking about. Yeah, just I work
[1:10:53] every day with them. A lot of people
[1:10:56] that are unhealthy in healthcare and
[1:10:58] >> it's amazing what happens if they start
[1:11:01] walking 30 40 minutes a day. All a
[1:11:03] sudden type 2 diabetes is gone. All of a
[1:11:05] sudden they're not on insulin anymore.
[1:11:07] You know what I mean? And I our health
[1:11:10] care cost as a country is all of our
[1:11:12] health care costs. You know what I mean?
[1:11:14] And the healthier we can become
[1:11:15] together. So any I'm really in favor of
[1:11:18] any types of those types of
[1:11:21] >> just got assigned to a a committee just
[1:11:23] so you know [laughter]
[1:11:25] >> we are uh we we are fully behind you on
[1:11:27] that and you know
[1:11:29] >> Brian's point is is very salient. That's
[1:11:32] what we want to be able to to do. Uh
[1:11:34] there's a lot of different strategies in
[1:11:36] the market. I I will say that um not
[1:11:41] only can we explore those things, but I
[1:11:43] do think and I know you all have so many
[1:11:46] different things on your plate that
[1:11:48] you're looking at. So, taking time to
[1:11:50] actually dig into the data
[1:11:53] >> uh is not necessarily what this was
[1:11:55] intended to do from a risk perspective.
[1:11:56] But I I will tell you that the issue
[1:12:00] that we see at hand is a budget issue
[1:12:04] and from an expense and risk perspective
[1:12:07] when we look across the four years we've
[1:12:10] actually seen improvement overall in the
[1:12:14] uh population as a whole. When we rate
[1:12:17] the number of moderate to high risk
[1:12:20] individuals inside of the population as
[1:12:22] a percentage that value is decreasing.
[1:12:26] Um, I think doing this would continue to
[1:12:29] throw fuel on the fire and we would
[1:12:31] [clears throat] we would probably
[1:12:33] recommend a simpler approach that's tied
[1:12:36] into the clinic partners. Um, but
[1:12:40] certainly some some type of premium
[1:12:41] incentive or out-of- pocket expense uh
[1:12:44] incentive would make sense for that.
[1:12:47] >> Thank you.
[1:12:52] Perfect.
[1:12:55] » Thank you. I want to thank you too for
[1:12:57] your presentation here today as well as
[1:12:59] at the facilities and finance committee
[1:13:01] uh last week. It was very informative
[1:13:03] and
[1:13:04] uh very helpful. Um,
[1:13:08] couple of things.
[1:13:17] I I do like the idea of the three or
[1:13:20] four tier breeding program.
[1:13:23] I think that makes things more equitable
[1:13:25] for people in terms of their needs and
[1:13:28] their ability to tap into the the
[1:13:31] program um and to have the needs of
[1:13:35] themselves and their dependence met. Um
[1:13:41] Dr. Davis, you had stated earlier that
[1:13:44] we still need to cut $7 million to
[1:13:46] balance the budget by October 31st of
[1:13:48] this year. This proposal for the
[1:13:52] [clears throat]
[1:13:53] um
[1:13:54] coverage buyout and the 12% premium in
[1:13:58] increase gets us to 1.6. Where would
[1:14:00] that remaining money come from?
[1:14:02] >> So that would be if we go back to the
[1:14:04] slide on the uh the FN um the F10
[1:14:07] matrices.
[1:14:10] You [clears throat] go back to that.
[1:14:12] So uh that one. Yes. Um so the remaining
[1:14:15] uh the remaining amounts would be uh the
[1:14:18] transfer service uh fund 46 uh payment
[1:14:22] um using the uh other post-employment
[1:14:25] benefits trust fund which again is
[1:14:27] maintaining retirement benefits but
[1:14:29] using the fund balance that we have in
[1:14:31] there along with our uh credit to our
[1:14:34] payment for our SRO to fund 80. So that
[1:14:37] the um fourth line there, the 12%
[1:14:40] employee share is is part of that larger picture. And that's
[1:14:45] what gets us to again achieve that $7
[1:14:48] million goal. That obviously adds up to
[1:14:50] $8 million. Okay.
[1:14:52] >> To me, that's risk management like in
[1:14:54] our current current situation. Um and
[1:14:57] that that's where that lies and is up
[1:14:59] for discussion.
[1:15:00] >> Okay. and and what what is the
[1:15:02] opportunity cost or what are we losing
[1:15:05] by cutting $4 million under this
[1:15:08] proposal for other post-employment
[1:15:10] benefits?
[1:15:11] >> What are we losing?
[1:15:13] >> Um so as we would uh related to like
[1:15:17] state aid re reimbursement or
[1:15:19] >> anything?
[1:15:20] >> Yeah. O overall that would be so we have
[1:15:22] a healthy uh trust uh a fund balance for
[1:15:26] our uh other post-employment benefits.
[1:15:29] Um, I think it's $16 million. I I don't
[1:15:33] remember the exact number, but it's a
[1:15:34] healthy it's a healthy amount for a
[1:15:37] one-year time. What we're recommending
[1:15:38] is that instead of that $4 million
[1:15:40] payment coming out of the operational
[1:15:42] budget in fund 10, that we would take
[1:15:44] that from the fund balance um from the
[1:15:46] other post-employment benefits. Now, the
[1:15:49] I would say the downside of that um for
[1:15:52] us is that that automatically builds in
[1:15:55] a $4 million structural deficit for next
[1:15:58] year because we can't do that
[1:15:59] year-over-year. So, that would be the
[1:16:01] negative side of doing that. Um but
[1:16:03] again because we're in a situation um
[1:16:06] you know that we're in right now with
[1:16:07] the school year moving forward um we
[1:16:09] think that's the best the recommendation
[1:16:11] is that's the best way to go for the one
[1:16:13] time and then again immediately start
[1:16:15] working on next year and what those
[1:16:17] reductions need to be as we move forward
[1:16:20] >> and it has to be clear right it has no
[1:16:22] impact on the payment out of these
[1:16:25] earned benefits correct obligations to
[1:16:28] be paid regardless and the benefits
[1:16:30] would stay the same
[1:16:30] >> that fund could be at zero and we're
[1:16:32] still paying 100% of that just out of
[1:16:34] the operations fund.
[1:16:35] >> Correct. Yes. And that that's what Brian
[1:16:37] was referencing before.
[1:16:38] >> I know there have been changes in the
[1:16:40] business office over the last several
[1:16:42] months. We did get the re um
[1:16:44] recommendations from Todd Gray and the
[1:16:47] other um consultant by June. This is the
[1:16:52] end of September.
[1:16:54] I feel like the timing of this is is a
[1:16:57] problem because now we have a very short
[1:17:00] window in which to make decisions that
[1:17:03] are going to affect hundreds of
[1:17:05] employees across the district. I wish we
[1:17:08] would have had this information
[1:17:11] at least um by August so that there was
[1:17:15] more time for people to um review this
[1:17:19] and and have their input. I feel like
[1:17:22] we're we're being rushed to do this. We
[1:17:24] have to set the tax levy by the end of
[1:17:30] October by state law. So, we we've got
[1:17:33] to make these decisions. And um
[1:17:38] I'm very unhappy with the notion that
[1:17:40] we've decreased our fund balance from
[1:17:42] over 24 million to 8 million. that that
[1:17:45] is really a sad situation uh for this
[1:17:49] district
[1:17:50] >> and and just going going back to um uh
[1:17:54] again Todd and Todd's presentation
[1:17:56] before
[1:17:57] >> in that if then matrix which is the tool
[1:18:00] that we're using here um you know we
[1:18:02] were looking at health insurance changes
[1:18:04] I mean that was part of the
[1:18:05] recommendation that we had talked about
[1:18:07] then I think what we what we're what
[1:18:09] we've done from then to now is be able
[1:18:11] to refine what that looks like engage a
[1:18:13] virgin and make sure that we had, you
[1:18:15] know, real numbers that we were looking
[1:18:16] at, making sure we had our new expertise
[1:18:19] in the business office, uh, be able to
[1:18:21] do improved forecasting as we move
[1:18:23] forward. So, those are all the the steps
[1:18:25] that we've been taking from June until
[1:18:27] now to make sure that we have a a level
[1:18:30] of, uh, confidence um, that we can move
[1:18:32] forward and be able to hit that mark.
[1:18:35] I've gone to a lot of sessions on being
[1:18:39] a better board member and most in most
[1:18:43] of those we hear over and over again do
[1:18:45] not surprise your administration and
[1:18:47] your administration should not be
[1:18:48] surprising your board and yet I felt
[1:18:51] there was a big surprise at the end of
[1:18:53] April when we were told that we needed
[1:18:56] more than the $4.6 $6 million in
[1:18:58] reductions for this year. We needed
[1:19:00] another three million. And then last
[1:19:02] Friday when we were told we needed
[1:19:03] another 7 million. I we cannot continue
[1:19:08] to operate like this. We just cannot.
[1:19:11] >> Agreed. And that's why there was change
[1:19:12] in the business office to make sure that
[1:19:14] we do not operate like this moving
[1:19:16] forward. That's my commitment.
[1:19:18] >> All right. Agreed. And I'll add, you
[1:19:20] know, back in January, and I I can fully
[1:19:22] own this when we had the discussion um
[1:19:24] about the original recommendations back
[1:19:26] then about raising the rates,
[1:19:29] we agreed, and I I fully pushed it, and
[1:19:31] I think it was the right move to wait
[1:19:33] until an open enrollment period. So, no
[1:19:35] one's getting their rates changed during the middle of the healthcare
[1:19:40] year, right?
[1:19:41] >> And I mean, I knew full well what that
[1:19:43] meant is we're going to have to pay that
[1:19:45] cost. didn't know what that cost was.
[1:19:47] It's come into our fund balance when
[1:19:48] we're operating in a structural deficit.
[1:19:51] So, I'll I'll happily not happily, but I
[1:19:53] will will own that. So, I get a lot of
[1:19:56] emails. Feel free to send emails on that
[1:19:58] if anybody wants to. Um, but I think
[1:20:00] that was important. I said that's the
[1:20:01] right move because we have to I don't
[1:20:03] think it would have been fair to
[1:20:04] employees, but unfortunately that comes
[1:20:05] with a cost. Great.
[1:20:06] >> We're dealing with that right now, which
[1:20:08] is having to solve this ambiguity and
[1:20:10] the Yeah. paying the price.
[1:20:12] >> Can I ask a question related to Barbs?
[1:20:15] So to me the surprise was that again we
[1:20:18] get the September surprise of we got our
[1:20:21] final May and June numbers and our
[1:20:24] health insurance comes back millions of
[1:20:26] dollars higher from those two months. Um
[1:20:30] and that I think has happened the three
[1:20:32] years that I've been on the board in
[1:20:33] September.
[1:20:35] What re and I think partially what you
[1:20:38] guys are saying is that that happened
[1:20:40] this year because they were not using
[1:20:42] the best actuarial data. They're going
[1:20:44] backwards looking at the risk from the
[1:20:47] past three years in actuals.
[1:20:50] What reassurances do we have this year
[1:20:52] that the 31.5 million, if that's what we
[1:20:54] go to, is going to be enough because it
[1:20:57] feels like it never is enough.
[1:21:00] >> Fair question.
[1:21:00] >> I'm happy to answer that.
[1:21:02] >> Yeah.
[1:21:02] >> Um, and thank you. I appreciate the
[1:21:05] opportunity.
[1:21:06] uh when you look at the build that goes
[1:21:08] into a budget projection forward, you
[1:21:11] have to anticipate some of that need for
[1:21:14] a reserve balance.
[1:21:16] From our perspective, that's the biggest
[1:21:18] difference. There wasn't an expectation
[1:21:21] of an adequate reserve balance. uh there
[1:21:24] wasn't a uh an opportunity to anticipate
[1:21:28] a worse thanex expected year and you had
[1:21:32] one in the last uh the prior plan year
[1:21:36] and in healthcare unfortunately things
[1:21:39] roll downhill because of the lag in
[1:21:41] payment and the lag in how things are
[1:21:43] processed moving forward and to build up
[1:21:46] to this budget we started out with a
[1:21:49] projection based off of the actual
[1:21:50] claims risk in the population That was
[1:21:53] the baseline number. I believe the
[1:21:55] number on average was or averaging it
[1:21:57] out was about 21 million. We then
[1:22:00] assumed that there's a certain portion
[1:22:03] of claims that have already been
[1:22:05] incurred that we haven't yet seen. We
[1:22:07] took a very conservative approach on
[1:22:09] that number and then we applied uh
[1:22:11] several very sound actuarial practices
[1:22:15] to ensure that we were giving enough
[1:22:17] variance to get to that 31.5.
[1:22:20] Um while you know it's it's a bit like
[1:22:24] predicting the weather. You can
[1:22:25] certainly get it wrong. You probably are
[1:22:27] never going to get it exactly right. We
[1:22:29] feel uh pretty confident in the number
[1:22:31] that was presented that there is enough
[1:22:33] reserve sitting in there compared to
[1:22:36] just looking at what was paid in the
[1:22:37] last 3 years and averaging it and
[1:22:39] expecting that that's what's going to
[1:22:40] happen moving forward.
[1:22:42] >> I appreciate that. And is it also is it
[1:22:44] fair for us to say whether or not you
[1:22:46] can say it that that same type of
[1:22:48] assessment and that sign same kind of
[1:22:50] actuarial certainty or or as certainty
[1:22:52] as you can get has not necessarily been
[1:22:55] there in previous years
[1:22:57] in the analysis when you are looking
[1:22:59] back at it then does not seem to have
[1:23:01] been the same practice. I think it I
[1:23:03] think it's very fair to say that there
[1:23:05] needs to be a level of detail um that is
[1:23:10] uh standard in the industry that needs
[1:23:12] to be used and that that level of detail
[1:23:14] was not
[1:23:16] >> what was used.
[1:23:17] >> Thank you.
[1:23:18] >> Probably one thing we we wanted to make
[1:23:20] sure we didn't do was have that reserve
[1:23:24] too big
[1:23:25] >> because the last thing we want is to
[1:23:26] raise people's premium and then at the
[1:23:28] end of the year there's $2 million
[1:23:30] sitting there.
[1:23:31] >> Sure. So, it was a balance of like where
[1:23:35] do we draw that line of being
[1:23:37] comfortable but not ending up with a
[1:23:39] reserve where people question you raised
[1:23:42] our premiums to 12%.
[1:23:45] But now you're sitting with a fund
[1:23:46] balance of $2 million in there. So, I I
[1:23:51] feel good about the work we've done
[1:23:53] together. Like Drew said, can I am I
[1:23:56] ever going to guarantee that?
[1:23:58] >> No. No, that's not ask.
[1:23:59] >> But looking at how we've done it, how
[1:24:01] we've budgeted, how it's been
[1:24:03] forecasted. So that's another piece to
[1:24:05] this puzzle that we haven't gotten into
[1:24:07] is even though you know that 28.5 was
[1:24:10] pulled, if you look back to what was
[1:24:13] presented in the budget, it was only $26
[1:24:15] million.
[1:24:16] So that's that's really a 5 million
[1:24:19] almost $6 million swing in when you get
[1:24:22] to the end of the year figuring out
[1:24:25] those dollars.
[1:24:28] Um, thank you. I should have asked this
[1:24:30] before too, but what is the costsaving
[1:24:33] differences between and maybe you know
[1:24:36] this, maybe you don't, 12%, 10%, and 8%.
[1:24:39] Like how much do we like if if we vote
[1:24:44] and we voted on the 12%. How much would
[1:24:46] that save us in cost? What is that on
[1:24:49] the slide back there? How much would we
[1:24:51] save on the 10%.
[1:24:52] >> Oh, right there.
[1:24:53] >> Okay. So on the bottom, so if we went to
[1:24:56] 12,
[1:24:56] >> it's 2.6 million, which cut in half
[1:24:59] based on how the the plan years are in
[1:25:02] the middle.
[1:25:04] >> If we're at 10, it's 1.9 and cut that in
[1:25:07] half.
[1:25:07] >> So it's a $700,000 difference between 10
[1:25:10] and 12 in cost savings annually.
[1:25:14] >> Okay.
[1:25:14] >> So I think that's what the board will
[1:25:16] have to decide if if you go to 10 or 12.
[1:25:19] From a riskmanagement standpoint, are we
[1:25:22] comfortable
[1:25:24] reducing that number and living closer
[1:25:26] to the edge if something were to
[1:25:28] transpire throughout the year with our
[1:25:29] current fund balance?
[1:25:31] >> Okay. From the outside looking in too, I
[1:25:33] would say um while it's painful to go
[1:25:38] with the higher value, there's less
[1:25:41] likelihood that you're going to have to
[1:25:42] come back again in the subsequent year
[1:25:46] and raise that contribution percentage.
[1:25:49] sitting at 12, you're likely to sustain
[1:25:51] that over multiple years as opposed to
[1:25:53] going to 10 and having to come back
[1:25:54] potentially again.
[1:25:56] >> So just doing basic and this probably
[1:26:00] isn't right, but would 8% then be 1.2
[1:26:04] >> or I mean
[1:26:05] >> 8% I believe was one no it was 970 on
[1:26:09] the twoear two plan I think it was
[1:26:11] 970,000.
[1:26:12] >> Okay. So between being at 8% and 12%
[1:26:15] that's a 1 was it $ 1.5 million
[1:26:19] different.
[1:26:21] >> Okay.
[1:26:22] All right.
[1:26:25] >> I guess so kind of going off something
[1:26:27] Barb said something we talked at during
[1:26:30] the finance committee is how this feels
[1:26:33] really rushed and we have October 14th
[1:26:35] is our next board meeting. Obviously
[1:26:37] there's going to be a lot of emails
[1:26:38] pouring in. We're going to hear from
[1:26:40] employees and and whatnot. What would
[1:26:42] the repercussions be of moving this to
[1:26:46] the 28th second board meeting? Having a
[1:26:49] chance for employees to come speak, help
[1:26:52] us get a better idea of how they feel.
[1:26:54] Obviously, they're not going to want an
[1:26:56] increase, but what would they be willing
[1:26:57] to work with? What would be something?
[1:27:00] >> So, the the open enrollment period
[1:27:02] starts November 1. So, that would give
[1:27:05] us time to prep materials, plan, prepare
[1:27:08] for the open enrollment period. Other
[1:27:13] questions, comments?
[1:27:15] Go ahead, Tim. I think I asked the question of you guys
[1:27:22] when at the facilities and finance
[1:27:25] committee meeting in six on the 10th and
[1:27:28] then we had a finance committee and I
[1:27:30] think Jacob brought up the prospect of
[1:27:36] basing the premium on on the salary and
[1:27:38] I think I think at the time I think
[1:27:40] Brian responded back on
[1:27:43] Monday that maybe there's a prospect of
[1:27:46] a T system. [clears throat]
[1:27:47] >> So, I think you guys committed to doing
[1:27:50] some work on it. Can you say what your
[1:27:53] thoughts are on that and how quickly
[1:27:56] something like that could be?
[1:27:58] >> Yeah, so uh we did do the research right
[1:28:01] after that meeting. um just to ensure
[1:28:03] that we didn't put the district in a
[1:28:05] position of um um I of course my words
[1:28:11] elude me right now but we wanted to make
[1:28:13] sure that it was the right move for you
[1:28:14] and that it wouldn't have any blowback
[1:28:16] um on the negative side instead of just
[1:28:18] being all positive. So you can do that.
[1:28:22] Um we can base the increases on the
[1:28:26] employees um income or wage salary
[1:28:30] but we have to class we would have to
[1:28:33] class it as such. And those classes that
[1:28:36] we create in order to adjust the premium
[1:28:40] have to be classes that you're using in
[1:28:43] the district already. We can't create
[1:28:45] classes specifically for health care
[1:28:48] premiums to change the contribution
[1:28:50] strategy with healthcare premiums. So,
[1:28:53] what we would need to do is to identify
[1:28:54] within the district what different ways
[1:28:57] you're looking at your employees and how
[1:29:00] you're using those different classing
[1:29:02] systems um to try to base something that
[1:29:05] would be fair across the board within
[1:29:08] those classes. Um so, we did have
[1:29:11] conversations about this. Um there are
[1:29:13] some some slides and some details that
[1:29:15] we put together. We didn't feel that I
[1:29:18] guess it was a lot of detail for
[1:29:20] tonight.
[1:29:21] >> So it can be done
[1:29:22] >> yes
[1:29:23] >> to the tiered system. So whether it's
[1:29:25] 41we clerical
[1:29:27] um administration, teachers, pair
[1:29:30] professionals, you can break them down
[1:29:32] into those tiers. You can't do it
[1:29:33] specific to salary. Um looking at how we
[1:29:37] would do that in comparison with all of
[1:29:40] the groups we have and the salary ranges
[1:29:43] we have with the time frame we have
[1:29:46] taking that to the committee to
[1:29:49] determine okay if we have a pair of
[1:29:51] professional who makes let's say $25 an
[1:29:54] hour they may qualify for a lesser
[1:29:58] percentage but what about the custodian
[1:30:00] who works a full school school year but
[1:30:03] makes less
[1:30:05] So there's all of those different
[1:30:06] categories where you then create
[1:30:10] different levels of potential animosity
[1:30:12] or or how are you going to do that
[1:30:14] across your system when we have a number
[1:30:16] of different tiers or or pay categories.
[1:30:19] Um again the time frame is is not
[1:30:23] favorable for any of us. But that is
[1:30:25] something this committee as we go
[1:30:27] forward we would task with going all
[1:30:30] right all of our union groups how does
[1:30:32] this look? So if we did it for pair of
[1:30:35] professionals what about the custodian
[1:30:38] what about the part-time nurse like
[1:30:40] where do all of our categories fit so
[1:30:42] it's fair across the board? We don't
[1:30:46] have those answers currently. There are [clears throat] some school
[1:30:50] districts who do this um that we could
[1:30:52] reach out to to to find out how they do
[1:30:54] it and how they categorize and where the
[1:30:56] pain points are.
[1:30:58] I think that would be something we would
[1:31:00] task our committee with moving forward
[1:31:02] to look at to do.
[1:31:07] » Thank you for that. I got one other
[1:31:09] question and I'm not quite sure if this
[1:31:11] is an emergent thing or if there's some
[1:31:13] other provider that I don't fully
[1:31:16] understand yet. Uh
[1:31:20] I I think we got
[1:31:22] a presentation for the facilities and
[1:31:25] finance committee uh for the September
[1:31:28] 10th meeting and we got that maybe a
[1:31:31] week ahead of time I think is what Dr.
[1:31:33] Herszog requires of us. So, I got this
[1:31:35] presentation pulled up in front of me.
[1:31:37] And what I'm struggling with is uh
[1:31:43] the same number that I'm seeing up here
[1:31:46] that we're seeing tonight. The actual
[1:31:48] amount of the net plan paid, I think we
[1:31:52] got reported as 30.5 million, right? And
[1:31:55] that we're proposing to go to 31.5 to
[1:32:00] cover an anticipated increase.
[1:32:04] So what I'm struggling with is and and I
[1:32:08] think Mr. Yorkie uh told me about this
[1:32:11] concept of and may maybe you guys talked
[1:32:14] about it too, the IBNR, the incurred but
[1:32:17] not reported uh because we as a board
[1:32:21] uh heard I think it was last Thursday or
[1:32:24] Friday that there was roughly $3.3
[1:32:28] million worth of expenses that were
[1:32:32] attributable to I believe it was May to
[1:32:34] June
[1:32:37] uh that we didn't know about and we were
[1:32:41] told that we didn't know about it until
[1:32:43] effectively
[1:32:45] last Thursday or Friday when we got this
[1:32:47] email. So, what I'm struggling with is
[1:32:50] if prior to us hearing that we knew that
[1:32:55] the net plan paid was 30.5 million, but
[1:32:59] then afterwards we found out there was
[1:33:00] an additional $3 million or $3.3 million
[1:33:04] of expenses.
[1:33:06] Why isn't it increasing now? And why
[1:33:09] isn't the number
[1:33:11] that were being recommended
[1:33:14] increasing a fair amount more? Does that
[1:33:16] make sense what I'm asking that?
[1:33:18] >> Yeah, there's this is how this goes back
[1:33:21] to the comment on how you calculate or
[1:33:24] how you count a claim within a period of
[1:33:27] time. Do you count it off the the date
[1:33:29] of service when it was incurred or do
[1:33:32] you count it off the date that it was
[1:33:34] paid? The 30.5 number is attributing
[1:33:38] everything that was paid regardless of
[1:33:39] the date of service. So, we're not
[1:33:41] paying attention to the date of service.
[1:33:44] The IBNR calculation is going off of the
[1:33:47] date of incurred and telling you that
[1:33:50] there's going to be claims that are
[1:33:51] coming in and get paid during the fiscal
[1:33:54] year that were incurred prior to. You
[1:33:56] would have to zero out
[1:33:59] on that calculation, that 30.5. If
[1:34:02] you're looking at it and you're saying
[1:34:03] we only want to look at what was
[1:34:04] incurred in fiscal year 2526
[1:34:07] and there are claims that ran out past
[1:34:10] that's the number that you're
[1:34:11] referencing. You would have to also zero
[1:34:14] out the the claims that ran in that were
[1:34:17] paid after July of 20 uh 2025 that were
[1:34:22] incurred leading up to that date.
[1:34:25] Does that make does that make sense?
[1:34:28] reasonably. I think I think what I'll
[1:34:31] suggest is I would like to take you two
[1:34:33] up on your offer to
[1:34:35] >> meet with you and go through the details
[1:34:37] of the sound actuarial
[1:34:41] >> calculations that would be great if we
[1:34:43] could do that before we actually have to
[1:34:45] vote on this. I would love that. So,
[1:34:46] thank you. I appreciate it.
[1:34:48] >> Of course.
[1:34:49] >> Any other questions or comments?
[1:34:52] If I could just say to to Tim's like
[1:34:54] that's where that's the state we're in
[1:34:56] right now is daily conversations about
[1:34:58] our plan. Previously we had one
[1:35:01] gatekeeper of our health insurance plan
[1:35:04] and that individual managed the plan,
[1:35:05] budgeted the plan, reported the plan,
[1:35:08] took care of the plan. That's not the
[1:35:10] case. So, our team here at Central, our
[1:35:13] business, we have HR, business, and my
[1:35:16] office and our payroll and benefits
[1:35:18] person managing this plan, learning
[1:35:21] about it, diving into it, having these
[1:35:23] weekly, sometimes multiple times a day
[1:35:26] meetings to figure it out. I'm certainly
[1:35:28] not an expert in it. Nobody in our team
[1:35:31] is, so figuring out how we got here
[1:35:34] isn't the easiest piece right now. So,
[1:35:37] we've been very transparent with our
[1:35:38] frustration. And we're also sick of
[1:35:41] coming to the board with surprises. You
[1:35:43] know, the IBNR last Thursday, we
[1:35:46] reported that to Brian Thursday
[1:35:47] afternoon, 25 minutes after we figured
[1:35:50] it out through a payroll process. Um,
[1:35:53] and again, I I apologize for those pain
[1:35:55] points. I wish I knew the system in and
[1:35:57] out better. I wish I had the historical
[1:35:59] pieces to why things were done the way
[1:36:01] they were. We don't have any of those
[1:36:03] resources available to us other than the
[1:36:06] emergency. So, so we are committed to to
[1:36:09] fixing this and getting it right. And I
[1:36:11] apologize we haven't had those resources
[1:36:13] to be able to thoroughly explain to you
[1:36:16] why certain things are the way they are.
[1:36:18] Just not able to do that with some of
[1:36:20] these pieces. So, I do think Dr. S
[1:36:23] meeting with a virgin and and anybody
[1:36:25] else who's in that and regular meetings
[1:36:28] with the committee we put together and
[1:36:30] our finance committee is a good thing.
[1:36:33] That way, we're all on the same page and
[1:36:34] there's not and there's not surprises.
[1:36:36] And if they are, we understand how they
[1:36:38] got there. So, I appreciate the
[1:36:41] questions and and be honest with you
[1:36:43] with how we're all feeling about this.
[1:36:46] >> Can I ask one more quick question?
[1:36:48] >> Yes, please.
[1:36:48] >> The the IBNR
[1:36:51] the delay of 2 and 1/2 months. Are you
[1:36:54] guys responsible for that or are there
[1:36:57] other people that delay? I have no idea
[1:36:59] if you guys have anything to do with
[1:37:00] that or if you're just the one who's
[1:37:02] putting the overall thing together. And
[1:37:04] I appreciate that.
[1:37:06] is not necessarily an unreasonable
[1:37:09] time frame. At the same time, I'm going
[1:37:12] I think this is kind of the angst that
[1:37:13] we have. We've been getting this
[1:37:15] September surprise and we're going,
[1:37:17] >> can we shorten that so we know earlier?
[1:37:20] >> Yeah, there's a there's a length of time
[1:37:23] that legally a provider has to submit a
[1:37:26] claim in the first place to ensure that
[1:37:28] it's actually going to run through
[1:37:29] insurance and could be covered by a
[1:37:31] health plan expense. So, they have a
[1:37:33] window of time, actually up to 12 months
[1:37:35] to do that, I believe, is how long they
[1:37:37] have. Um, most of them, of course, don't
[1:37:39] do that because they want to get paid.
[1:37:41] But there is a reality to how long it
[1:37:44] takes for the notes from a visit to get
[1:37:48] loaded into a health care system to get
[1:37:51] all of the codes applied to it, the CPT
[1:37:53] codes and ICD9 codes and all the things
[1:37:55] that determine how much they're actually
[1:37:57] going to bill for that. That information
[1:37:59] all needs to go to the network then that
[1:38:02] you have associated with your plan that
[1:38:04] reprices it based on the discounts that
[1:38:06] they've negotiated. That then needs to
[1:38:08] go back to the TPA who then has to make
[1:38:11] sure that all of those claims should be
[1:38:12] covered by the health plan based on the
[1:38:14] summary plan description. And then that
[1:38:17] has to generate basically a check run to
[1:38:20] pay for that claim and then to send out
[1:38:22] an EOB or an estimation of benefits to
[1:38:24] your member. And that, believe it or
[1:38:26] not, is a simplistic version of kind of
[1:38:28] the day in the life of a claim. So, it's
[1:38:31] a very challenging process and I agree
[1:38:33] with you wholeheartedly and I think
[1:38:35] creates the angst in everyone of what's
[1:38:37] really sitting out there. Can we really
[1:38:39] see all of it? And so, um, that's kind
[1:38:42] of what what we're working in and what
[1:38:44] you're what you're working in when we
[1:38:46] talk about that delay. the the IBNR
[1:38:48] calculation is something that um as
[1:38:51] we've been working through this process
[1:38:53] uh we have produced a new reporting
[1:38:56] package that is going to come back to
[1:38:58] the business office. We've done that
[1:39:00] just as an organization and so that new
[1:39:02] reporting package actually raises the
[1:39:05] IBNR calculation in on a monthly basis.
[1:39:08] So you will have a running IBNR moving
[1:39:10] forward.
[1:39:13] the value of what the IBNR calculation
[1:39:15] would be if you uh were to run it in
[1:39:18] early July of this year versus running
[1:39:20] it in September is the difference
[1:39:23] between wet cement and concrete because
[1:39:27] of where you are today when you look at
[1:39:29] an IBNR calculation as of July. Most of
[1:39:32] those claims have actually come in the
[1:39:33] door. So had you asked for the IBNR
[1:39:36] calculation in July, the number would
[1:39:38] have been about a million dollars more than what
[1:39:41] it actually ended up being. And that's not necessarily by error. That's
[1:39:46] just by virtue of the fact that an IBNR
[1:39:49] calculation is a guess incurred but not
[1:39:52] reported. You're always guessing at what
[1:39:55] that value is. And historically, it's on
[1:39:57] the basis of past claims. And when you
[1:40:00] have a higher year that that IBNR
[1:40:03] calculation just goes up to the request
[1:40:06] though and as we said we'd love to come
[1:40:10] in and have a conversation about that
[1:40:12] and we're happy to get as detailed as
[1:40:14] you would like around how that
[1:40:16] calculation is done and then moving
[1:40:18] forward what type of information you'd
[1:40:20] like to receive both at the business
[1:40:23] office and the board and finance
[1:40:25] committee levels
[1:40:27] >> for clarity the IB IBN is now in that
[1:40:30] 31.
[1:40:31] >> Yes.
[1:40:32] >> Five
[1:40:33] >> where we're confident that it wasn't
[1:40:35] built in before to the budget.
[1:40:39] >> They will caution the emerging team that
[1:40:41] Dr. Hes is a talented statistician who
[1:40:44] will keep you on your toes in that
[1:40:45] meeting. So be prepared for that. But
[1:40:48] we're lucky to them.
[1:40:49] >> Look forward to it. Thank you.
[1:40:50] >> Anything else?
[1:40:52] >> All right. Well, thank you very much.
[1:40:55] >> Thank you. You guys have a good night.
[1:40:56] Good luck with the
[1:40:58] >> baby soon. Yeah.
[1:41:00] >> All right.
[1:41:00] >> I don't know that
[1:41:01] >> other reports.
[1:41:03] >> So we have on here facilities and
[1:41:04] finance committee. Is that do we have a
[1:41:06] legacy report from the facilities and
[1:41:08] finance committee? All right.
[1:41:10] >> Dr. Hersog.
[1:41:11] >> Thank you Dr. Hess. The what I guess
[1:41:15] would be the final meeting of the
[1:41:16] facilities and finance committee since
[1:41:18] that's now been divided into two groups
[1:41:21] uh was held on Thursday, September 10th
[1:41:24] with three major agenda items. The
[1:41:26] meeting began at 7:30 a.m. and went
[1:41:28] until 9:27 a.m. Uh, we had a report on
[1:41:35] ADA or Americans with Disability Act uh
[1:41:39] implications for installing in assist of
[1:41:42] listening technology to meet ADA
[1:41:44] mandates in the new high school
[1:41:45] auditorium. Our guest speaker, Juliet
[1:41:48] Stirkens, who is a nationally, actually
[1:41:51] internationally known um expert in this
[1:41:54] area, advocated for hearing loops as a
[1:41:57] proven consumer-friendly technology.
[1:42:00] Uh the committee is weighing options
[1:42:01] including installing a hearing loop or a
[1:42:04] cast or a combination with a focus on
[1:42:06] accessibility as well as budget
[1:42:08] constraints.
[1:42:10] Uh we also reviewed with uh Drew
[1:42:13] Leatherberry and Sher Freeman who were
[1:42:15] just here with uh Mr. Yorkie um an
[1:42:19] overview of the district's self-funded
[1:42:21] insurance plan. I believe just about
[1:42:23] everything that we heard tonight was
[1:42:25] covered in the meeting, so I won't uh go
[1:42:27] back over that.
[1:42:30] And finally, we uh talked about boundary
[1:42:32] lines uh with an update from Mr. Yorkie
[1:42:35] as uh the need to adjust elementary
[1:42:39] school boundary lines to address
[1:42:41] capacity issues and accommodate
[1:42:42] declining enrollment for the 2728 school
[1:42:45] year. The plan will aim to balance
[1:42:47] school utilization near 85% capacity
[1:42:50] without major disruption to families or
[1:42:52] increase transportation costs.
[1:42:55] Um and we will come back and address
[1:42:59] that uh need at a at a future meeting.
[1:43:01] Our next meeting of the now facilities
[1:43:05] committee will be on October 15th, 2026
[1:43:09] at uh I think that one is at 4:45 p.m.
[1:43:13] >> Yeah, 4:45 p.m. Thank you.
[1:43:16] >> Thank you, Barb. Next, we have policy,
[1:43:18] governance, and advocacy.
[1:43:20] >> We had a record short policy and
[1:43:21] governance meeting on Thursday,
[1:43:23] September 17th. Uh we only had one uh
[1:43:26] item that is coming to the board tonight
[1:43:28] for re uh for uh review and vote. Uh and
[1:43:32] that was to update the core beliefs,
[1:43:34] vision, mission, vision and mission
[1:43:37] statements. Uh and these would be
[1:43:38] reflecting of the current OAS strategic
[1:43:41] plan. Uh so they are indeed on the
[1:43:44] consent agenda for tonight. Uh we have a
[1:43:47] couple of future agenda items coming up
[1:43:49] that have been requested and we'll be
[1:43:50] working on including committee makeup
[1:43:52] and uh involving uh community members in
[1:43:55] the committees and then uh idea on
[1:43:59] looking into a data breach policy and
[1:44:00] notification of families or staff if
[1:44:03] there is a data breach. Uh our next
[1:44:06] meeting is scheduled for October 15th at
[1:44:08] 7:30 a.m.
[1:44:10] >> Excellent. Any other reports to give?
[1:44:13] All right, we will move on to the agenda
[1:44:15] related forum. We have one speaker, Pam
[1:44:18] Rutder. I'll invite you up. Just
[1:44:20] remember to please clearly state your
[1:44:21] name and the city you reside in. Um,
[1:44:24] please limit your comments to three
[1:44:25] minutes. I'll let you know when you hit
[1:44:26] three minutes. And please remember that
[1:44:28] the use of specific names of district
[1:44:29] personnel may lead to legal liability in
[1:44:32] such instances. Please pursue the
[1:44:34] district's formal complaint process by
[1:44:36] contacting the superintendent's office
[1:44:37] directly.
[1:44:39] >> Hello, my name is Pam Rutder from the
[1:44:41] city of Oshkosh. I attended the
[1:44:43] September 9th meeting here and in those
[1:44:46] minutes I am recorded as one community
[1:44:50] member came to share their thoughts
[1:44:52] regarding the new middle school. Well, I
[1:44:55] shared a lot more than that. Um, and I
[1:45:00] really would appreciate if you would let
[1:45:02] the minutes reflect that I, Pam Rutder,
[1:45:05] am a concerned neighbor of the new
[1:45:08] middle school, which will be built at
[1:45:10] the Jacob Shapiro Elementary School
[1:45:13] site. Simply put, the new Super Mega
[1:45:16] Middle School does not fit on the
[1:45:19] proposed site. There is no room for
[1:45:23] outdoor athletic fields or track, which
[1:45:26] Vel Phillips has both. A three-story
[1:45:30] building with windows will be a mere 30
[1:45:33] ft off the neighboring homes lot lines
[1:45:38] with no planned barrier.
[1:45:41] The neighbors, as I expressed September
[1:45:43] 9th, have not been informed.
[1:45:46] We did not get the letter that was sent
[1:45:49] out July 21st
[1:45:52] and some of us were able to attend the
[1:45:54] April 8 or August 18thformational
[1:45:57] meeting and the district said that you
[1:46:00] would upset update your website
[1:46:03] accordingly. Still do not have the
[1:46:07] accurate picture of the proposal. It is
[1:46:11] a not it is a very misleading picture
[1:46:15] that is out on your website and I asked
[1:46:18] it to be updated as they said they would
[1:46:21] do and it still is not updated. So I'm
[1:46:25] back again. I am a concerned neighbor
[1:46:28] for so many reasons. I feel dismissed by
[1:46:31] this board and administration and am
[1:46:34] frustrated with this project that was
[1:46:37] not well thought out after the original
[1:46:40] South Park site fell through. There is
[1:46:43] no transparency for this project with
[1:46:46] our neighbors and you owe it to our
[1:46:50] neighbors to be able to know what's
[1:46:53] going on and plan accordingly. And the
[1:46:57] traffic is going to be a nightmare. We
[1:46:59] didn't even talk about that last time.
[1:47:02] The homes that are are your direct
[1:47:06] neighbors that is they are not being
[1:47:09] treated fairly. The intersection of 18th
[1:47:12] and NAP is not going to be safe for
[1:47:15] pedestrians,
[1:47:16] bicyclists, cars, that road will not
[1:47:19] handle this construction. moving from
[1:47:24] 150 students to 650 in that lot does not
[1:47:29] work and uh it's very frustrating
[1:47:32] because nobody knows about it.
[1:47:36] >> Thank you for your time. Thank you.
[1:47:41] >> Um next we're moving on to non-aggenda
[1:47:44] related items. We have two speakers
[1:47:46] here. Um the first one is Dan I believe
[1:47:49] Kusman.
[1:47:51] Did I say that correctly?
[1:47:52] Chrisman.
[1:47:53] >> All right. Close.
[1:47:54] >> I'm going to ramble all over for you.
[1:47:57] >> Got three minutes to do it.
[1:47:59] >> Yep.
[1:48:00] >> All right. My name is Dan Kusman. Uh
[1:48:01] Ashkosh. I live uh I'm actually one of
[1:48:03] the affected property owners on Nap
[1:48:05] Street. Um, I got a letter stating that
[1:48:08] now that the uh the small group meetings
[1:48:13] of the directly affected property owners
[1:48:15] were completed, they were ready to do
[1:48:17] the meeting we had on the 18th I believe
[1:48:20] at Ashkosh West. Um, problem is is the
[1:48:23] three property owners that are directly
[1:48:25] affected by the school on Nap Street,
[1:48:27] none of us were notified. So
[1:48:29] transparency is an issue with me. So I
[1:48:33] think the reason why is because our
[1:48:36] backyards are going to be the entrance
[1:48:37] and exit to the school. All the traffic
[1:48:40] is going to be driven in the new
[1:48:42] driveway. So me sitting in my backyard
[1:48:45] now I'm going to look at a parking lot
[1:48:47] right through the fence. The school
[1:48:49] right after that with all the entrance
[1:48:51] and exits for all the children. So and
[1:48:53] again I spent a lot of time in my
[1:48:55] backyard. So, I I I've got a real issue
[1:48:57] with that transparency. And I don't know
[1:48:59] if the board members knew that. Somehow
[1:49:02] the three most affected property owners
[1:49:04] on Nap Street were not notified of any
[1:49:07] of the early small group meetings. Not
[1:49:10] real happy. So, um, can anyone tell me
[1:49:13] what's going to happen to my property
[1:49:14] value now that I'm going to have a
[1:49:16] school, right? I have a school there
[1:49:18] now, but now I'm going to have a
[1:49:19] three-story school with a parking lot
[1:49:22] and the entrance and exit to the school
[1:49:24] for all the kids. No one's able to tell
[1:49:26] me what's going to happen to my property
[1:49:28] values. And then again, that the dual
[1:49:31] and dual exit driveway and the existing
[1:49:34] parking lot, the new proposed one less
[1:49:37] than 140 ft from 18th Street, which is
[1:49:40] going to be an issue. I think Pam kind
[1:49:42] of hit on that. So, um, so we've really
[1:49:44] got some issues with with some of these.
[1:49:46] Again, the original concept drawings we
[1:49:49] saw, and I get it, things change. The
[1:49:52] original concept drawing showed that
[1:49:55] there was going to be a green space
[1:49:56] buffer zone between the fence line, our
[1:50:00] backyard, and the new proposed driveway.
[1:50:03] Now, the new proposal is we've got a
[1:50:06] parking lot right there. So, um I I
[1:50:09] think the plan wasn't thought out
[1:50:11] enough. And um not that I was thinking
[1:50:13] of selling, but why wasn't our
[1:50:15] properties, the three of them? Um why
[1:50:18] weren't we asked were we interested?
[1:50:21] Because I mean, you could surely do a
[1:50:23] better job with that school, the layout
[1:50:25] of that school if you had those
[1:50:27] properties. I get it, the South Park
[1:50:29] properties, everything else. But I think
[1:50:32] uh I think from a standpoint of
[1:50:33] transparency, we were left out.
[1:50:36] >> So that's what I've got. Awesome.
[1:50:39] >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank
[1:50:40] you.
[1:50:42] >> Um, we have one more non-aggenda related
[1:50:45] forum. Uh, Britney Bongert.
[1:50:55] >> Hello.
[1:50:56] >> Uh, Bernie Bongert. I live in the town
[1:50:59] of Alma, but part of the school
[1:51:01] district.
[1:51:01] >> Yeah.
[1:51:02] >> Um, all right. So, I'm here to request
[1:51:05] that the board consider adjusting their
[1:51:08] approach related to the permissions for
[1:51:10] students to be photographed and then
[1:51:11] accessible online. Um, this is the
[1:51:14] permission that parents sign during
[1:51:16] enrollment period. Um, I strongly
[1:51:19] believe that that permission should not
[1:51:20] include the yearbook. There's stark
[1:51:23] differences between a yearbook and the
[1:51:25] internet. Um, and I've noticed that the
[1:51:28] social media platforms are widely
[1:51:30] available to anyone who likes the page.
[1:51:33] Um, a yearbook has limited distribution.
[1:51:37] It's typically purchased by school
[1:51:38] families. It's difficult to copy at
[1:51:41] scale. Social media has an unlimited
[1:51:44] audience. Um, it's easily shared beyond
[1:51:47] the original audience and even the
[1:51:48] original intention. Um, choosing to not
[1:51:51] have my child's picture posted publicly
[1:51:53] online
[1:51:55] shouldn't prevent them from appearing in
[1:51:57] a record of their school experience.
[1:52:00] So, and related to that, I do have a
[1:52:05] concern because I personally have not
[1:52:07] opted out of this because the yearbook
[1:52:09] is more important for my children's
[1:52:12] record and having that available for
[1:52:15] their history. Um, I have not opted out
[1:52:18] of this, which leads me into an
[1:52:20] observation and a concern that I have on
[1:52:22] the current use of social media by the
[1:52:24] district. And I am curious to understand
[1:52:28] if how it's being used is conflicting
[1:52:30] with an existing board policy. Um,
[1:52:33] policy 7544, the use of social media,
[1:52:36] states that each district approved
[1:52:39] social media account
[1:52:42] or site must contain a statement that
[1:52:44] specifies its purpose and limit those
[1:52:46] who access the social media account to
[1:52:48] use only for those purposes.
[1:52:52] How are you able to limit access when
[1:52:55] anyone can like a page or follow it? and
[1:52:58] how are you able to control what they go
[1:52:59] to that site for and what they use that
[1:53:02] information for? So, I just am curious
[1:53:06] if over the course of time this policy
[1:53:09] and this can be evaluated perhaps by the
[1:53:11] policy committee um and just the use and
[1:53:15] public public information that's out
[1:53:18] there pertaining to our children.
[1:53:22] Awesome.
[1:53:23] >> Thank you.
[1:53:30] All right. Uh we now move on to the
[1:53:32] consent agenda. Uh for the consent
[1:53:34] agenda, the board has been furnished
[1:53:36] with background material on each item or
[1:53:38] is discussed at a previous meeting.
[1:53:39] These will be acted upon with one vote
[1:53:41] without discussion. And if a board
[1:53:42] member would like to discuss any item,
[1:53:44] it will be pulled out of the consent
[1:53:45] agenda and be voted on separately. No
[1:53:47] board vote is needed at this point to
[1:53:49] move resolutions from consent agenda to
[1:53:51] individually considered.
[1:53:55] So move
[1:53:56] >> Barb.
[1:53:57] >> Does anyone want to remove it? Well, I
[1:53:59] guess we need the motion first. Yeah.
[1:54:00] Sorry.
[1:54:02] >> I'll second it.
[1:54:05] » Any discussion or request for rem? No
[1:54:08] discussion, but request for removals.
[1:54:11] >> No.
[1:54:12] >> All right. Please call the RO.
[1:54:13] >> Wolf.
[1:54:14] >> I.
[1:54:14] >> Right.
[1:54:15] >> I.
[1:54:15] >> Ward.
[1:54:16] >> I.
[1:54:18] >> Hess.
[1:54:18] >> I.
[1:54:18] >> Smutley.
[1:54:19] >> I.
[1:54:20] >> Resolution carries.
[1:54:22] Sorry for my clumsiness on that one. Uh,
[1:54:24] next we have the individually considered
[1:54:25] resolutions. Um, approval of preliminary
[1:54:27] budget for 2026 20127.
[1:54:31] Can I get a motion?
[1:54:34] >> So move. Molly
[1:54:36] second.
[1:54:38] >> Second. Barb.
[1:54:39] >> Barb. It looks like we have guests.
[1:54:43] Welcome.
[1:54:43] >> Anticipating questions.
[1:54:45] >> All right. Well, I'll open it up
[1:54:47] discussion.
[1:54:53] I can I'll just ask my broad one to be
[1:54:55] clear. This is a preliminary budget,
[1:54:57] very preliminary in an effort to allow
[1:54:59] us to also facilitate the next
[1:55:00] discussion about short-term borrowing.
[1:55:03] But this is your general outline.
[1:55:06] >> Okay,
[1:55:06] >> that is correct. Yes.
[1:55:08] >> Yes. And in and the final budget then
[1:55:10] will come October 28th. So this this is
[1:55:13] the prelude to that if you
[1:55:17] >> and I guess maybe the most obvious
[1:55:18] question um since we've been operating
[1:55:20] under a structural deficit.
[1:55:22] >> Yeah.
[1:55:23] >> Where are we at with this one?
[1:55:24] >> Sure. So as of right now for the
[1:55:26] preliminary budget I do have it balanced
[1:55:29] and I utilize the if then statement that
[1:55:31] we worked with with our consultants. Um
[1:55:33] and I have been in contact regularly
[1:55:35] with both Todds throughout the entire
[1:55:37] process just to get their opinion
[1:55:39] regularly. Um, so as of right now, I do
[1:55:42] have a balanced budget at $146.2
[1:55:44] million. Um, I'm anticipating
[1:55:47] about $3 million more in our um,
[1:55:51] equalization aid, taking it to about
[1:55:53] $86.5 million. That again, that is a
[1:55:56] preliminary number that will go based on
[1:55:58] the third Friday, which we do not have
[1:56:00] that number for yet. Um, I utilized
[1:56:03] 8,750
[1:56:05] as our amount for the current year. um
[1:56:08] with an average of 9,56 students. Um
[1:56:11] again, October 15th will give me that
[1:56:14] actual value for that equalization aid.
[1:56:16] Um I'm estimating the special education
[1:56:19] reimbursement to be about 40% which was
[1:56:22] more equivalent with what we got 2526.
[1:56:25] Um I'm not anticipating any changes as
[1:56:27] of right now because there is no talk of
[1:56:30] a change.
[1:56:32] Um, I did have to take into
[1:56:33] consideration the $31.5 million um,
[1:56:37] budget for healthcare. Um, so that is
[1:56:40] reflected in these numbers. Um, another
[1:56:43] move I had to make was the school
[1:56:46] resource officers of 305,000 went from
[1:56:49] fund 10 to fund 80. Um
[1:56:54] we are going we would like to utilize
[1:56:56] the transfer of service which will help
[1:56:58] with our um revenue limit by about
[1:57:01] 600,000. We do anticipate just a little
[1:57:03] bit more than that but I'm going to be
[1:57:06] conservative and use 600 right now. Um,
[1:57:10] we are going to use $1.5 million from
[1:57:13] fund 46 for facility improvements,
[1:57:16] leaving that fund balance at
[1:57:17] approximately $1.9 million at the end of
[1:57:20] the 2627 fiscal year. Um, and lastly,
[1:57:24] um, the OPED. Again, this does not
[1:57:27] change anybody's retirement benefits.
[1:57:29] It's strictly just utilizing some of
[1:57:31] that fund balance that we already have
[1:57:33] sitting there of roughly $4 million.
[1:57:36] taking that fund balance to um about 9.8
[1:57:40] million after this year. That cannot be
[1:57:43] done
[1:57:45] more. So, we will have to rebuild that
[1:57:47] starting the following year. Um so, in
[1:57:50] general, we are just looking for an
[1:57:52] approval of a preliminary budget so that
[1:57:54] way we can move forward with some
[1:57:55] short-term borrowings in order to
[1:57:57] increase our cash flow.
[1:57:58] >> Okay. So, we can anticipate this may
[1:58:00] change, but I'd also want to emphasize
[1:58:02] the finance committee on Monday, if I'm
[1:58:04] accurately reflecting what you told us.
[1:58:06] This is based on much more conservative
[1:58:08] and realistic assumptions than were used
[1:58:10] in the past and it's not based on any
[1:58:12] type of anticipated usage of our fund
[1:58:15] balance that is now at 7% or
[1:58:18] >> 5%. Right.
[1:58:20] >> The concern was expressed tonight.
[1:58:21] >> That is correct. Yes.
[1:58:22] >> Okay. Just to to piggyback off that,
[1:58:24] many of the things that were not
[1:58:25] included in previous budgets,
[1:58:28] supplementary supplementary pays,
[1:58:31] supervision duties, overloads
[1:58:34] have not historically been included in
[1:58:36] the budget. We've included everything
[1:58:38] that we anticipate being there. Um,
[1:58:42] obviously things like diesel fuel
[1:58:45] fluctuates, goes up and down, that will
[1:58:48] impact transportation costs. that hasn't
[1:58:50] been adjusted. But but Cindy, between
[1:58:53] now and the next meeting, we'll look at
[1:58:55] all of those pieces. But again, this is
[1:58:57] a preliminary budget to get us the
[1:58:58] short-term.
[1:59:01] >> Any other questions or comments?
[1:59:04] >> As I listen to you, then
[1:59:07] a couple of words come to mind. It
[1:59:09] sounds like this is a an a transparent,
[1:59:13] open, and realistic budget.
[1:59:15] >> Absolutely. Yes.
[1:59:18] >> Thank you. within this budget, very
[1:59:21] preliminary budget. What do you what's
[1:59:23] the number that we want to reput back
[1:59:26] into the fund balance to build that back
[1:59:28] up again? Have we talked about that at
[1:59:31] all? Are we planning on that?
[1:59:34] So, that's that's a good question.
[1:59:37] Originally,
[1:59:38] we did not think we would be able to put
[1:59:41] back into fund balance based on what's
[1:59:44] going to transpire over the next couple
[1:59:45] of years. So, I believe in the in the
[1:59:48] budget forecast, we do have, correct me
[1:59:51] if I'm wrong, but there is a percentage
[1:59:53] going back into fund balance. It's a
[1:59:55] very small percentage. Um, and
[1:59:58] I don't want to say we're going to
[1:59:59] contribute $2 million or 1.5 knowing
[2:00:03] that we still have a lot of unknowns in
[2:00:06] our budget that we're figuring out. Um,
[2:00:08] we've used assumptions based on
[2:00:11] last year's data and somebody else
[2:00:14] putting some of those assumptions in as
[2:00:16] we went through the process.
[2:00:18] Mr. Rettler does not like the full scope
[2:00:21] of the $146 million. Neither one of us
[2:00:25] can give you the fine details of all of
[2:00:28] those pieces yet. as we work through
[2:00:31] that, we're confident that that what we
[2:00:33] have there, our plan is to eventually be
[2:00:36] able to contribute back to that fund
[2:00:37] balance. But I would say for next year,
[2:00:40] making sure we don't dip into it is
[2:00:42] priority number one for us.
[2:00:45] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:00:47] >> And so
[2:00:49] I I'm sorry. You said plausibly we're
[2:00:52] going to put money into the fund
[2:00:55] balance. I mean, I'm cuz I'm looking at
[2:00:57] this and it looks like we're going down
[2:00:59] by two cents.
[2:01:00] >> Yeah,
[2:01:00] >> I say that's breaking even, but
[2:01:02] >> yeah, I and I that's why I asked Cindy,
[2:01:04] we would have to go back and look at the
[2:01:06] forecast because I don't recall if that
[2:01:08] was okay. So Cindy can certainly look at
[2:01:10] that uh and get that information to you
[2:01:14] because I don't know that for certain
[2:01:15] off the top of my head,
[2:01:16] >> but I I think we saw it in the healthc care
[2:01:24] presentation.
[2:01:26] It shows up again here in
[2:01:30] this budget where we see that the fund
[2:01:33] balance at the end of 2425 was 17.244
[2:01:37] 244 million and at the end of this last
[2:01:40] year we're down to 8,52,000.
[2:01:44] Right.
[2:01:45] >> And that is a a reduction of 9 million.
[2:01:49] And just to be clear for our the
[2:01:54] community here, that 9 million means
[2:01:56] that we were overbudget this last year
[2:02:00] by that amount. Right. And I just want
[2:02:04] to make sure because I I don't think
[2:02:05] this will ever come up again if we don't
[2:02:07] talk about it here. But that's and so
[2:02:09] then
[2:02:10] because a month ago when we were
[2:02:14] considering our key performance
[2:02:16] indicators, we said we were at 5%.
[2:02:20] >> I'm sorry, we said we were at 7%. And
[2:02:22] now we think we're at 5.2 or 5.5,
[2:02:26] something like that. 5.5. Yeah. Okay.
[2:02:29] So that and that was part of the I think
[2:02:32] angx that Dr. Herszog was talking about
[2:02:34] earlier there that
[2:02:36] >> we're not thrilled with that. But but
[2:02:38] the
[2:02:41] we're in a position and admittedly this
[2:02:43] is you know
[2:02:47] I think last year we looked at a budget
[2:02:50] at this time frame. I think it was
[2:02:53] actually in August and I wasn't excited
[2:02:55] about approving a budget in August. I
[2:02:58] understand why we have to do this. Uh
[2:03:02] but I think what ended up happening was
[2:03:04] we didn't we needed to go back later and
[2:03:08] adjust things and we never did. In part
[2:03:10] that's why we wind up $9 million over
[2:03:12] budget. Uh
[2:03:16] I I will approve this because I know
[2:03:19] that we're approving it as a very
[2:03:22] preliminary. We got a lot of work to do
[2:03:24] to
[2:03:26] before the end of October before I'm
[2:03:28] going to be super comfortable saying
[2:03:30] yes, this is what I think is going to
[2:03:31] happen. But
[2:03:36] yeah, I don't I don't think we're going
[2:03:38] to improve the fund balance this year is
[2:03:41] my guess.
[2:03:42] >> Yeah.
[2:03:45] >> All right. Should I call the RO?
[2:03:49] » Ray.
[2:03:51] >> Yes.
[2:03:52] >> Forward. I
[2:03:56] » I
[2:03:57] >> resolution.
[2:03:59] >> All right. Our next item is the approval
[2:04:01] of short-term borrowing line of credit.
[2:04:03] >> Sir, I'm I'm very sorry. I've never been
[2:04:06] to a board meeting before. I don't need
[2:04:07] to interrupt. I know how this works.
[2:04:10] >> Yeah, we I'm sorry. Like, yeah, we have
[2:04:13] to have the the public meeting. You have
[2:04:15] to sign up ahead of time to speak. On
[2:04:17] October 14th, there's going to be the
[2:04:18] listening session 5 o'clock.
[2:04:23] Nothing state that on your website
[2:04:24] either. Just so you know, your website
[2:04:25] should be edited to show that people
[2:04:28] >> like transparency is a real ongoing
[2:04:29] issue.
[2:04:30] >> That's why my kids are homeschooled.
[2:04:32] >> That's unfortunate.
[2:04:34] >> I always hate when the public doesn't
[2:04:35] get a chance to speak, but
[2:04:37] >> we'll be back.
[2:04:39] >> Okay. Sorry about that, everybody. Um,
[2:04:42] approval of short-term borrowing line of
[2:04:44] credit. Can I get a motion?
[2:04:46] >> So, move Barb.
[2:04:47] >> Second.
[2:04:49] >> I'm sorry. Who was that?
[2:04:50] >> Wolf.
[2:04:57] » All right. Discussion.
[2:04:59] >> And so, so I have what would be as
[2:05:01] interpreted as a overkill of information
[2:05:04] on short-term borrowing because I don't
[2:05:06] want to assume that people know the ins
[2:05:08] and outs. The the long and the short of
[2:05:11] it is we get payments in as a district.
[2:05:14] Revenue comes in at really three main
[2:05:17] times a year. our expenditures, our
[2:05:20] bills come out weekly. So in order to be
[2:05:23] able to to pay our bills based on
[2:05:27] revenue coming in, expenditures going
[2:05:29] out, including payroll, healthc care
[2:05:31] costs, we have to short-term borrow.
[2:05:34] It's a common practice. I would say 90%
[2:05:37] of schools across the state short-term
[2:05:39] borrow. Uh to be able to manage the the
[2:05:42] funding, school funding is a is a messy
[2:05:44] situation. So, our recommendation is $20
[2:05:48] million from Nicicolay Bank. You can see
[2:05:52] I did put together
[2:05:54] looking at our our cash flow how sharply
[2:05:57] it swings throughout the year. When you
[2:05:59] look at February, we're going to borrow
[2:06:03] just about $16.5 million of that. And I
[2:06:06] think the question is why go to 20 then
[2:06:09] if your peak borrowing is about 16.4.
[2:06:13] If you have a bad healthc care month, if
[2:06:15] you get a bunch of claims that come in,
[2:06:17] something pops up, you want to have a
[2:06:19] little cushion there. And it doesn't
[2:06:21] cost us anymore to go to 20 million.
[2:06:24] From the Nicicolay side of things, we
[2:06:26] are only charged entrance interest on
[2:06:28] the days we pull money out and borrow
[2:06:31] money. If we were to go to the TR, we
[2:06:35] pay interest on that daily. So that's
[2:06:37] why part of the recommendation to go to
[2:06:39] Nicicolay and I can get further in depth
[2:06:42] on that in a minute. Um but really that
[2:06:45] $20 million and doing the the data
[2:06:48] behind where our bills typically come,
[2:06:51] looking at payrolls, looking at
[2:06:52] healthcare, looking at when money's
[2:06:54] coming in, that's the number we would be
[2:06:56] comfortable with because I don't want to
[2:06:58] repeat it last year when we have to come
[2:07:00] back to the board twice to borrow. We
[2:07:03] want to do it once, do it right, make
[2:07:06] sure we're in a position to to move our
[2:07:08] district forward.
[2:07:10] The the question that I anticipate
[2:07:13] would be why go with Nickel A when it's
[2:07:16] more expensive than the the tax and
[2:07:19] revenue anticipation note. You know,
[2:07:21] we'd be paying approximately $35,000
[2:07:24] more to go with our local bank. And the
[2:07:28] main reason for that is risk mitigation.
[2:07:32] So because we already bank with
[2:07:33] Nicollay, they sweep all of our
[2:07:36] accounts. So with the TR, we would have
[2:07:40] to if we anticipated or knew we were
[2:07:43] going to be short, we would have to go
[2:07:45] through the process of requesting money
[2:07:48] from them. There's a lag in time when
[2:07:52] that happens. We then have to reconcile
[2:07:54] all those reports. So from our business
[2:07:57] office, that's sometimes an hour a day,
[2:08:00] sometimes three hours a day. With
[2:08:03] Nicicolay, because we bank, they hold
[2:08:05] all of our accounts. The minute we go
[2:08:09] over, it automatically sweeps from that
[2:08:11] 20 million. So there's no lag. We do
[2:08:14] nothing on our end. It automatically
[2:08:16] reconciles. It eliminates risk of
[2:08:19] missing something or withdrawing,
[2:08:22] missing a payment for $35,000.
[2:08:26] I believe we will make that up from time
[2:08:29] saved in the business office from not
[2:08:31] missing any payments
[2:08:34] and talking again to our business
[2:08:36] department. Just the time spent
[2:08:38] reconciling those reports is going to
[2:08:40] save us when it comes time to the audit
[2:08:42] and being really fidelity in our
[2:08:45] business practices.
[2:08:47] So that would be the reason my my
[2:08:49] recommendation to even though it costs
[2:08:51] more is to go with our local business
[2:08:53] partner with Nicicolay Bank in this
[2:08:55] process. The the total amount so looking
[2:08:59] at that cost of 113,811
[2:09:03] that was budgeted we had budgeted for in
[2:09:05] the forecast $300,000 to pay for
[2:09:08] short-term borrowing. So we had
[2:09:11] anticipated short-term borrowing is
[2:09:13] costing us that chunk. uh we had
[2:09:15] budgeted more than what that cost is. So
[2:09:19] that is built into our budget that cost
[2:09:26] » questions or comments.
[2:09:30] >> Good report. Thank you.
[2:09:31] >> Yeah,
[2:09:32] >> good job.
[2:09:34] >> I I I do have some concerns.
[2:09:38] [clears throat]
[2:09:40] >> The
[2:09:41] sweeping. Can you talk about that a a
[2:09:45] little more? What does that mean?
[2:09:46] >> Yeah. So, so Nicicolay is our banking
[2:09:49] partner. So, they manage all of our
[2:09:51] accounts. So, any money that comes in,
[2:09:54] revenue, bills we pay, comes out of a
[2:09:56] Nicicolay bank account. So, if they hold
[2:09:59] our $20 million line of credit, they
[2:10:03] know if payroll comes out of, let's just
[2:10:06] say, account one and that goes to a
[2:10:09] negative balance, it automatically
[2:10:12] sweeps money in from that 20 million
[2:10:14] into account one to cover the balance.
[2:10:17] Then when money comes back into that
[2:10:20] account from taxes, state aid, it
[2:10:23] automatically sweeps it back to the 20
[2:10:26] million. So we don't pay interest on it.
[2:10:29] We then don't have to do any reconciling
[2:10:31] because we get those bank reports. As
[2:10:33] soon as that transaction happens, it's
[2:10:35] in our Nicaya accounts and we can see
[2:10:37] it. So that that's the sweep. It sweeps
[2:10:40] back and forth. When the bill comes in,
[2:10:41] it sweeps from one account. When we get
[2:10:43] money back in, it sweeps it back
[2:10:45] automatically.
[2:10:49] the trans piece. We would have to
[2:10:52] physically fill out the paperwork, go
[2:10:54] [snorts] through the process of getting
[2:10:56] that those dollars in, getting them
[2:10:58] deposited in the bank, and going through
[2:11:00] the reconciliation process when it's
[2:11:01] done.
[2:11:04] >> And I think you explaining that to me, it
[2:11:09] finally has occurred to me what has
[2:11:11] happened that I'm not excited about. And
[2:11:14] I think it's that sweeping process.
[2:11:17] Uh
[2:11:19] so I mean here's
[2:11:22] this was something I wanted to talk
[2:11:24] about cuz I I don't like it when we do
[2:11:28] something that I think is technically
[2:11:32] not consistent with what the law allows
[2:11:35] us. Uh and so here's a bunch of stuff
[2:11:39] for people to look at. Uh here I'm take
[2:11:42] two of these and get them
[2:11:47] while this is being passed out. Brian,
[2:11:49] do you want to speak to other districts
[2:11:50] who do this? I just want to make sure
[2:11:51] there's legal precedent.
[2:11:53] >> Yeah.
[2:11:55] >> Go ahead. I'm sorry.
[2:11:56] >> Well, I think that's important.
[2:11:57] >> Go ahead. Yep.
[2:11:57] >> Yeah.
[2:11:59] >> Actually, I would like Tim to go so I
[2:12:01] have a foundation of what he's talking
[2:12:02] about,
[2:12:03] >> right? I mean, it it's not
[2:12:07] I don't think we've done anything
[2:12:09] intentionally horrible here, and I
[2:12:13] understand why we need to do this, and I
[2:12:16] support why we need to do it. I I want
[2:12:19] to make that clear. My concern is that
[2:12:24] we have these two this statute that
[2:12:26] tells us how we can borrow and we are
[2:12:32] saying that we're doing it off of
[2:12:35] this 81
[2:12:39] uh after we pass tax the tax for
[2:12:43] operations for the current school year.
[2:12:47] So, here's the thing. Either way that we
[2:12:50] do it, we have to seek approval from the
[2:12:56] school board to borrow for that specific
[2:12:58] school year. And my concern is
[2:13:02] [clears throat]
[2:13:03] that we have borrowed money this year
[2:13:08] without having received any approval.
[2:13:11] And that is if you go to page two,
[2:13:16] here's the report of what we did in
[2:13:21] August.
[2:13:22] And there are these five transactions on
[2:13:25] August 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 12th
[2:13:29] where we have pulled money. And I'm
[2:13:32] assuming it's the sweep thing happening.
[2:13:35] And technically
[2:13:38] by either of these two items in
[2:13:41] statutes, we can only approve for
[2:13:44] temporary borrowing for the current
[2:13:46] school year. And if I look at the
[2:13:50] resolutions that we passed last year on
[2:13:54] the
[2:13:55] August 27th and this is on page three
[2:13:58] and November 5th, both of them said we
[2:14:01] were borrowing for the current school
[2:14:03] year. So my concern is
[2:14:07] we authorized borrowing for last year,
[2:14:10] but the sweeping ended up having us
[2:14:14] borrowing this year and we didn't
[2:14:17] authorize that. And that's a problem
[2:14:20] that we are
[2:14:22] taking money without having authorized
[2:14:26] that. And so my my initial question was
[2:14:28] going to be who who's authorizing it?
[2:14:30] But I think it's the it's the sweep
[2:14:32] process. And so my concern to you is
[2:14:36] if we approved this, we have to make
[2:14:39] sure that there is something in place
[2:14:41] such that next fiscal year,
[2:14:45] July and August, this doesn't happen
[2:14:48] again because we can only approve
[2:14:51] short-term borrowing for the present
[2:14:54] fiscal year and we did not approve it
[2:14:57] for this fiscal year. Is this just your
[2:15:00] interpretation of this law or did you
[2:15:02] get some legal counsel from somewhere
[2:15:05] >> because you said something illegal?
[2:15:07] >> So you
[2:15:08] >> Well, right the these are the statutes
[2:15:11] that tell us the authority in which we
[2:15:13] can borrow
[2:15:13] >> or is it the lawyer's opinion?
[2:15:16] >> If you can't read this and read that you
[2:15:18] have authority to borrow for the current
[2:15:20] school year, it's my opinion.
[2:15:22] >> Hey, it's your opinion.
[2:15:23] >> But
[2:15:24] >> so if I can just
[2:15:25] >> Yeah. What's your What's your opinion?
[2:15:26] >> Yeah, we all have opinions. So, we have
[2:15:30] a statute
[2:15:31] >> Yeah.
[2:15:31] >> that that loan is good until November 1
[2:15:34] of the following year.
[2:15:36] >> Okay.
[2:15:36] >> And we close out 25 26 bills up until
[2:15:43] weeks ago. So, as we're short-term
[2:15:46] borrowing those sweeps, and I'm not
[2:15:49] going to say for certain, Tim, but we've
[2:15:51] been paying bills, healthc care claims,
[2:15:53] and pieces from 25 26 that are likely
[2:15:57] causing us to still go into having to
[2:16:01] have a sweep done. Now again, I can't
[2:16:03] say for certain, but I know that we have
[2:16:04] paid millions of dollars in 25 26 bills
[2:16:09] that cause us to go into debt, and we're
[2:16:12] able to draw on that till November one.
[2:16:15] For the previous year, we have that
[2:16:17] loan. So, Will from Nicicolay Bank is
[2:16:20] happy to come in because we've done
[2:16:22] this. Other schools have have used the
[2:16:24] line of credit certainly. So, I think
[2:16:27] I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think
[2:16:29] based on what I'm seeing from the data
[2:16:32] you pulled, those likely could be 25 26
[2:16:35] bills or claims that we're finding,
[2:16:38] catching up on healthcare, whatever it
[2:16:40] might be. And we do have the ability to
[2:16:42] draw on that until November 1 when that
[2:16:44] loan expires.
[2:16:45] >> Yeah. To be clear, in in the statute, it
[2:16:48] says in the plan language, no such loan
[2:16:51] may extend beyond November 1 of the
[2:16:52] following school year.
[2:16:53] >> Yeah.
[2:16:53] >> So, that's Well, you're right. keep
[2:16:55] reference November one.
[2:16:56] >> This is why we
[2:16:58] get this.
[2:16:59] >> Is that borrowing or is that that the
[2:17:02] time frame to pay back?
[2:17:05] >> And you brought it forward that we did
[2:17:07] something illegal. So,
[2:17:08] >> well, I'm I'm suggesting that by this
[2:17:11] language, my impression [clears throat]
[2:17:12] is that we are taking money without
[2:17:16] having the authority to. And in large
[2:17:18] respect, I think the intent of the
[2:17:20] statute is that
[2:17:23] we shouldn't be taking money, borrowing
[2:17:27] money without telling the community
[2:17:29] ahead of time. And
[2:17:33] >> you did sign off on borrowing that money
[2:17:35] >> for the current school year
[2:17:38] >> and 25 26 good till November 1, which
[2:17:43] >> right, it takes time to pay it back till
[2:17:45] November 1st. though I I believe we are
[2:17:48] doing things inappropriately
[2:17:50] by having a line of credit having the
[2:17:54] mechanism. I I understand the mechanism
[2:17:57] can stay open till November 1st or if
[2:18:00] you borrow in August or what have you.
[2:18:04] It can stay open to what these things
[2:18:05] say. But what I disagree with is that we
[2:18:08] get to borrow against it.
[2:18:10] >> Okay. Well, two
[2:18:11] >> cash the fiscal year.
[2:18:12] >> I mean this is a this is a question as
[2:18:13] an answer. First I ask you, Brian, I
[2:18:14] mean, have you seen this before or is
[2:18:16] this your first time seeing this?
[2:18:17] >> First time.
[2:18:17] >> Okay. So, I understand why you can't
[2:18:19] give a definitive answer. Um, I guess
[2:18:22] second question, how many hours I mean,
[2:18:24] we go to legal counsel. If a board
[2:18:25] member is making an accusation the
[2:18:27] district's doing something illegal, I
[2:18:28] think we have to spend the money to go
[2:18:29] to legal counsel. Um, even though we're
[2:18:31] in our fascist situation we're into.
[2:18:34] Yeah. We can't be doing something
[2:18:35] illegal.
[2:18:36] >> No. And that's so I think that's the
[2:18:37] appropriate next step.
[2:18:38] >> That's what I would recommend is legal
[2:18:39] counsel. We can also have Will Depus
[2:18:41] from Nicicolay Bank come in to be able
[2:18:43] to speak to speak to it also to make
[2:18:46] sure we have some expertise and we can
[2:18:47] bring that
[2:18:48] >> okay
[2:18:48] >> back at the next meeting. I think the
[2:18:50] concern is are we going to need a
[2:18:52] short-term borrowing mechanism between
[2:18:55] now and October 14th and I think the
[2:18:58] answer is yes. So that's that's where
[2:19:02] we'd sit unless we'd want to have a
[2:19:03] special meeting
[2:19:06] prior to the next time that we meet
[2:19:07] short-term borrowing, which is
[2:19:10] >> if we don't, we will overdraft.
[2:19:11] >> And I believe the if the concern is that
[2:19:14] we need to have a uh authorization this
[2:19:19] school year, tonight is the night to act
[2:19:21] so that we are no longer in any
[2:19:23] perceived or asserted violation.
[2:19:26] >> Okay. So I guess two I guess two things.
[2:19:28] I just right
[2:19:31] directionwise can the minute show I mean
[2:19:33] do we have are people comfortable
[2:19:37] >> with that course of action
[2:19:38] >> I'm completely
[2:19:40] >> obtaining legal
[2:19:41] >> absolutely
[2:19:42] >> getting a legal opinion here
[2:19:43] >> don't want to do anything illegal
[2:19:44] >> so please have the minute show that
[2:19:47] >> that we're going to get that that legal
[2:19:49] opinion um does that work for you Tim
[2:19:52] >> I I would definitely like to have a
[2:19:55] legal opinion yes but what are we
[2:19:57] proposing to do that.
[2:19:59] >> Well, I think the action will be
[2:20:01] determined by what the outcome of that
[2:20:02] legal opinion is. If we're doing
[2:20:03] something illegal, then that's the
[2:20:05] implications will be a lot higher.
[2:20:06] >> The assertion is retroactive, correct?
[2:20:08] Like we've already violated the law. If
[2:20:10] your is what your assertion is, we are
[2:20:12] attempting to act tonight to get in I
[2:20:15] think what you're saying, we should act
[2:20:17] tonight to make sure we're in compliance
[2:20:18] for any other future sweeps or anything.
[2:20:21] What does
[2:20:21] >> else
[2:20:22] >> does the resolution have to
[2:20:24] retroactively go back and approve
[2:20:27] the August?
[2:20:28] >> I would be hesitant to pursue any type
[2:20:30] of change to rectify a situation that we
[2:20:32] don't have confirmation because in any
[2:20:34] violation of the law. That would be my
[2:20:36] take.
[2:20:37] >> That's the way most legal things work.
[2:20:39] >> Yeah. We're noticed to to do that, are
[2:20:43] we?
[2:20:44] >> I mean, we can always amend a
[2:20:45] >> Oh, yes, that's true.
[2:20:46] >> Amend something on the floor. So we
[2:20:48] could, but I don't understand the logic
[2:20:50] of going back to correct something that
[2:20:52] we don't have any legal opinion is
[2:20:54] actually
[2:20:55] >> a violation that occurred.
[2:20:57] >> Violated did occur, then yeah, we'll
[2:20:59] have to address.
[2:20:59] >> Just want to share if we don't
[2:21:02] short-term borrow,
[2:21:03] >> we will struggle to to make payroll and
[2:21:06] pay bills.
[2:21:10] » So,
[2:21:10] >> Oh, yeah. And again, I think these are two separate issues, right? I
[2:21:14] mean [clears throat] clearly
[2:21:15] >> I just want to make sure we understand
[2:21:16] like if if we don't do this
[2:21:19] >> we will have some trouble.
[2:21:20] >> No, I mean 100% board member brought a
[2:21:22] concern. I think we have a path to
[2:21:24] address that concern and the item on the
[2:21:26] floor is whether or not to propose
[2:21:27] short-term or support short-term
[2:21:30] borrowing in the matter that was
[2:21:31] described for this school year and we
[2:21:34] have an understanding of what that means
[2:21:36] and an understanding of what it means if
[2:21:38] we don't approve it.
[2:21:40] Any other comments or questions? No.
[2:21:44] And yeah, I I have another
[2:21:46] >> Yeah, Tim
[2:21:47] >> question
[2:21:49] is
[2:21:52] I with all due respect, Mr. Yorkie, to
[2:21:57] [clears throat]
[2:21:58] the resolution references this 81, the yellow one, right?
[2:22:07] So my question is
[2:22:09] after that item says that we can do this
[2:22:14] after the tax for operations and
[2:22:16] maintenance
[2:22:17] of the schools for the current year has
[2:22:19] been voted. And
[2:22:26] I am wondering
[2:22:28] is there a distinction between a
[2:22:31] preliminary budget
[2:22:34] and a official budget?
[2:22:37] And when I look at the DPI's budget
[2:22:42] hearing and adoption timelines
[2:22:46] and how they propose to do things, they
[2:22:49] seem to suggest
[2:22:51] that
[2:22:54] [clears throat]
[2:22:55] we approve the tax
[2:22:58] at the point we adopt an official
[2:23:00] budget.
[2:23:02] And to adopt an official budget,
[2:23:06] we have to have done a budget hearing.
[2:23:09] And so we we aren't doing a budget
[2:23:11] hearing tonight.
[2:23:14] And so I'm a little concerned that maybe
[2:23:16] we aren't officially
[2:23:18] approving the tax or we didn't approve
[2:23:20] the tax in the resolution that we passed
[2:23:23] just before this.
[2:23:25] >> Correct. Because it was preliminary.
[2:23:26] >> It's a preliminary budget. So it doesn't
[2:23:28] approve the tax.
[2:23:29] >> So it doesn't approve the tax, right?
[2:23:32] So this
[2:23:35] statute here gives us the authority to
[2:23:40] short-term borrow after
[2:23:44] the tax for the operation and
[2:23:46] maintenance of schools for the current
[2:23:47] school year has been voted and we didn't
[2:23:49] do that.
[2:23:52] >> So do you have something else for legal
[2:23:53] counsel to look at then? Are
[2:23:55] >> well as we're working through the
[2:23:57] preliminary budget
[2:23:58] >> I I think I think I think we have to
[2:24:02] look and say the statute says
[2:24:06] after tax for operation and maintenance
[2:24:08] of schools for the current school year
[2:24:09] has been voted we have the authority to
[2:24:11] borrow money as needed
[2:24:14] or alternatively
[2:24:16] we we could do short-term borrowing in
[2:24:20] June, July or August. If we do it in
[2:24:23] June, July or August it just takes us to
[2:24:25] vote 2/3. If we don't do it in June,
[2:24:28] July or August, we have to have voted on
[2:24:32] the tax for operations and maintenance
[2:24:34] of schools for the current year. And I
[2:24:36] don't think we just did.
[2:24:37] >> What's the difference between August and
[2:24:38] September in that analogy that the
[2:24:41] school year started? It
[2:24:41] >> it's state statute. It's it's that
[2:24:44] >> September.
[2:24:45] >> It's that item two here in purple
[2:24:49] specifically calls out
[2:24:51] >> we can short-term borrow in June, July,
[2:24:53] or August.
[2:24:56] >> Yeah. by twothirds vote. If you're going
[2:24:59] to do it after June, July or August, the
[2:25:02] only other thing that you can point to
[2:25:04] is item one. That is the item that we
[2:25:06] have listed in the resolution. That that
[2:25:09] is the authority that we have and that
[2:25:12] this statute says we have the authority
[2:25:14] to do this after the tax or operations
[2:25:17] and maintenance of the schools has been
[2:25:19] voted on for this year.
[2:25:20] >> And that's why we brought the
[2:25:21] preliminary the preliminary budget. So
[2:25:23] what what's the solve or what's the
[2:25:25] question for legal
[2:25:27] to make sure we can pay our bills and
[2:25:29] pay our employees?
[2:25:31] The question is, do we have the
[2:25:33] authority to vote on it tonight if we
[2:25:34] haven't passed
[2:25:36] the tax
[2:25:39] we have not passed or voted on the tax
[2:25:41] for operations and maintenance of
[2:25:43] schools for this year and that has to
[2:25:46] happen for us to approve short-term
[2:25:48] borrowing in September.
[2:25:52] >> So that the preliminary budget would not
[2:25:54] be sufficient in order to approve
[2:25:56] short-term borrowing. Is that what
[2:25:57] you're saying?
[2:25:57] >> That's what I'm saying. And and You had
[2:26:00] just said that you felt as if we didn't
[2:26:03] vote on the tax.
[2:26:04] >> Well, the the tax, yes. The prel the
[2:26:07] recommendation for to us has been to
[2:26:10] approve the preliminary budget to be
[2:26:12] able to make sure that you can
[2:26:13] short-term borrow. That's if we need to
[2:26:15] follow up with DPI on that or legal
[2:26:17] counsel. Um, we could do that, too. Um,
[2:26:21] >> yeah, I suppose we should. Just out of
[2:26:22] curiosity, Brian, maybe you don't know
[2:26:24] this, but I'm just the implication of
[2:26:26] this legal theory. I mean, we're looking
[2:26:28] at hundreds of school districts that are
[2:26:30] breaking the law. I mean, this throws
[2:26:32] everything into chaos in our entire
[2:26:34] school finance system.
[2:26:35] >> This isn't I don't want to speak to any
[2:26:37] other school districts.
[2:26:39] >> Where did the recommendation come from
[2:26:40] to pass the preliminary budget
[2:26:42] >> to do this?
[2:26:44] >> So, actually, Dr. H was the one who
[2:26:47] referenced last year's board meeting
[2:26:50] where Mr. Nhons got up and said, "We're
[2:26:53] going to present this preliminary budget
[2:26:55] to be able to short-term borrow."
[2:26:57] >> And so that's why we backed off the
[2:26:59] previous meeting to get the preliminary
[2:27:01] budget in at that point. That was your
[2:27:04] recommendation. We did that. And yes,
[2:27:07] the state statute
[2:27:09] did not uh reference the tax being
[2:27:11] included.
[2:27:12] >> And when Mr. Nhons did that, we had a
[2:27:15] budget hearing ahead of time. And so
[2:27:18] that that's the distinction here is we
[2:27:20] didn't have a budget hearing and we're
[2:27:22] not approving an official budget. When
[2:27:23] you approve that official budget,
[2:27:25] >> you left that out when you notified me
[2:27:26] of the first.
[2:27:27] >> I didn't know it at the time.
[2:27:28] >> And and I think to be clear like if
[2:27:30] we're at a level of we're talking about
[2:27:32] paying our employees and paying our
[2:27:34] bills. It would be much appreciated to
[2:27:37] be able to bring that type of
[2:27:39] information forward ahead of time that
[2:27:42] we could work through. I think you've
[2:27:43] had several conversations with Mr. your
[2:27:45] key over the last week on a lot of
[2:27:47] different topics. So to be able to drop
[2:27:49] this on this administration and this
[2:27:51] board at this point, um I would just
[2:27:53] appreciate more professional courtesy as
[2:27:56] we're moving forward. We can certainly
[2:27:57] check that out as we're moving forward,
[2:28:00] but that's going to require for us to be
[2:28:02] able to make payroll for our employees
[2:28:04] um and pay our bills is going to be a
[2:28:06] special meeting if we would need if we
[2:28:08] don't approve it tonight. So I just want
[2:28:10] to be clear on that.
[2:28:11] >> Well, let me let me be clear. My intent
[2:28:13] was to come in here tonight.
[2:28:16] I was not excited about the the sweep
[2:28:18] and the August
[2:28:21] because I felt like
[2:28:23] that portion was problematic. And that's
[2:28:26] why I printed this stuff out was because
[2:28:29] I felt like we needed to come up with a
[2:28:31] way to make sure that we weren't
[2:28:34] sweeping next year into the next school
[2:28:37] year. My intent was to approve, me
[2:28:41] personally, vote yes on this. It was as
[2:28:45] I was driving home, I had a former
[2:28:48] school board member call me up and point
[2:28:50] out the tax thing. So, I get your angst
[2:28:53] on that aspect of things.
[2:28:55] >> Was that call on Monday or when was
[2:28:57] >> No, that was today as I was driving
[2:28:59] home.
[2:29:00] >> Home from where?
[2:29:02] >> From work, Dr. Davis.
[2:29:03] >> Okay. I know. I just want to be clear.
[2:29:04] I'm just trying to make sure we get the
[2:29:06] timeline set.
[2:29:06] >> Right. So, that was today. That was this
[2:29:09] afternoon at like 2:30. And when he
[2:29:12] pointed that out, I looked at this and I
[2:29:13] was like, "Oh, yes, that seems right."
[2:29:17] Now, I appreciate
[2:29:20] you guys were very busy. I I can only do
[2:29:23] so much. So yes, my concern about the tax for operation,
[2:29:30] the authority under which we are
[2:29:33] proposing to vote on this tonight, that
[2:29:34] came to me today, this afternoon, and I am sorry that that took
[2:29:41] for that long for somebody to call me up
[2:29:43] and suggest this to me. So yes, there
[2:29:46] was an element of this that I I had
[2:29:48] prepared, but that wasn't going to stop
[2:29:50] me from voting on this. It is the second
[2:29:52] element now that I have been informed of
[2:29:58] that makes it questionable whether we
[2:29:59] can vote on this tonight. And I will
[2:30:02] just say
[2:30:03] when I appreciate you letting me know
[2:30:06] about the preliminary budget piece. I
[2:30:09] did call DPI and had a conversation with
[2:30:11] DPI about do we have to go through it
[2:30:13] based on this statute. At that point
[2:30:16] they said well it's a loose
[2:30:18] interpretation. You only need to call
[2:30:20] your borrower, bond counsel, because the primary reason is so your bank has
[2:30:29] assurance that you have a budget that
[2:30:32] supports the need to borrow that money.
[2:30:35] So I talked to Corals and Brady Allison
[2:30:37] Buchanan there and I said, "Do I need a
[2:30:40] preliminary budget? Does that suffice?"
[2:30:42] She goes, "Call your bank if they
[2:30:44] require it because most people aren't
[2:30:47] going to be able to borrow $10 million,
[2:30:49] $15 million, $20 million unless they can
[2:30:51] present a budget that demonstrates the
[2:30:54] need for it based on the in-n-outs." So,
[2:30:57] a response from DPI and I shared this
[2:30:59] with you, I guess, that evening was
[2:31:02] statutes of loose interpretation. The
[2:31:04] DPI doesn't necessarily require it, but
[2:31:06] your bond council might. Bond council.
[2:31:09] So the reference is from the department
[2:31:11] of public instruction Wisconsin.
[2:31:12] Correct.
[2:31:12] >> And that was communicated to Mr. H, Dr.
[2:31:14] Hus before.
[2:31:16] >> Correct. We had talked about it after
[2:31:17] that board meeting.
[2:31:18] >> Is that correct, Dr.
[2:31:20] >> That is correct.
[2:31:21] >> All right. That absolutely is. And
[2:31:24] that just shows you my desire or my understanding of what
[2:31:31] the DBI DPI's expertise is. I don't have
[2:31:34] any faith in them. We have a state
[2:31:36] statute that dictates when we can
[2:31:39] borrow. Do
[2:31:40] >> you have faith in quarrels who
[2:31:41] apparently was our legal counsel where
[2:31:43] we got advice on this on that this is
[2:31:44] appropriate to do in conjun if we have
[2:31:48] addressed it with our bank.
[2:31:52] >> You're saying you legal counsel has told
[2:31:55] us we could do this.
[2:31:56] >> Legal counsel from Coral Zimbury bond
[2:31:59] counsel.
[2:31:59] >> Yeah, bond council.
[2:32:00] >> Bond council
[2:32:01] >> and they said we could do this. They said presenting a preliminary
[2:32:04] budget when we have in our time frame as
[2:32:08] long as a bank we present that budget to
[2:32:12] them is best practice. Okay.
[2:32:15] >> Okay. Well well thanks for bringing this
[2:32:16] to our attention Tim. I mean we have we
[2:32:18] have a recourse that legal council is
[2:32:19] looking into it. Obviously each
[2:32:21] individual board member here can
[2:32:22] exercise their opinion on the specific
[2:32:24] vote via the democratic process. But are
[2:32:26] there any other questions?
[2:32:27] >> Yes.
[2:32:28] >> Yeah. Jacob. Um I mean I understand
[2:32:30] concern and not wanting to do anything
[2:32:32] illegally.
[2:32:34] What
[2:32:35] if so if you have a special meeting
[2:32:39] when's the time frame that you would
[2:32:40] need
[2:32:42] to get the law the lawyer to look at it
[2:32:45] find out if he's correct or not
[2:32:50] >> days
[2:32:51] >> and we have payroll Friday
[2:32:53] >> and so Dr. Are you willing to have some
[2:32:58] of our employees not get paid
[2:33:03] for this? I have a hard time with that.
[2:33:08] I [laughter] mean,
[2:33:11] I No, I I don't want it to be the case
[2:33:14] that they don't get paid. My preference
[2:33:16] would be that we would have filed item
[2:33:20] two and brought this sooner. So, you
[2:33:23] know, to say it's on me, it's my
[2:33:26] >> Well, and what we did was was reference,
[2:33:29] just want to make sure we're
[2:33:30] >> clear that we referenced the Department
[2:33:32] of Public Instruction and our B bond
[2:33:35] legal counsel in reference. So, it
[2:33:37] wasn't it wasn't like it was just
[2:33:39] glossed over and not looked into. Just
[2:33:41] want to make sure that we have that as a
[2:33:44] part of the conversation. I apologize,
[2:33:46] Jacob. No, I'm just I mean that's a
[2:33:50] pretty heavy situation to say if we
[2:33:52] don't pass this, we might not be able to
[2:33:54] pay some of our employees.
[2:33:57] If it turned out that it was illegal, do
[2:33:59] we know what the repercussions of that
[2:34:01] would be?
[2:34:04] >> Probably nothing.
[2:34:06] Probably we would have to go back
[2:34:08] retroactively and
[2:34:09] >> fix the minutes or not or whatever. So
[2:34:13] bank was prepared to give us this loan
[2:34:15] without a preliminary budget
[2:34:17] >> or anything else as a community banking
[2:34:19] partner.
[2:34:19] >> Okay.
[2:34:20] >> I would be like I I say it often. Oh, go
[2:34:22] ahead, Molly.
[2:34:23] >> I just want to make one clarification.
[2:34:26] Quarrel Corals and Bradies is a law
[2:34:28] firm.
[2:34:29] >> Bond council are attorneys who
[2:34:31] understand this whole process. They have
[2:34:35] this is what they have said is practice
[2:34:39] within the scope of the law. Is that
[2:34:41] correct? Whether or not they are our
[2:34:43] attorneys, they are bond counsel, so
[2:34:45] they are not our attorneys necessarily,
[2:34:47] >> but that is what
[2:34:48] >> Yeah.
[2:34:50] >> Alison Buchanan has said.
[2:34:52] >> Now, I didn't specifically, just to be
[2:34:54] clear, I didn't specifically talk about
[2:34:55] the tax piece. I said, "Do we need a
[2:34:58] preliminary budget to be able to
[2:35:01] short-term borrow?" Her response was,
[2:35:03] "It's best practice. Your bank will
[2:35:05] determine what you need to show from a
[2:35:07] budget standpoint." at that point
[2:35:09] knowing that that's best practice and
[2:35:12] again DPI was like the statute is you
[2:35:16] know it can be interpreted different
[2:35:18] ways we don't necessarily care called on
[2:35:20] counsel that was the response from DPI
[2:35:23] that I had shared with
[2:35:24] >> so you did your due diligence
[2:35:26] >> to the best of your ability we can know
[2:35:29] we can tell that that you are doing this
[2:35:31] in good faith you got opinions from
[2:35:34] >> I'm not trying to break the law Chris
[2:35:36] >> right no one here is
[2:35:37] >> so yeah I I totally understand. I'm not
[2:35:40] willing to
[2:35:42] risk not our employees not getting paid
[2:35:44] and I as long as it goes to legal
[2:35:46] counsel and we can correct those issues
[2:35:48] if there are issues then well I think
[2:35:52] the commitment is we'll just do this in
[2:35:55] June and July. Cindy will have had a
[2:35:56] year under her belt and we'll just do it
[2:35:59] in June or July. We won't be behind the
[2:36:01] eight-ball in figuring out 25 26 budget
[2:36:03] and it's a mute point. So, I I think we
[2:36:06] would prefer to have it done and not be
[2:36:07] on a short timeline. We'll present it in
[2:36:10] June or July with our preliminary budget
[2:36:12] at that point and be done with it
[2:36:15] because I don't I don't want to have to
[2:36:17] do it at this point either. We're going
[2:36:18] to have a pretty good estimate of what
[2:36:19] we're going to need to borrow at that
[2:36:20] point anyway. We're just behind the
[2:36:22] eight-ball figuring it out. And I
[2:36:24] appreciated Dr. house walking through
[2:36:26] the state statute and saying, "Hey, last
[2:36:28] year I remember Drew had to go through a
[2:36:30] preliminary budget that sparked the
[2:36:32] phone calls to move forward."
[2:36:34] >> And I I agree with a lot of what Tim is
[2:36:37] saying and I we need to know this. We
[2:36:39] have to
[2:36:41] >> and to be clear, I am not saying that
[2:36:45] anybody is intentionally
[2:36:48] I I think I think this is a mistake and
[2:36:50] it's an accident kind of thing. I'm not
[2:36:53] saying there's any ill intent in anybody
[2:36:55] in this room to try to intentionally
[2:36:58] break the law. Absolutely not. But okay,
[2:37:02] I I think I think we have tried to do
[2:37:04] the best that we can.
[2:37:07] I I do appreciate that we have new
[2:37:10] people that are attempting to do this
[2:37:11] and you're trying to learn,
[2:37:15] but I do think that we can make mistakes
[2:37:17] and that's all I'm saying about it.
[2:37:21] >> I [clears throat] appreciate that. We'll
[2:37:22] get a check out.
[2:37:23] >> All right. Sure.
[2:37:24] >> Call the RO.
[2:37:26] >> Yeah.
[2:37:27] >> Board.
[2:37:28] >> Izzone.
[2:37:29] >> How are you?
[2:37:30] >> No.
[2:37:33] >> I.
[2:37:34] >> Wolf.
[2:37:34] >> I.
[2:37:35] >> Right.
[2:37:36] >> I.
[2:37:36] >> Resolution carries with the vote 6 to1.
[2:37:38] Well, I'm sorry. 5 to1.
[2:37:39] >> 5 to one.
[2:37:40] >> Excellent. All right. The request for
[2:37:42] future items for committee review. Well,
[2:37:43] Brian, you're still my thunder, but we
[2:37:45] should have the timing of this for next
[2:37:46] year put on the finance committee
[2:37:47] agenda.
[2:37:48] >> Correct.
[2:37:49] Uh can we do uh to policy and governance
[2:37:52] 754 social media and possibly just
[2:37:55] incorporating the operational aspects of
[2:37:57] that of looking at updating um
[2:38:00] >> like the yearbooks?
[2:38:01] >> Yeah,
[2:38:03] >> publicity consent or whatever those are
[2:38:04] called.
[2:38:05] >> Yeah. Anything else?
[2:38:09] >> Any announcements?
[2:38:11] Yes,
[2:38:12] >> I do have an important announcement um
[2:38:14] that I want to just touch base on and
[2:38:16] this is a communication that went out
[2:38:17] during this meeting so I didn't get a
[2:38:19] chance to update
[2:38:21] um before. So um
[2:38:24] >> after um the incident that happened
[2:38:26] today um our north administration uh
[2:38:29] debriefed along with some of our central
[2:38:31] office staff debriefed with the north
[2:38:34] staff about uh our abilities to be able
[2:38:36] to move forward with school tomorrow. Um
[2:38:39] and so made the difficult decision at
[2:38:41] North only um to cancel classes uh for
[2:38:45] tomorrow, Thursday, uh September 22nd.
[2:38:48] Very important to understand that that
[2:38:50] is not due to any safety concerns. Um
[2:38:53] law enforcement has confirmed there's no
[2:38:55] ongoing threat or safety concern to the
[2:38:57] community. Um, as the debrief went with
[2:39:00] the north staff, uh, it became clear
[2:39:03] that that from a staff standpoint to be
[2:39:06] able to debrief the reunification
[2:39:08] process and everything that happened
[2:39:10] today that there was some additional
[2:39:12] time that was needed to process and
[2:39:14] support the school community, both staff
[2:39:16] and students, um, to take care of our
[2:39:18] educators, staff, students, and
[2:39:20] families, um, continues to be our top
[2:39:22] priority. So supporting available
[2:39:24] students um um is is a priority for um
[2:39:27] tomorrow. Although we will not have
[2:39:29] class, we will have counselors and
[2:39:30] support staff at North um to um host any
[2:39:34] students that need um a safe place to be
[2:39:38] um or have a need for counseling
[2:39:40] services. Um there was an email that was
[2:39:42] put out today just outlining those
[2:39:44] times. That's 10 to 3:00 um tomorrow. Uh
[2:39:47] we will have lunch service um tomorrow
[2:39:49] and the ability for students to come in
[2:39:51] and have materials pick up because of
[2:39:53] how quickly things went today um in the
[2:39:56] reunification process which was
[2:39:58] necessary. Many students didn't get a
[2:39:59] chance to pick up what they would need.
[2:40:01] So they'll have an opportunity to do
[2:40:03] that. Um being a students first
[2:40:05] district, we also want to make sure um
[2:40:08] that uh tomorrow afternoon the
[2:40:10] afterchool activities and athletics will
[2:40:12] continue um to give our kids a place to
[2:40:15] be able to uh re-engage um and staff
[2:40:18] during the day then will have a
[2:40:19] structured schedule um that'll include
[2:40:22] processing uh after action debriefs on
[2:40:25] what happened um today um and to be able
[2:40:28] to make sure that we have plans as we're
[2:40:29] moving forward and re-engaging kids then
[2:40:31] which would be Monday because Friday is
[2:40:33] a professional development day. Um and
[2:40:35] that the return to school um in a uh
[2:40:38] regular schedule will be Monday,
[2:40:40] September 28th for our Ashkosh North
[2:40:43] students. And I again I just want to uh
[2:40:45] commend um our North staff um for um the
[2:40:49] work that they did today along with the
[2:40:51] collaboration with the police
[2:40:52] department. Very difficult day. Um and
[2:40:55] uh and we certainly want to um help
[2:40:57] continue to support um both our students
[2:41:00] and staff that went through that
[2:41:01] situation today. and uh and have that
[2:41:04] day tomorrow to be able to process that
[2:41:06] in a healthy way and be ready to go for
[2:41:08] our students as we're moving forward. So
[2:41:10] um so just wanted that communication
[2:41:12] came out during the meeting. So I didn't
[2:41:13] have an opportunity to say that uh at
[2:41:15] the beginning. So I just wanted to
[2:41:17] before we left today make sure that that
[2:41:18] was one of our announcements.
[2:41:20] >> Thank you.
[2:41:23] >> Motion motion to adjurnn.
[2:41:24] >> Let's adjourn.
[2:41:27] >> Someone's got a motion.
[2:41:27] >> Motion to
[2:41:28] >> All right. Chris Ray.
[2:41:30] >> Second.
[2:41:31] Yes.
[2:41:36] » I
[2:41:45] » wonder what those people wanted.
[2:41:56] [music]