FCUSD Budget Session 10/24/2019


(gentle upbeat music) – As far as we know. Josh should be here. (audience chattering) (gavel bangs) Good afternoon, welcome
to the October 24th, 2019 Folsom Cordova Unified School District Budget Study Session. We are expecting Mr. Clark and Mr. Hoover. but out of respect of your time we will get the meeting started. I want to make reference to the fact that a broadcasting is being made at the direction of the board, and that broadcast may
capture images and sounds of those attending the meeting. So with that, I will turn
this over to superintendent. – Okay, thank You President Reinking. And there are seats up front, so for those of you standing in the back, please, please come on forward. No takers?
(audience chuckles) Okay, yeah, come on up, all right. So we have a PowerPoint
that we’re gonna be sharing, which is a recap of where we’ve been with our budget study
sessions over the past year, from planning for this school year, 19-20. So we wanna spend a little time recapping where we’ve been in the past year because we realize there are folks here that might not know what
took place this last year. I also know that we’ve got
members, employee members, from FCEA, CSEA leadership,
and we also have members of our Superintendent
Communication Committee. So I realize some of
you have probably seen some of this presentation,
and some have not, so we apologize if some
of this is repetitive at the beginning, but I do wanna thank everybody who’s here today
for your participation in being here but also
as we’ve come to you to seek your feedback as
we’ve been talking about our budget, and our budget visioning. So with that, we’re gonna
jump in to our PowerPoint. And we’ll go to the first slide there. All right, so our purpose today is to really dive deeper into
some of the budget challenges we have going forward. We’re required to do a multi-year budget, so it’s a three-year budget, and the county has given
us some specific guidelines and directives to make sure that we can make our bottom line balance over the next three years. We’ll be providing the board an update on the feedback we’ve collected from the different groups
that we’ve been meeting with. And we’ll review some of
those impacts of ideas generated from our stakeholder groups. And our goal is to bring recommendations to the board by the
November 21st board meeting. Last year, when we were
engaging in our study sessions, and we held four of them last year, our board developed
four guiding principles along with district staff,
as we were going forward, looking at last year
coming into this year, and going forward. And that was to reduce expenditures, minimize impact to students,
minimize potential layoffs, and to review programs. So why the urgency now? Why is this so important
that we’re bringing this now and with a recommendation
on November 21st? Well, we are required by the county to submit our first interim budget which accounts for our current
year, and three years out, and we have to show that we
can make our expenditures with the revenue, the ongoing revenue. And what the county sees in our budget, and what they reported
to us earlier this year is that we must submit a budget plan by the first interim
reporting period in December that addresses a shortfall, and
it’s a significant shortfall that we’re addressing, it’s 5.4 million in our unrestricted reserve for 21-22, so they’re looking for a plan that is going to account
for ongoing reductions with ongoing revenue. In order for them to certify our budget, we have to show them the actions that we’re gonna take to be
able to make that happen, so we don’t compromise
our fiscal solvency. And if we don’t do that, there are, there will be ramifications to that, and I’m gonna turn it
over to Miss Crawford to talk about the implications if we don’t address our deficit. – [Rhonda] So qualified certification means we can only meet
two of the three years in terms of meeting
our fiscal obligations. A negative certification means we can only meet one year or no years of all three years that are included in the multi-year projections. So some of those implications
are listed up here. It does require some additional
reporting on our part. It’s an additional scrutiny by SCOE. If we go from qualified to
a negative certification, that’s when the state comes in. SCOE can assign a fiscal adviser. FCMAT will come in. In addition, SCOE could
possibly disapprove our budget, and then that would
mean they would come in, they would look at all of
our financial transactions, they’d look at our hiring processes, they would look at all things
that we do financially. So we get this question a lot. Why do we still have a budget deficit? So we are projecting about a 3.2% COLA for this next year. Unfortunately, our ongoing expenditures are more than that revenue, so we have a large structural deficit, that’s part of that plan that
SCOE wants us to identify. So when you look at our
ongoing contribution for STRS and PERS, are
step in column increases, our annual increases for insurance, property, and liability,
our special ed contribution, our transportation contribution, all of those add up to
probably three times more than that 3% revenue
that we earn each year. In addition to that, because our budget is 85% salary and benefits, that leaves us very little room to cover
those additional expenses. There are a couple of programs with our, especially with our preschool kiddos, our age three to five students. We are mandated to provide
services for those students, but we do not get any
state funding for those. This was our revised budget projections. This was our multi-year
projection in August, when we brought our revised
budget back to the board. So the first year is 19-20, that’s our current year,
and the next two years out that we’re projecting,
for 19-20 we had shown a slight deficit. When we closed our books in September, we were able to identify more funds than we had anticipated, so we can cover that $117,000 shortfall. For 20-21, our original plan for SCOE at June, when we did our adopted budget, we had identified some one-time sources to cover that $3.2 million. Most of those one-time
sources were carryovers, delaying some Chromebook purchases, delaying some lab replacements, those kinds of things. So we showed SCOE that
we could cover those. For 2021-2022, we could
not identify a plan that didn’t involve people to cover a $10 million shortfall. If you look at all three years combined, that’s about $15 million
short that we’re looking at, just for three years. When we look at the fourth year, which we’ll be bringing
to the board in June for next year’s budget,
that number doubles almost, and we’ll show that in a little bit here. And also, these numbers do
not include salary increases. We’re at the second year
of our two-year agreement with our bargaining units, so
those numbers are not in here and that’s also what we wanna keep, as part of the discussion is being able to offer a salary increase
to all of our employees. So these are some thoughts and ideas from our budget study sessions
that we held last year with the board. We held four of them. these were the thoughts
that we accumulated at each of our table discussions. I think many of you were probably here and helped put some of
those ideas together. As we’ve been meeting
with different groups the last month, month and a half, we’ve been adding to this list, and then you’ll see part of that when we talk about the feedback. This kind of is an illustration that shows the effect of the compounding. So you’ll see the current year, 19-20, those are the reductions
that we’ve already made. Going into 20-21, we have
that $3.5 million shortfall. We’ve only identified the second years of our retirement incentive program, so we need reductions for next year, and the next two years after that. So what this illustrates is, if you make a reduction in 20-21, it actually compounds into 21-22, and then compounds into 22-23. So you’ll see, for instance, if we made a million dollar cut in 2021,
you’d get that one million plus another one, and then you’d get three times that in 22-23. This is a graph of our staffing and our budget timelines
that we have coming up. So we’ve been engaging with
all of our stakeholder groups this month, we have our
budget study session tonight. We have some continued
meetings with our stakeholders. We will be bringing
back, on November 21st, our recommendations for budget reductions. We have to certify our first
interim budget for SCOE by December 13th. Our board meetings, I
think, is on the 19th, but we actually have to
submit our budget before that. And then in January we start
with our staffing projections. So Human Resources will be meeting with all of our sites,
and all of our principals, and start working on staffing. – So as we met with the different groups, we met with FCEA, CSEA, leadership, and our student advisory board. And when we met with the groups, we talked about our guiding principles, and when we met with our student group, the question was framed
a little bit differently. We asked our student
leaders from middle schools, high schools, and our
continuation high schools, “What things are most important to you “inside the classroom? “What are those things that
are most important to you “outside of the classroom?” And then, “What things seem
to engage you more overall?” So I won’t read those to you, but I think it’s it’s
very interesting to see what our students’ voice is telling us. They love their technology,
and not so much the textbooks, and there are certain programs that they don’t like as much, such as I-Ready, StudySync,
and printed materials. Outside of the classroom, many things were engaging to them and important to them, so I think that’s worth taking that all into account from the students’ perspective. Again, we engaged in this
collaborative process with each of our bargaining units, and with our Folsom Cordova
Leadership Association, managers, and supervisors, and principals. The process that we went
through with the groups, again, was to review
the guiding principles, we asked our groups to think
about impact to students, to staff and faculty, to families, and for most of the
groups we got through the, we met more than once, and
if we met more than once with our groups, we then, after
we generated lists of ideas that added on to some of the thoughts that came forward from the
study sessions last year, we asked our groups to
do some prioritization, from one to four, and we
did that in groups as well, or as a whole group to submit to us as the district, to then
look at trends and patterns. So the one to four, one, you know, don’t consider these as reductions. Two, not sure we need more information. Three, or four, we would
consider these reductions, but, three, we need more time to study it. So some of the feedback
that we’ve received, which we called broad
support, and these were ideas that really came across
from all the groups. And again, we compiled these
as trends and patterns. So we’ll just give you a minute to take a look at that list, and see if you have any questions, board. Miss Crawford, I’m gonna ask you to talk a little bit about
the retiree benefit fund, because that’s one that’s
come up quite a bit, and we wanna make sure
our group understands what that all means. – [Rhonda] Yes, so our
retiree benefit fund, it’s our Fund 71. So we’ve had multiple discussions about, we have created a a formal
trust, now an irrevocable trust, but we currently have about
$14 million in that fund. There has been discussion about, one, using some of that reserve balance to purchase some one-time materials. One of the ideas that came up was to use some of those
funds to purchase Chromebooks because we’ve heard from all groups that Chromebooks were a top
priority for all groups. The other idea was to
reduce the contribution that we are currently paying into the retiree benefit fund. We’re currently transferring 1% in, plus a pay-as-you-go amount. The thought was to lower
that, or make it zero, and only contribute the
pay-as-you-go amount to the retiree benefit fund. – [JoAnne] Any questions
from the board on this slide? Mr. Reid. – How would you, how would you take money out of an irrevocable
trust for Chromebooks? – [Rhonda] The irrevocable trust, we have not transferred
the funds into it yet. Those funds are actually
held outside of our books. The amount in Fund 71, we
have to decide as a board how much to transfer into
that irrevocable trust. If we want to transfer all of it, if we wanna transfer part of it, how much that is. The remainder can be used for
some one-time expenditures. – Thank you. – Rhonda, a quick question. On reducing the 1% contribution, you’re gonna reduce it or eliminate it, from what I understand,
that’s what you’re saying? – That’s an option.
– That’s one option, I mean, because if you, I mean, how much more can you possibly reduce it? I mean, we’re at 1% now,
are we talking about 0.5%? – [Rhonda] We could go to zero, we could go halfway in between, we could go half. We will continue the pay-as-you-go amount, we are committed to that. The amount over and above that we could just delay that for a few years and just suspend it. We can evaluate it each year, it is in our budget guideline, so the board actually
approves that each year. But we have some different options that we can do with that.
– Okay. – Can you remind me with that
fund balance is again, 71? – [Rhonda] About 14 million. – 14 million, so we could, if the board decided we wanted
to put 10 million in there, we have that prerogative. And although the recommendation would be to use anything for one-time funds. – Yes.
– But the 1%, if we eliminate that, would be an ongoing. – That would be ongoing.
– And is that, is the pay-as-you-go model
a more common practice across the state?
– Yes. – Okay, Mr. Hoover? – [Rhonda] It’s very difficult to contribute the total amount
of the actuarial liability. – And we have made some progress over the last couple of years by contributing that 1%.
– Yes, correct. – Mr. Hoover? – It absolutely is more common, a more common practice,
but I guess my question is what was the reasoning for doing the 1% contribution
in the first place, just for the folks that weren’t here then, or I’m just curious what
the budgetary reasoning was? – [Rhonda] When we created
Fund 71, back in ’07, the thought process back
then was, at that point, it was supposed to be
an irrevocable trust. But GASB rules have changed
in the last 12, 13 years. The thought at that
time was to work towards getting as close to the
full amount of the liability as we could. So that was, at that time, I think, 16, $18 million dollars. It’s now about $23 million dollars, so each year that has been board decision, as part of our budget guidelines, is to contribute a little bit extra, one, to get towards that
actuarial liability, and to make sure we always had enough to cover our retirees, past, and current, and future retirees. So as has happened over
the last few years, we have actually accumulated more, so we’re at about probably 65% funded. – Good job, and also are
you looking at contributions to be more concise to
our specific employees than the information we were given when we went toward and authorized the 1%?
– Correct. The actuaries, when they
actually do their report, they have to look at it from, they have standards and processes that they have to follow as actuaries. What we are trying to do is come back to a realistic number, based
on our actual employees, when they retiree, or when they retire, how many years that really is. We estimate at a full 10 years. Most retirees are not benefiting from 10 years of retirement benefits, so we’re trying to really fine tune how much is that annual
pay-as-you-go amount. – Yeah, can I have question?
– Just for feedback. – Just a quick followup on that question. So given, obviously,
actuarial projections, given rising healthcare costs, rising lifespan, for
example, things like that. I mean, obviously, we had
the benefit of the tenure, but what will be the
long-term impact on our budget if we made this decision
to reduce that 1% to zero. I mean, are we just trading,
you know a deficit now for a deficit later? I mean, what is, what is the
long-term impact gonna be? – [Rhonda] It would just be reducing that reserve balance
that we currently have. We would basically be
living off of that reserve. As we progress through
the next five, 10 years, we would have to continue to evaluate it, as every year we have an
average number of retirees, but last year, for instance,
because we had the incentive, we had quite a few retirees
that was way above the average. So if we do that again, that
average again will be higher, so we’re always gonna be
watching those trends. – And the way, when we
transfer this money to, we will be earning
additional returns on it that we aren’t seeing right now. – [Rhonda] Correct. – Mr. Short? – I think the question goes along with the actuary’s course,
now retirement CalPERS is going up so many percents, so that’s just a projection,
and that’s all included, too, correct?
– Correct. – Okay, that’s good, thanks. – [Rhonda] We have the
benefit because we have caps. So that does lesson. – Mr. Reid.
– Impact. – Not all retirees take
advantage of this benefit, though, correct?
– That’s correct. We have some retirees that continue with the waived medical that they have had for their employment, and we have some that switch out of, waive medical, and then take benefits when they retire. So we have different
scenarios that they take. – And the fund is designed to cover them through age 65, correct?
– Correct, correct. – Mr. Hoover.
– All right, one more clarifying question. The pay-as-you-go amount moving forward will come out of the fund, or out of our general budget? – [Rhonda] The
pay-as-you-go would come out of the general fund, that
would be a contribution to the irrevocable trust. – Okay, so the pay-as-you-go amount, is it growing every year
in terms of what percentage of the general fund it’s taking? Like over the, so for example, can we expect that pay-as-you-go amount to rise, it, you know, over
the next few years, per year? – [Rhonda] Yes. – Okay. – [Rhonda] Based on what
we’re seeing right now. – Any other questions on this slide? Okay, as you move through this, do you want to try to get a consensus from the board on actions
like this recommendation, or do we want to work
all the way through this, and return.
– I think I’d like to work all the way through, because there are, you know, there’s other slides and
information to share. So we wanted to start with the one where we saw the most commonalities between the groups that we met with. So we’re starting here. Moving to the next
slide, these are the ones that commonly had no support, and avoid reductions in these areas, in the areas of custodial services, department chairs, intervention teachers, and these would be the
intervention teachers in our Rancho Cordova
sites, our Title I sites, our SIG funded schools,
which we have two of, the parent coordinator positions, the Cordova High Partnership
Academy matching funds, and then some of our software for Apex, Edgenuity, and Illuminate. So those were common things of things not to reduce, but were brought up, so we wanted to share that
end of the spectrum as well. – [JoAnne] When you talk about
the intervention teachers, the Title I sites, the SIG grant is eventually going away, correct?
– It is, one more year. – [JoAnne] One more year,
but the funding for those is not an impact on the
general fund, correct? Those are coming out of
either Title I monies or grants, is that, am I
understanding that correctly? – [Rhonda] Correct, the
ones that are paid for from the SIG grant,
once that grant expires, they would then become
a general fund expense. – [JoAnne] So it sounds like
we would have to at least look at those positions, okay. Is there any other questions on this slide from the board? – [Sarah] The next two slides,
we’re calling mixed support. There were some groups that
thought that these were doable, potentially, for next year,
and then we have another slide that says mixed support
for the following year. So there wasn’t complete
agreement in themes and trends, but we wanted to bring these up, and again with the dollars, potentially, that could be attached
to these common themes. So I’ll let you take a
look at that for a moment, and see if you have any questions. – [JoAnne] Any questions from the board on any of these items? – [Man] Yeah, right off the top with the closure of
Folsom Lake High School, and the credit recovery,
how would that look, would that be more of an independent study at a comprehensive high school site, or. – [Sarah] I’m gonna ask Miss Allaman to address that question. – [Kathryn] We’ve met with the principals about offering credit recovery
in specific subject areas, so there is some discussion there. We have had conversations
around the principal’s table with the principal of
Folsom Lake High School being there, too, to take a look at what kind of students,
what are the students needs at Folsom Lake High School
at this point in time, so she would be pivotal in assisting us with what that credit
recovery might look like to meet the needs of those students. – [Man] Okay. – [JoAnne] In reducing the
site department carryovers, we have been protected
of the intel dollars, and that does not include intel. – [Rhonda] That’s correct. – Anybody else have questions? Go ahead Mr. Reid. – On the closure of the
Folsom Lake High School, I assume there’s also
some potential benefit, additional benefit on the
sale of the property, correct? – [Rhonda] The sale of the property cannot be used for
general fund expenditures, it can only be used for capital outlay. So it could only be used for
purchasing other property, our modernization projects,
construction projects, those kinds of things. – So the money can be
used for modernization of existing facilities?
– Yes, correct. – What, go ahead Mr. Short. – I just had a couple
questions on summer school. I know in the past that
was one on the list. That 437, is that across the district, or for a secondary that
include Cordova and Vista, or the Folsom area? – It’s inclusive of all high schools, summer school, but it,
we are still required to offer an extended year to our special ed students, so that would continue.
– Okay, that excludes that. – Correct. – And then the transportation
staggering start times. I know I was the AB, not the AB, but their early start thing
that the governor just signed, how does that all fit in
the next couple of years, I think that might be
part of the equation? – Right, so we’ve just
started having conversations with our director of transportation of what the staggered start
times from middle school and high school could mean to our transportation schedule, and it’s still, you know, very early on. When the governor signed this bill, it’s to be implemented in July 2022, and the requirement is that high schools wouldn’t start any earlier than 8:30, and middle schools wouldn’t start any earlier than eight a.m. So right now we have separate
routes and separate drivers for our middle schools, and high schools, and in elementary, too. So we’ve started looking at, if we have this staggered start time between middle school, and high
school, and elementary, too, is it possible maybe to,
instead of having multiple buses driven by multiple drivers,
accommodate those routes. If there’s enough time in between, we might be able to use the same bus to do both ways, and
get students to and from at different grade level spans, which it doesn’t reduce on our drivers, it actually expands their time, but it could reduce on our equipment and our buses, and the need
to purchase new buses sooner. So there’s an impact there. However, there’s a lot of other things that we haven’t even had
a chance to talk about, when it comes to how that later start time impacts the end of the day, and the fact that the whole state has to adhere to this come 2022 will mean that, you know, CIF, and sports at the high school level will have to adjust accordingly, too. So there are a lot of unknowns, and we’re starting to study this right now.
– Yeah, that’s gonna impact us some way or another, yeah. – Mr. (microphone rattles) sorry. – The $500,000 for lead teachers, is that eliminating the lead teachers? – Right now, that’s, go
ahead, Miss Crawford. – [Rhonda] That’s eliminating
five, we currently have seven. – So eliminate five of the seven. And before we had the lead
teachers out of the classroom and based in this
building, my understanding, I could be wrong, is we
did have lead teachers, but they were in the classroom. They just had additional responsibilities, correct?
– That’s correct. – So would that be what
you would be anticipating, or are you putting all the work burden on to lead teachers. – [Rhonda] I’m gonna ask
Mrs. Allaman to address that. – [Kathryn] The lead teachers, and again, we’re in preliminary discussion about two lead teachers. So for example, this
year we’re taking a look at adopting the new science curriculum. It would be very difficult
for us, in my opinion, to adopt our new science curriculum, and to implement it without having someone kind of steering that ship. So this year the lead
teacher we would look to maybe keep would be
the science lead teacher as far as that goes. So in years past, when I first took on this particular position,
the lead teachers were not full-time, they had staggered, you know, they staggered full-time depending on the adoption cycle. So there would probably be a revisit of something like that. – Okay, thank you. – And that was my question
too, lead teachers. I’d like to explore that more and see what it would look like if we cut back on those. The Project Lead the Way
replacement consumables license, I thought we had some buy-in on that, but the sites could
take that on themselves, so that would be okay? And, Mr. Short. – Correct?
– Yeah, yes. – Mr. Short?
– Just a quick question. I noticed the accumulation of prep periods for Mills Mitchell, and stipends for that. That’s about a 800 or some thousand, wouldn’t that be a negotiated thing that we’d have to table, and that would take us X amount of time
to even put that in place, after we negotiate contracts?
– Yes. – [Man] Right now we have
we have contract language for how the secondary
schools are are staffed, so we would have to have something that was a negotiated schedule. – The site technology
coordinator stipends, what, can you explain that
one a little bit more? It’s 112,000, give me an example of the site technology
coordinator stipends, is it somebody later after hours, or coming in doing
computers, like right now? – Mr. Wilson, address that please. – [Curtis] Yes, so each of our sites have a site tech coach
assigned to the sites, and usually it’s a teacher
taking on extra responsibilities throughout their day. They have monthly meetings here with our technology department, and are responsible for taking inventory, doing some troubleshooting,
and generally keeping track of things that are happening
tech-wise on the campus, and trainings as well, thank you. So each one of our sites have a site tech coordinator identified. – Okay, thank you. – The summer school for secondary, are we at a point where we could possibly start doing that this summer? Do we have enough other resources for credit recovery for these students, or is this.
– Miss Allaman. – [Kathryn] It would be a struggle for us to put that in place,
but it could be done. – And the standardized
kindergarten schedules for a.m., p.m., did we address that one? How would that be a savings,
and what would it look like? – Mr. Wilson. – [Curtis] Yes, absolutely. So right now we have
three different schedules happening in kindergarten. We have all day, we have
SLP, and we have a.m., p.m.s. The a.m., p.m. would share a classroom, it would be two teachers
in the same classroom, each with their respective
classes of twenty four, one in the a.m., and one in the p.m. The savings on that come
in through prep time, that, by way of a prep teacher, itinerant prep teacher coming in, the teachers could actually
prep each other in that model, and it would reduce the
amount of prep time needed, for a preparation teacher to go in there. – Is that a practice we
have done in the past, or does this have to be negotiated too? Okay.
– It would have to be negotiated, yes. – Oh, lots of negotiation,
Mr. Ogden. (laughs) Okay, any other questions
about this slide? Okay. – [Sarah] The next slide is, again, a list of mixed support,
meaning some of the groups said that this could be
doable two years out, and others, you know, not so much so, so we call it mixed support. But the common themes we saw was elementary prep reduction, the IB coordinators operating expenses, prep periods at the Cordova High Vista, and print shop. So if you have any questions,
we can entertain those. – Any questions on this
slide from the board? – Mr.
– I guess the same question on prep periods, same thing. – Yes.
(board laughs) – It would need to be negotiated. – Yes.
– And when you say prep periods at Vista, are you, it would
maintain the same schedule and have a benefit, or is that
a whole schedule discussion? – [Curtis] The reason the
reason we’re calling it prep periods is, in
secondary, in our district, different schools have different
amount of prep periods, based on the schedule. So when we staff each school, there’s a base staffing,
which is one prep period. And so if you have,
like Vista has a block, where it’s more prep periods, or if you have two prep periods, which we have at some schools, it takes more staffing
to staff those schools, so that’s where you see
the difference in cost. – But how would you change prep at Vista? – [Curtis] Well, we’d
have to talk about it, that’s why that one’s a 21-22. – Oh, okay, okay, you’ve
got plenty of other things to negotiate before that, okay. Any other questions on this, Mr. Reid? – Yeah I was a little
surprised by the 494,000 for the print shop. You know, we’ve gone
significantly to digital over the last several years, I’m surprised we can generate 494,000 and less publications, is that correct? – [Rhonda] It’s amazing
the amount of paper that is still printed. – So the proposal would be
to just drive more digital. – [Rhonda] Yes, and that has
been part of the discussion, especially with the students. As we’re moving more
towards an online presence, the expectation would be that
the amount of paper printed would start to lessen. – How would that impact the classroom? – [Rhonda] A lot. – [Curtis] It would have varying effects. Some teachers rely on printed
material more than others, some are comfortable in the digital world, and they would also have
an impact on site printing. So right now, whatever
can go to print shop with the time constraints,
goes to print shop. What we would see, my guess, is an uptick in the amount of printing
done at the school sites on the machines there. – You know, it’s interesting, and just coincidentally,
Ms. Reinking and I were at a school site this morning, and the principal was talking
about Chromebook burnout, that we are overemphasizing
our electronics with our students. And it seems interesting
that we would cut print when we’re hearing that perhaps we are overdoing the electronics, just an observation. – The IB coordinators
and operating licensing, how would this impact IB? (laughs) I mean, IB has been drawing
students to Cordova High, so if we look at anything, how would this impact the program if we
did something like that? – I’m gonna ask Miss Allaman to give more of the
background on that please. – [Kathryn] There is a
requirement for the licensing fee to host the IB program. We do support the
coordinators who do just that in coordinating the
program, the MYP program, and the flow from Mitchell to Cordova. We’ve seen great growth
in Mitchell and Cordova, in and with the program, so yes, it would impact
that program greatly. – And I think, at least in my opinion, it’s been a success, and I
think the city leadership also agrees with that. So that would be taking, in my opinion, a huge step backwards, but. (laughs) – [Kathryn] I think there
is a presentation coming up at Rancho Cordova City
Council 2×2 meeting. – So just to understand real quick, the operating license covers
both Cordova and Mitchell? – Correct.
– Okay. – And maybe that is
something, there’s also, a grant or something, but to
seeing something like that, I see the program jeopardized.
– Absolutely. – So okay, thank you. – [Rhonda] Feedback and
further recommendations. This would kinda follow what
our multi-year would look like. So we’d start plugging
in those reductions, and we’d start to see
that compounding effect. So you’ll see across the top the amount that we would
need to reduce each year, so you’ll see the 3 1/2 for next year, and then it goes to nine,
and then it goes to 19, and then it, you know,
it continues to get worse until we start addressing
those reductions. So once we have some
recommendations in place, then we can start plugging them in and we can start to see what
the effect of those are. And then, again, we have the cost of 1% for our salaries, so for
each group listed here that would be a 1% increase. So a multiple percent increase, you’d multiply those numbers by that, that same amount. – [Sarah] So we received other feedback from the different groups, and we wanted to just,
again, put them in a list of other ideas to explore. Some of these do not have
dollars attached yet, but some are good ideas worth exploring. we just couldn’t do it
in a turnaround time of one month. But these are ideas,
again, that have come up from the different groups. – [JoAnne] One thing
that wasn’t on the list that we’ve added over the last few years, and I know we are, you know,
embracing the whole child, and the MFTs, was anything, was there any discussion about those? – Actually that didn’t come
up in any of the groups. Although from the students, one of the things that they appreciated outside of the classroom,
was the mental health and wellness support,
and their counselors. They did call that out. They didn’t call out by physician, but they made reference to that. – Okay, go ahead, so that’s
the end of the presentation? – Not yet.
– Oh, okay. (laughs) – Any questions on that slide?
– No. Oh, Mr. Short. – We did furloughs before,
and not very popular, but I guess there would be
a dollar amount to that, but then that lowers our service levels, so why are they talking
about exploring it, we’ve done it before. – We’ve done it before?
– Yeah. – [Rhonda] The thought was
just thrown out there again, just to consider, so
we put it on the list. – Don’t we need latitude to do that? ‘Cause we were able to do it before, ’cause the state said we
could reduce by three days. – [Rhonda] Yes, we only have one day that we have available
to us at this point. – Okay, okay, thank you.
– One day. – One day.
– One. – Mr. Reid. (laughs) – Yeah, just a general
observation on this slide. You know, I personally
would like to see us focus on items that are the furthest
away from the classroom and the students as possible,
and then work on ’em. (audience applauds) – Okay, any other questions
from the board, no? – Yes.
– Go ahead. – [Man] In the past we talked about zero-based budgeting model. Could you explain that again a little for everybody understand
zero-based modeling, because it is a little different than what we’re talking about right now. – [Rhonda] It’s a little different. It takes a little bit more thought, more work to it. But what it does is each
year you start from scratch, so each year you put
together what your goals are, what your priorities are,
what you’re going to do to serve students, what
your metric is going to be. And you do that each year. You don’t, what we do now is it’s just based on what we’ve done before, or it’s based on the same formula. So what it does is it causes
you to take a step back, and you really look at what you need, and makes, it’s more of a
process of justifying that need, and tying it, like we do with LCAP, tying it to goals, tying it to priorities. – [Man] And the studies we’ve done before, it’s a little more surgical in a way, and it might be something to elevate and take a look at.
– Yes, yes. – Okay, thank you.
– Yeah, it’s up there. – Just to follow up on that. Because so many of our
budgetary costs are negotiated, would the zero-based
budgeting only apply to that which is not negotiated?
– Yes. – Rhonda, explain to me the
energy management component and how would, how would that look like, I mean, what would it look? – [Rhonda] We’ve had some suggestions that we need an energy czar. (laughs) (audience laughs) There’s been, you know, good
and bad thoughts on that. That would be someone who really looks at how we’re managing our energy, from say classrooms over the summer that we have portables
that the air goes on and there’s nobody in there,
but the air is running, to looking at, by sight,
are doors being left open, are windows being left open? Making sure we have a consistent set point in terms of temperature,
those kinds of things, somebody actually monitoring them. – And who would that be? Would it be a consulting firm, somebody from the outside coming in? – Who’s job description
can we add it to. (laughs) – [Rhonda] That’s part of the discussion. There are consulting
companies that can do that, and they are usually
paid through the savings that are generated, or
it could be a person, same way, their salary would be paid from the savings. It would be somebody also
looking at our bills, making sure that we’re not
having spikes in water usage, spikes in energy, those kinds of things that would, you know,
maybe point to something, a pipe broken, or those kinds of things. – Mr. Short. – On that question, I know
we talked about this before. I know Matt’s not in here, but smart building
technology implementing, I know that SMUD and
other grants out there that implement that technology to monitor, at a ready to turn investment, I don’t know what happened to that idea, but just something to think about. – [Rhonda] We’re doing an
LED light replacement now. We’re using our Prop 39 dollars for that, and we have been going site by site. And in classrooms what we’ve done is we’re replacing the
ballasts, putting LED lights in. We’re putting control boxes
where you can actually set it for different functions
within the classroom. You could have a lighting
for students taking a test versus a student teaching
at a certain point in the classroom. You can set them for motion detection, those kinds of things.
– Yeah, the technology now with
even thermostat control, water control, sensitizers, HVAC. You can even buy it for your home now. So just something to think about. – Mr. Hoover. – So I was just curious about, and I know that we don’t
have a lot of details on all of these necessarily, but on the special education portion. I mean, we have so many
federally mandated costs, we get so little money from the state, what were the actual suggestions there in terms of what we could cut? – [Rhonda] They were suggestions in terms of looking at some
of our supply purchases, some of the materials,
making them more consistent. There was a request to review
how our IAs are assigned. Looking at a two-to-one
versus a one-to-one ratio, those kinds of things. Just looking for ways to reduce that 10, it’s a 10 to 12% contribution, each year looking for ways to reduce that. – Okay, thank you. – And that would be
through an IEP as well, the parents would have to agree to the two-to-one aide, right, yeah. Assistant principals,
the ones that we have, they’re paid through
supplemental funds or a grant, so we don’t have any assistant principals coming out of the general fund, correct? – [Rhonda] we have some. – Oh, I’m thinking elementary.
– We have some. Yeah, correct, secondary, or most are paid through general fund.
– Yeah, I was thinking of the elementary, I apologize. And the Elementary Opportunity Program, I just wanna make sure that there is a need to justify both positions. I think we, on one side, we might be a little shy in students. Is there a better way to
utilize that position? Have we looked at, do
we need that position? What are the thoughts? – Ask Mr. Wilson to address that. – [Curtis] Yeah, it’s definitely
a conversation we have almost daily, because it
is, kids come and they go, and they come back,
and it’s based on need, but we’re absolutely monitoring that on a day to day basis. – I figured you were, thank you, just pointing it out, thank you. Any other questions on that slide? – [Sarah] So here’s just a
review of our timelines again. – [JoAnne] And any further questions? – Before we go to the public, does the board have any further questions? Okay, I don’t have any
cards, do we have cards? Just one? Okay, well we know we have one speaker. If you’d like to speak, it’s easier if you fill out a card. Amanda Turkie. Welcome.
– Thank you so much for having me. I would just like to bring
to the board’s attention on some of the feedback that I saw. Library services are
one of the first things that are always considered in budget cuts that happen like this. And I would like to just
address the importance and value of having a
library that’s well staffed, with good programming. A lot of us have heard
the startling statistic that third-grade reading levels determine how many jail
cells are built in a town. And if you look at that more closely, it’s not as cut and dry as that, it’s more that third grade reading levels determine what your ninth
grade reading levels would be, and then your ninth grade reading levels will determine whether you’re gonna graduate high school or not. And then if you don’t
graduate high school, you’re 64% more likely to be incarcerated. So when we’re talking about literacy, the fundamental element
of what’s happening, or should be happening in schools, I think it’s really important to think about the role that having literacy-rich environments
are for our children who don’t have access to that at home, who don’t have access to a public library because they cannot get there. I think it’s important
that we don’t forget the social-emotional development that happens in libraries for our students who are on the fringe, who
don’t particularly fit in, and see it as a safe space. When we talk about culture 2.0 and wanting all of our
children to feel welcome, and have a place where they can learn, discover, and explore,
libraries are integral to that idea. So I just want to put that forward. I have a lot of library staff
in the audience here tonight because we feel it’s
integral, it’s not a space, it’s not a space with books, it’s people who are getting
children excited about reading because they understand
the underlying importance of what it means to their
further opportunities beyond the classroom. So I just wanted to stand up,
and give you my two cents, and let you know how valuable
the library staff are, and we are currently working at a deficit. In looking at Sacramento County, we are one of the only districts that don’t have teacher librarians, they’re understaffed
already in terms of hours, according to what the CDE
Model Library Standards are, and I have spreadsheets that
I’m happy to share with you. But we’re already running it like it’s a going-out-of-business
sale in the library. So I would like us to not look at that with the coming budget cuts. Thank you.
– Thank you. (audience applauds)
(audience cheering) – Tracy? – [Tracy] Thank you, Tracy Suter, and I’ve been teaching with the district for over 30 years now, 20 at Cordova High and 11 at Vista, and
I’m also the treasurer at FCEA, so I do wanna talk to you a little bit more about retiree benefits, ’cause I do you think we
have opportunities there, that while you were asking questions, weren’t completely covered
on that first slide. So as we look at the
data, we’ve been paying 1% out of our general fund into what we were calling Fund 71, and we were also paying the annual cost of the retiree benefits. So as I look at what was
happening with the actuarial, if they are calculating
what they’re recommending based on 55 or older teachers, and expecting all of them to
take medical benefits until 65, it’s not happening. Our average retirement rate is about 61 point something years old, and only about 41% of those teachers were actually taking medical
benefits at that point, so that’s considerably less than what you are trying to pay towards as you put that money in there. So now that you have an
actual lockbox Fund 71 that you’re setting up, that we have a chunk
of money sitting there, that it’s still available, and I’m not recommending we don’t, I’ve been here a long
time, I plan to retire, I plan to use the medical benefits, and I want to have money available. But if you look at what we’ve
been paying out annually, it’s a lot closer to 280,000, a little less than 300,000, and I haven’t seen numbers
from the last couple years, and there was a bump, but
if you spread that out over, say, that four or
five years till retirement, that’s a whole lot less than the money we’ve been putting into that account. And we could easily take about $5 million, put it into that new 71 account that you’re setting up
with the mutual fund that earns interest, you’re still probably going to be paying your retiree benefits out of general fund on top of it, it’s an emergency, it’s
an insurance policy. And if you look at what
you have in that fund projected for this year, that frees up about $10 million one-time monies that could go someplace else. So if those monies are going
to student-centered costs, like Chromebooks, then that’s money that can be moved out
of the budget elsewhere and save us towards that third year, because I think, in the long run, we’d be a lot smarter to make sure we get the correct status with the county and not impact the building
of our new schools, and the bonds, and all the other things that are going out there. So I do encourage you to
help that lockbox Fund 71 and I know you’ve committed to it, but I think we wanna be
smart about how much money we seed that fund with,
and do monitor the data. There’s going to be a little bit more because we got a lot of people to retire, but in a few years, you’re
not gonna have anyone old enough to retire. So the money will balance itself out. (audience laughs) I also would like us to stop
putting that 1% in every year, because that’s general fund monies, and I would like to see
a raise before I retire, at some point. I would appreciate that personally. So that was a little bit more detail. Obviously, the actual
numbers are hard to do, ’cause they keep moving, but I think that there’s a real opportunity there to grab some one-time costs
that still benefit students, and let us have some
flexibility in the budget. – Thank you, I think there seem to be enough interest from the board
(audience applauding) in continuing the discussion about what to do with that fund as we move forward. So I assure you, it will be talked about. And I think Rhonda was pretty clear that one of the priorities
is that we realize that our employee groups are also looking for additional pay, so we’ve got a lot of things to balance. Any other comments or
questions from the public? Come on up. – [Angelica] Hi, Angelica
Miklos, FCEA president. One thing that I didn’t
see, although that last list was really long, was the consulting costs and the cost of professional development. So consideration on
that, if there are ways to look at that. Was it on there?
– No. We had staff development. – [Angelica] Staff development, but look at the consulting costs and how, you know, are we
getting our bang for the buck, is there a way to cut
there, or look at things in a different way to cut in that area, or, you know, just
redistribute a little bit? And I do wanna thank you, Mr. Reid, that’s been our position
at this point, for sure. We do not wanna cut jobs, and we also don’t wanna split our groups. We don’t want to get in a position of looking at cutting
one faction of our unit at the cost of another. So I do appreciate your
backing on that very much. Thank you.
– Thank you. (audience applauds) Come on up. – [Christina] Hi, I’m Christina Alley, and I just wanted to touch a little bit on the kindergarten issue with the prep. So the way kindergarten, and I’m in TK, with a.m., p.m., I start
at eight in the morning, and I’m done at 2:38, which
is longer than everyone else, so we work longer hours. We have four or
five-year-olds in our room, and we don’t get quiet
time unless we have a prep. We don’t have music prep,
so our only quiet time in the room is when we have a
PE prep, which the kids need. So I just wanted to put that out there, just a little perspective
on eliminating prep from kindergarten TK. Thank you very much.
– Thank you. (audience applauds) – [Tony] Tony Ruiz, Vista del Lago. A couple of things that I wasn’t sure that I saw in here, if I did miss it then please tell me. The repeated release days for teachers being pulled out of their classroom by the grade level, like all
the 10th grade English teachers in the district being pulled out to do grading here at district office. How much is that costing? Also I hear, you know, the
love for the IB program at Cordova High, and
yet, and I hear vagaries about, you know, there’s growth. I want numbers. How many students graduated with, you know, through the IB program? If we’re talking about a
school of 1,800, 1,900, and we’re talking about 30 students that went through the full thing, is that really worth the money? So I want specifics. I feel like there were
some vague statements, but not enough specifics. – Thank you. (audience applauds) Any other comments from? – [Megan] Hi, I’m Megan Hamm
from Cordova High School, I’m the science division leader, and I saw one of the items on the agenda is delaying or reducing
curriculum adoptions, and that’s very concerning to me ’cause we’ve been trying
to adopt a curriculum for, I don’t know, since 2012, so 10, almost 10 years now in science. And so I just want to, the textbook I use in my classroom was published in 2002. So I don’t think, I’m very concerned to hear that, you know,
maybe those could be delayed, or reduced, or things like that, because there are some
areas that are desperate for an adoption. Also, I saw a lot about
IB, and I am an IB teacher at Cordova High School. It’s a hot topic, always. But I think the number
up there is interesting given how much has been
invested by our district into that program, with all the training, and all the the extra
things that we’ve done to make a great program at
Cordova High School and Mitchell. So I would be very sad to
see all of that go to waste by reducing that program, or
making that program go away. I don’t think it’s
what’s best for students, and that’s just my opinion, thank you. – Thank you, is there any reassurances that we can give about
the science curriculum? I mean, are we getting there, or? – Process.
– In the process? – [Kathryn] I think that
we have made great strides with the science curriculum,
and I don’t think that we would be able to
not move forward with NGSS, I think it would weaken our district. I would not be a proponent of not adopting the science textbooks, but, you know, that is up to the board to make that decision,
that’s not my decision. – Yes.
– I wish it was. (laughs) – Well we usually trust your advice, so thank you, welcome. – [Rob] Hi, Rob Thomas, president
for the Classified Union. One thing I wanted to note first, is that I really appreciate
the level of transparency that the district is showing in inviting all this participation. It certainly is appreciated. (audience applauds) Also, I think the board
set a really good direction last year with focusing
on what’s happening with natural attrition, and
examining that as it comes up, rather than, so that we
can use the folks we have to our best ability, rather
than having hardships that might be unnecessary. The second thing I wanted to talk about is if there are layoffs, we are a family. That’s the culture that
we’re setting as a district. And so when there are
difficult circumstances, you do your best to make sure that people are treated
fairly, treated humanely, so I would just hope that we as a district would keep that in mind,
and if there are layoffs, that we show some flexibility in how we can utilize those
people that are displaced from their normal jobs. And one other thing is
it seems the teachers have brought this retiree
medical issue to the front, and it seems like an
area where nobody wants to put ourselves in a situation where we can’t take care of our retirees with the obligations we’ve
made to those retirees, but it seems like we have
been extremely conservative in the way we’ve addressed this issue, and so I really think, be more realistic about what our current liabilities are, and what our future liabilities will be. This may be a real opportunity. We’re in a difficult time,
this may be a real opportunity for us to to get some help. So appreciate that, thanks. – Thank you. (audience applauds) Welcome.
– Hi, Heidi Barnett, elementary physical education. – [Brenda] And Brenda
Strombom, elementary music. – [Heidi] Looking at that one slide that said eliminate or reduce prep period for elementary school
teachers, at a million dollars. Just curious, does that
eliminate the entire program, parts of the program, is
that just the kindergarten part of it? Couldn’t be, ’cause that would
be really high paid teachers, so I’m not sure what.
– It’s not eliminating the whole program. I’m gonna ask Mr. Wilson
to give an example of what that could be. – [Curtis] So if we were
talking just minutes that teachers require
for prep throughout K5 in an elementary setting,
the personnel needed to provide just minutes,
and again, this doesn’t, this isn’t going PE,
this isn’t going music, it’s just bodies to provide the minutes necessary by contract, would require about 18.5 FTE. Currently, between both
PE and music programs, designed as they are
today, we have 28.5 FTE to do that. So the bodies again necessary
to produce the bare minimum would be about 18.5, so we’re
10 over that bare minimum. – [Heidi] Okay, so when
you guys look at that, oftentimes we see that you take a day and you divide it up by
half hour increments, and you say, “Well you
should be able to teach “10 classes in one day as
an elementary PE teacher,” not taking into
consideration, my school alone has lunch going on from 11 until 1:30. I have to work around. There’s four recesses, four lunches, the music program, the PE program, early late, intervention program. So you cannot take a
schedule and just say, “Hey, you can teach 10 classes in there, “so we don’t need that many PE teachers.” It doesn’t work. We have worked with our schedules over and over and over again trying to get it as close as we can. It’s just not possible,
it’s not humanly possible. But when we look at elementary prep, the classroom teacher gets
60 minutes prep a week, a week, that’s it. And some get 100 if they’re
fourth and fifth grade. That’s hardly any time at all for them to run and make a cup of coffee, a phone call, or whatever. And then they’re gonna be
expected to do their prep outside of that, in addition, because the law requires
physical education by law, they now need to teach all their
physical education minutes, so we’re adding more burden on that elementary classroom teacher, and taking away the expertise
of the music teacher, and the PE teacher, that know
how to teach those children. When we’re talking about growing our social-emotional learning, and you’re taking away, or
talking about taking away some of the services that provide that. – [Brenda] To every
fourth and fifth grader. – [Heidi] But then taking,
and hiring other companies to come in and teach us how to teach, it just is not congruent,
it’s not making sense to us. And I really hope you’ll
take a much, much deeper look at that, and talk to
us, look at our schedules, talk to us about it, because I understand what you’re saying of the
numbers and the minutes, but it doesn’t work out
that way in reality. It just doesn’t. There’s too many programs
that we work around all day long to get those minutes in. – [Brenda] Also, come see
what our kids are doing when they get away from their computers. They are with us, they
are never using computers, (audience applauding) and they are working together,
interacting together, but that’s one of the only places where they actually are able to do that. So if anything, I think
they need more music. – Absolutely.
– Starting in kindergarten. – And PE both.
– So like other districts, and PE, so that they can get on board with the social-emotional learning that the kids all in San
Juan District are getting. They have music and PE
starting a lot younger than we do. – [Heidi] We talk about all those things that the children need, and we
keep going to other programs to provide that, when we’re already here. PE and music.
– It’s already happening. – [Heidi] Are two of the subject areas that can provide that curriculum and that development for the children. We’re already here. – [Brenda] And music and athletics are also one of the things
the kids told everybody that they wanted to keep. And so to take it away
at the elementary level, it makes no sense to me. It’s gonna fall apart at
middle and high school when we lose it in elementary. – Thank you, got it.
– Thank you. (audience applauding) – Welcome. – [Gina] Hi, I’m Gina Bamberger. I teach at Theodore Judah Elementary. I’m part of the Academy Program. One of the slides had the academies at Mather and Theodore Judah on there, and I assume that’s supposed to being that we bring in more revenue, but it does not seem to appear that way, ’cause it seems like all the other things are things that you’re
considering cutting. So I’m not sure where the academies are generating more cost, we
don’t have any extra prep time, we have no administrator that
deals with us specifically. We develop our own curriculum. We buy our own materials. So I’m just not sure, and then our parents have made it clear to
us, especially last year, with a situation that happened, that if there were more programs for a variety of needs, whether they’re, you know, whatever, magnet programs, or any, like IB, being
a big draw for Cordova, you know, having something
similar like that for elementary, you would draw more people
into our school district. I have a lot of my students
live in El Dorado Hills. I’ve had students come
from Gault, and Gilroy, and all kinds of crazy places to get here to bring their kids to school. So I’m just curious why we’re on the. – Superintendent, before we end up with a room full of Theodore
Judah families again, can we talk about that? (laughs) – Definitely, Mr. Wilson? – [Curtis] Sure, absolutely. So for full disclosure, it ended up on the other ideas to explore. So one of the, one of the things that the reasons that came up is that in the way it’s
being done in a school model, by not being able to, so let’s say we have four third grade classes,
two of those are academy, two those are core, in one given school. There are times when
there’s enough students that if it wasn’t in a school model, it could be done with three teachers rather than four, but
because we can’t combine an academy class with a core class, which we heard very clearly, that ends up costing us an extra teacher in some of those programs. But like you said, we
need to explore it more because it’s possible
the academy programs, and I know for a fact, and
especially Theodore Judah is bringing in families from the outside, so that it wasn’t on the list of do now, it was let’s look at
the cost benefit here, is this doing what we wanted it to do, or is it costing us extra staff members by the inability to group children in their class size reduction numbers or their maximum capacity numbers? – [Gina] And we’ve been
compensating for that, like all of the Academy
classes are at 26 and 34, and the core classes are less, and that’s, we’re all fine with that, there’s no like, oh we should be the same, you know, we’re totally aware that that’s something
that needs to, you know, we need to be aware of. I just don’t want this to look like, the Academy should not be a deficit. If our Academy wasn’t at Theodore Judahs, Theodore Judah would
not be Theodore Judah, so all of the kids that
live in that neighborhood who truly benefit from the Stars Program, who benefit from the core
classes and the academy, all working together, I mean we’re all out on a playground together, we
do a lot of things together, that would not exist. So you know, Theodore
Judah was slated to close, and the academy what kept
Theodore Judah going. So this misconception that it’s a cost, and a detriment, and whatever
else it appears to be for some of you, I’d love for
you to come and talk to us, because I think we could
help you understand. And also I have parents
that would be willing to work with you to encourage
other kinds of magnet programs to come, and encourage
other people to come, if population is an issue in our district. So thank you. And I hope, you made
reference a couple times to our parents, and I hope that doesn’t, isn’t a negative thing for you. – No, I just don’t wanna
create a sense of panic, ’cause, I mean, this is, you know, just. – [Gina] Well, it’s important to know that looking at our both of
our academies as a detriment can create some panic, so
that might be something for you to consider, and send
that information to parents, and let them know, because
when they read that they’re gonna go, “Wait a
minute, how is that possible?” And I still need, I would
love to know, in detail, what it looked like for you, sitting down and figuring it out, how kids, we have small classes
’cause it doesn’t work out. I think sometimes things are said, and it really needs to be
put on paper and looked at, and then we can all
agree, this isn’t working or it is working, that’s just my opinion. Thank you.
– And it’s been very evident that that program has turned
Theodore Judah around. – Thank you.
– And created the school that it is now. So I don’t think anybody doubts
the value of the program. – [Gina] It’s the collective
work of core and academy, we just all work together, so thank you. (audience applauds) – Welcome. – [Jeanette] Afternoon everybody, I’m Jeanette Sansenbach. I wear two hats, vice president of FCA, and then also a fourth grade teacher at Sandra J. Gallardo. So other ideas to explore. So Gina went ahead and
talked about the fact that it was that she
thought that her school and Mather Heights was
also able to go ahead and generate funds. What I don’t see on the
other ideas to explore, these are all cuts, where are our ideas about generating money? About being able to go ahead and look at different partners, and being able to go
ahead and raise revenue, ’cause this doesn’t seem to be, there seems to be a lack of money, and instead of just cutting,
cutting, and cutting, what can we go ahead and
do to generate some funds to go ahead and come into our,
and think outside of the box, to go ahead and generate
some funds for our schools? Whether that’s going to business partners, whether that’s going to the cities. However we go ahead and do that, I think our cities and our parents, we need to go ahead
and look at some things to go ahead and increase revenue instead of just going
ahead and cutting it. Thank you. – Superintendent, do you
mind if we talk a little bit about what Daniel’s department has done to reach out?
(audience applauding) And I also wanna invite anyone
who wants to get involved with the Folsom Cordova
Education Foundation, and try to raise money,
you are welcome to help. – Okay, we’ll talk a little bit about what we’ve done through the
communications department with attendance campaign, too, because for every percent
increase in attendance, you know, these are actual students in their seats every day. We raise it by 1%,
that’s 1.6, $1.6 million additional revenue that
goes back to our students. So that’s one of the ways, and when we look at our attendance rates, some of our schools are very high, some of them are not so high. So then we ask the question, you know, why is it students aren’t coming
to school on the first day? Or why is it that they’re absent often? So that’s something
we’re digging deeper in with a new program that we have, called A2A, Attention2Attendance, and out of our attendance
and due process office we’ve been working with our sites, and working on that attendance campaign. But I’m gonna let Mr. Thigpen
elaborate a little bit more. – [Daniel] Sure, we have a
subcommittee working group of staff within the district that’s taking a look
at, in addition to that, what are some of the
strategies that we can do to improve attendance
throughout our district. So before the back-to-school period, we did invest some time and resources to make sure seeing that we saw a drop-off during the first couple
of weeks of school, we wanted to raise awareness of when the first day of school is. We saw that targeted in some
of our Title I neighborhoods, and we wanted to look for that opportunity to see if we could recapture
some of those students again to try to minimize and
mitigate a dip in revenue during that critical period. And so we’re evaluating
those efforts right now in conjunction with A2A,
and also in collaboration with instruction on staff development for identifying kids who
may be around the cusp, who maybe aren’t truant yet, but maybe we need to
employ some SEL strategies to keep those kids connected at school, and work with their families. So it’s really a multi-pronged effort, as it relates to attendance, because that’s gonna be one of
our biggest revenue drivers. As it relates to the speaker’s comment about working with our business partners and our municipalities,
we have really rich, thriving partnerships right now that we’re looking to continue to grow, and we have grown in recent years. Intel, SMUD, and SAFE
Credit Union are among those that are not only providing
some dollars and resources, but also some learning
opportunities for our kids, and provide those through
either CTE Pathways, or through other avenues. Part of what’s problematic with that is those are great for supplementals. I think between Intel
and SAFE Credit Union, we’ve been able to raise around $18,000 just in the last fiscal year, but that’s fantastic, but it doesn’t help with ongoing costs, and
certainly doesn’t help with some of the structural
issues that we have. So we wanna look to continue
to grow those relationships as the point department for Measure H in the city of Rancho Cordova. I think we’ve seen several
millions of dollars over the last several years come in to our schools for
the supplemental programs, enrichment opportunities for our kids. But just like grants, or other things that end up expiring, we
have to be very careful about how we commit those dollars. So yes, those absolutely have a role. Continuing to grow those relationships don’t always help with
the structural issues but it’s something we’ll continue explore from a revenue standpoint. – Thank you. So I wanted to allow
time for board comments before we leave. So Tracy, and then we’ll wrap it up. – [Tracy] It says recording,
so I’m watching the livestream. – Oh, she texted, okay. – [Tracy] I’ve answered a
couple for observations. – Okay, of course. (laughs) Should we all wave to Deb, hi Deb. (audience laughs) – [Tracy] I’ll try to get the ones that haven’t already been mentioned. Deb definitely echos the consulting and professional development costs. She appreciates LCAP is
a zero-balanced budget and thinks we should look
at everything that way. Transportation, since
Metro’s giving free passes, maybe we can look at expanding
partnerships within that, try to maintain some of
our transportation costs to actually what we receive. Probably the one that I
have not heard this evening, I know in your slides you
had I-Ready, and iLit, and a few of those others, and look at what teachers can provide. You hire us as professionals, you’re already paying for us, we’re free from that perspective, and can probably provide programs that serve the needs of students without the additional costs, and I think that was, and
she would like to reiterate taking Fund 71 to get us out of hot water. – Really, Deb? – [Tracy] Yes, she does. (laughs) And I think that is.
– I didn’t know that. – [Tracy] I think that’s
the primary summary. – Okay, thank you.
– Thank you Debbie. (audience applauding) – I’m gonna go to board
comments before we wrap up. Any board members have
comments, Mr. Short? – I think I wanna thank
everybody being here, and I wanna also recognize the fact that I think staff, and the public, and the transparencies been really good, and this dialogue is really good, ’cause I’ve been through the tough times, and the tough people do last but we don’t wanna go
through what we did before. I think this is a good dialogue and it helps us focus
on what the community, and as I said before,
we gotta keep it away from the classroom and the kids, and impact the kids as least as possible. I know, sometimes, when we
get into these big numbers, we just don’t know yet, there’s
still the fog right now, but as we go through this, we’re gonna figure it out
and start fine tuning it and hopefully everybody
will be here with us and share the pain, because it is not easy to make these decisions. I do hear some of the people that I think, being realistic,
and having more information is always better. You know, zero-based budgeting, I know we’ve had that out on table before, but that’s definitely getting down to the realistic point
of looking at things. I know we have a lot to talk about in the near future, and
I have a lot of faith in the staff and the parents here, and our staff to come
up with the good ideas that will keep it farthest
away from the classroom. And I wanna thank
everybody for doing that, and continue to have this dialogue. So thank you for that. – Mr. Reid? – Yeah, a couple observations. In regards to library services, and I may be off by one
year, but I remember back, I think it was 2009, ’10, and ’11. I was on the Sandra J.
Gallardo PTA board at the time, and that’s when we had previously cut basically all funding for libraries. And the PTA, at least in the case of Sandra J. Gallardo, spent
tens of thousands of dollars to keep the library open. And I know that some
other elementary schools did the same. And what concerns me is that, well, first of all I
appreciate the generosity of the PTAs in doing that,
but it’s not very equitable because there are many schools that either don’t have a PTA or PTO, or don’t have the wherewithal
to generate the funds to keep the library open. And I don’t want to see that
type of disparity happen again. So I would be concerned if
we look at library services as a way to generate some savings. Also, and I’m sure there’s
more than just two items that were on this slide deck, but the only two that
just jumped out at me, that would be cuts that would take, or I’ll call it cost efficiencies that would take place in this building is the lead teachers and the print shop. I’d like to see what other
potential opportunities for cost efficiencies we
could find in this building. (audience applauding) – I just wanted to basically
thank everybody for coming out and showing your interest in the hearing. Most of your comments, you
know, we’re here to hear you, and you know, I’m a person
that you can reach out to me via email, or call me, or whatever, so we can have a good conversation about the mixed support,
or some of the things that we’re looking at. Also, utilize your cabinet
and your leadership, even with the superintendent, to continue to ask questions. So I just look forward to
diving deeper into this. There are a few things
that were concerning to me, like the consultants, and
you know, the prep periods at Cordova and Vista as well. But, you know, I’m
willing to take time out and listen to you guys. So thank you again for
coming out, appreciate it. – Thank you, Mr. Hoover? – I sound a little
repetitive, but really excited to see everyone in this room
participate in the discussion. Thank you for all the work
you put in before today, so that we could all come
here and have this discussion. I know that you have
been working very hard coming up with a lot of ideas, and we really appreciate that. And we’re all in this together. So I really am interested in this. I’m surprised it actually didn’t come up until Deb texted in
about this i-Ready issue. I know the contract is expiring this year, from what I am told, and
I think it is the time to take a look at that, and if not, get, you know, if not
get rid of it entirely, replace it with something more affordable. I’m not sure, but I definitely think that’s something we need to explore because, yeah, I’ve got mixed feelings about the actual product itself, for when my kids use it. And I’ll just echo my
colleague to my right here, Mr. Reid, on administrative costs in the education Services center. I noticed on the charts themself it was about $150,000 of projected cuts, 149, in reductions at the
administrator, director level, or even that, I’m just curious, you know, it’s a big building, there’s
a lot of people in here. I know we don’t wanna cut costs, we don’t wanna cut
anywhere, but we have to. So I’d just be interested
in a better breakdown of what that number is, and
if we can make it any bigger in any way, just so we can even out some of these reductions
across all different areas of the district, and try to keep it away from the classroom as much as possible. The reality is, I mean, these
are really difficult decisions and I’m not excited about that next year that wasn’t on the slides tonight, and how big that number
is going to be getting. So you know, sadly, I think
we’re in for a tough few years but just thanks again
for everyone being here, and I hope that we can continue to have these productive discussions, thank you. – Thank you. I just wanted to share
some of my thoughts. I do wanna compliment the
superintendent a little bit. She has tried to be very
thoughtful and conscientious when making changes at the cabinet level, as we’ve moved the last two years, and I anticipate that she
will continue that practice. So I just wanted to throw that out there. I haven’t heard anything
about early retirement. We know that that would help us. I’m wondering if we should do that sooner rather than later this year,
if we’re talking about that. It helps us to know as soon as possible. When we talk about the IB
program and other things, I believe that choices
are best for students, so if you’re gonna look at an IB program, you also have to look at schools that might have different schedules, that might cost more money, too. So I think we need to be
aware that, and so you know, all of the choices are
good for our students and we want to continue to provide the best options for them. I do not want to see pink slips, layoffs, and I think staff has
been very conscientious about trying to not fill positions that we could possibly do without. And I’m hoping that
that trend will allow us to not have to go through any layoffs, that’s my objective. But it’s gonna take us
all working together, staff has been very
clear that they realize that employee raises are important to you. I think we’ve been clear that the board is willing to look at Fund 71. I think that we might have, maybe some, we can do some skimming off
of professional development, maybe travel, I don’t know, travel still seems a little high to me, but I don’t know. So I think, you know, we’re gonna dig deep and try to find the solution, with hopefully not
impacting our employees. And our employees are what
provide the best services for our students. So with that, and the superintendent, do you have anything
you wanna add to this? What they can expect as we move forward? – Well, once again, I
wanna thank all of you for taking the time to be here today, but also being at the meetings
that we’ve been holding to elicit your feedback. And it doesn’t end here. We still are listening,
and if you have other ideas that haven’t shown up here tonight, please don’t hesitate to
let me know that as well. Our next steps in this process, as we saw on the timeline, is
to try to vet some of these a little bit further. If we went just with
the broad support list, most of those are
one-time, that won’t get us exactly where we need
to go, and the county probably won’t certify us at that point. So we still need to look at
probably a mix of the broad and the mixed support going into 2021, and we’ll continue that dialogue, if that’s okay with the board, at the next meeting
with the budget update, and then with recommendations coming forward on November 21st. – Thank you.
– Thank you. – With that, good night. I hope you’re all gonna stick
around till six o’clock, and join us for, no?
(gavel bangs) (upbeat music)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *