Anchorage School Board: 7/7/26 ASD School Board Meeting

Good evening. We'll call the Tuesday, July 7th, 2026, AST School Board special meeting to order. The time is 6:50 PM.

Present in the boardroom are members Jacobs, Blakeslee, Higgins, McDonough, Lessens, and Wilson. Joining us online is member Bellamy. Dr. Bryan is with us online as well, and members of administration are present with us in the boardroom. We've called ourselves to order. We've engaged in our roll call.

Member Wilson, will you please lead us in the flag salute and then read our land acknowledgement, please?

We acknowledge that we gather here today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina people of the Upper Cook Inlet. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina people have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. ASD is committed to diversity and inclusion, and it is with honor and respect that we recognize all Indigenous people who live and learn in our community. Thank you, Member Wilson. We want to welcome you to our meeting and thank you for attending and supporting the work of the Anchorage School District and this board.

The board thanks students, parents, teachers, staff, school business partners, and the entire community for your investment in our district with your time, your talent, and your tax $1,000.

We have an agenda in front of us. Um, would entertain a motion to, uh, approve the agenda as drafted, and then any amendments.

Mr. President, I move to approve the amendment as drafted— I mean, the agenda as drafted. Second. Made by Lessin, seconded by Wilson. Is there any discussion? Member McDonough?

Yeah, Mr. President, thank you. I move to modify the agenda with a non-action items section and then place in that section a new ASD memorandum, which I believe would be numbered 007. And, uh, for the purpose of allowing a second reading of the items that we would need to appropriate using tonight's business but, but haven't yet read in the past. So if, if I get a second, I'd be able to speak further to the motion.

Second.

Motion made to add a second item to the agenda. We need to make a minor correction. The memorandum number is not available, so we'll need to correct that if it's adopted. But for now, Member McDonough, do you want to discuss your amendment? Um, yes, thank you.

So, um, the memorandum number— I'll just say 7, but it'll— it will change, it seems. Um, right now we're discussing everything appropriated under these two new revenue systems from the state of Alaska under a single memorandum, which is 006. In $11.6 million in total funding. And, uh, we read earlier tonight, or with the, with the administration, the way this proposal lines up, quite a lot of the items on it have things that have not been on board business recently, certainly not since I have served, and really not at all this academic year, including business related to the Alaska Middle College school, including business related to the English language arts curriculum plan. Um, several million dollars of requests are being made to us, and they would technically constitute as a first reading tonight.

So according to our own systems and bylaws, the amended agenda would give us a place to put those items in a new memorandum, read through them tonight, receive public comment tonight, and then reconvene at a future moment to also receive more public comment. I think this would be in the best spirit of public engagement and a much more robust public process in getting these funds spent on our students.

Member Lessens. I appreciate the motion and have sort of a multitude of thoughts on the particular items that I think you've pulled out. They— I think that Member McDonough is correct, we have not talked about the AMCS item. I think a question I would have before moving that direction is to what extent is it time sensitive, given that school will start for students ostensibly enrolled in AMCS at some point in August. So when would the board need to review that question?

It sort of is a question at my mind. Um, I think building on our conversation earlier this evening about ELA, and what I personally hope to discuss this evening, is that I think that there are— I think that there is a procedural, procedural way we can delay the entire adoption of the ELA materials until the fall, but potentially move forward with discussing the $2.7 million this evening. So I would be reluctant to bifurcate that item to another memo. Um, for a point of reference, we did discuss the need to reincorporate student activities into the budget in ASDR 25-26-02S2 on May 12th. That was an item that we included in our— in the list of things that we would restore if the legislature had increased the BSA by $920.

Back in February, under a prior board, the board balanced the budget in part by delaying school board membership fees. So this, um, it's a new board, but it is not a totally unfamiliar question. Um, and the attrition is a question of financial, um, planning. So I could see that being placed in a current memo or in a delayed memo, but it seems like I don't know. I have mixed feelings about this prospect.

I would be most comfortable if we needed to bifurcate things with bifurcating the question of AMCS, I think, is where I stand right now. Go to Member Wilson, then Member Blakeslee. Just wanted clarification from the maker of the motion. Is, is the intent to not move forward with any of the— this portion of the budget at tonight's meeting completely? And the second part of that question would be, when in your vision would we want to meet again?

Is this for our first meeting in August? Or so, just some clarification on, on what your intent was.

Uh, sure. Um, through, through the president and, um, to the questions Uh, first of all, if the board does make this change to the agenda, I would bring forward an S version of Memorandum 6, which is tonight's current business, that removes the things that I believe are not, um, things we've read in the past, especially the Alaska Middle College School contracted services request. I think it— while then the agenda has 2 spots, it's like the board can modify either item of the business through regular debate and motions. So it would give us an ability to debate while not debating the, the agenda, but debating the actual business. We could then debate the other considerations, although I would agree with many of the things that Member Lessens brought up about items on tonight's business that we have discussed in the past, but certainly we have not discussed the Alaska Middle College school.

So I would bring forward an S version that places it in a new memo, and I would, I would state my intent now that I would put the English language arts curriculum adoption into that memo also, because I don't think it has been presented to the public in an adequate way so far. As far as timing, I think the board has the ability to raise a motion to call a special meeting, and it would be a good time for us to debate. But certainly I think I would ask the administration to recommend a time frame of being able to satisfy— if we want to fund the Alaska Middle College contract increase, what's the timeline needed? And also, if we do decide to place the English curriculum in that. So I would, I would ask the administration to to comment on recommendations, and then I would certainly make myself available to attend a special meeting if that's what the board calls, or if that's what the president chooses to call using his authority.

So sorry, I'm very technically saying what would go in both buckets. We could still debate later, but my proposed S version would take out the Middle College subsidy and the English language arts curriculum. Not to remove them entirely from our funding, but to place them in a future business so we could better engage with the public. And then when that future is, I'm sensing within 1 or 2 weeks, but that is certainly up to the board or the president to decide using our appropriate channels of calling a meeting.

Does administration want to address the conversation thus far? Sure, I'd be happy. Uh, actually, uh, Mr. President, I'd be happy to chime in. Um, Member McDonough, I appreciate the suggestion. Um, an alternative approach that might fulfill the same end would be during deliberation, if the board were to decide not to appropriate dollars for Alaska Middle College, for example, or decide not to appropriate dollars for the ELE curriculum, what I could do is work directly with President Jacobs and the board to either schedule a special meeting depending on the outcome of the deliberations, or to produce a memorandum that the board can formally review at the next meeting.

I think that could be a way to meet your intended outcome.

I will join the queue. I think the— I think one of the underlying intents— remember, Blakeslee, have we gone to you yet? Okay, so you had— were in the queue, then I think you might have left. I defer to you. Feel free to speak.

You can— you— yeah, you should talk, and then I'll ask my— I'll put on my thoughts. But I also think Member Bellamy might have been ahead of me. I don't know. Okay. Yeah, well, I'll jump in the queue, then we'll go to Member Bellamy, then to Member Blakely.

I appreciate the intent of the motion.

I think procedurally A more straightforward path is to approve our agenda as drafted, amend the— amend via removal of any items that don't enjoy a majority of the board support tonight, and then that will send a signal to administration that there should be additional process, or depending upon the nature of the conversation on the specific item, that they be brought back forward at all.

I don't personally support at this time a separate amendment for another memorandum, as I don't know the timelines will— and the facts surrounding those timelines will change drastically in a week or two. So I think we should amend the underlying memorandum to remove or add as the board sees fit, and then additional meetings can be called when facts change, depending upon the nature of the reason for the item being removed in the first place. We'll go to Member Bellamy and then Member Blakeslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, I also appreciate the intent of the motion, but I think procedurally what makes sense for me, and I know that I think we're all, we're all trying to get to what, what, to those items that we committed to. But I think the procedurally, I would like to, for the, to move forward with Memorandum 006. We, we can keep, delete, modify what's in it and move that forward if we need to. I mean, or take out what you want to take out if there's if there is the votes to do it, uh, adding a future memo. And I guess, you know, as board— the board, we, we don't have— once we modify the memo, this board can make a decision not to move to action tonight.

We can move to action later. Uh, I just don't see the need for a separate memo at this time. We need to work with them. I, I think we work with the memo that we have modify what we got to modify, take and, and move forward with, with whatever the result is. Uh, so I, I won't— I'm not in favor of the motion at this moment to add a, um, because I think the board can get to where, where I think Member, uh, McDonough wants to get to without, uh, without adding a whole new memo to the, to the, to the I think that's more confusing for the public than, than walking through the one that we have, the one that the public has already seen.

They've had time, they know, and we're getting emails already on what, what the public is thinking. At least I'm, I'm seeing emails. So, um, anyway, I, I don't— I won't support the, the motion at this point. I think our process will get us to where we need to get to if we follow it. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to Member Blakeslee. Um, I just want to clarify and make sure I understand what you are speaking to, President Jacobs, that if we were to go through this current memo in its current form and remove items because we do not have consensus, or because we want more input, or more discussion time, but really more public input, I think, is the main objective here, which I agree with. Um, those items for removal will then create a bucket of additional money to do something with, right? And, and I'm hearing that there is likely then consensus that we could then call another special meeting to then deliberate how to use those funds if anything were to get removed from this memo.

Am I interpreting that right?

Yes, procedurally, if an item is removed from the memorandum in front of us tonight, it would deem additional funding allocated through the state budget as available for use and reallocation.

Um, when and how those funds are reallocated are a decision that the board, um, would determine. Um, and I think what that conversation looks like will largely depend on when things are— why things are removed, if anything's removed, and, um, in the discussion and debate during that process. Okay, um, I appreciate that clarification. I just want to make sure that I understand, and, uh, I also very much support the intent behind this motion because while I think that there are items that we've talked about and heard a lot of public testimony around, this is the first time that the public is seeing this specific proposal, and there is a process by which I think we have a responsibility to follow to ensure that you know, the entire community is able to weigh in with their input on this specific plan, um, and what we're considering, especially given the fact that this was over a holiday weekend. It—.

I think we just, um, it's the right thing to do to allow that process to, to play out a little bit better for public input, um, even if it requires calling an additional meeting in the near, near future, not in August. So thank you.

Go to Member Lessons and Member McDonough. I guess, thank you, um, I would remind the board that we're here because of delayed and insufficient funding from the state to begin with. So we have a common framework. We are grappling with additional one-time funds, but they were not allocated back in February. Right?

So that's, that's why we're here. Um, I did want to point out for reference and possible precedent that last August there was a veto override on August 2nd. On August 5th, we had a regular board meeting. The board adopted Memo 038, which immediately put, um, uh, allocated funds for teachers and other critical pieces to the FY26 school year into place. And then on August 19th, again straight to action, we had Memo 047, and that included items including like summer school, professional development, high-dose tutoring, and more teachers.

My point is that the precedent last year with delayed one-time funds is that— actually, those were delayed BSA funds. But they were delayed nonetheless. The precedent is that we did go straight to action in those two memos in service of our students. So I value public comment, but I also am looking at what we did last year.

I will go to Member Higgins first, then Member McDonough.

I'm sorry. Oh. Thank you. I, I do value public input, and, and this— we've now got a budget process where we had a budget done based upon a certain amount of funds. Now we've got things not included in that original thing that we're pulling into it without going through a public process of discussions.

And it just bothers me that somehow or another the public input doesn't, doesn't matter. We have a, we have a possibility here of just saying, wait a minute, these issues do justify a process that engages the public. It is additional funding that could be used for other things. We don't have a list of everything that is not being funded at this budget, that not being added back in. That would make a great list to look at the pros and cons rather than just a sales job on this is what we want you to approve.

This is what we are asking you not to approve would be a great statement in there as well. But when we're adding additional funding that wasn't in that particular budget, I think that really makes a significant difference.. And we— the public input on things like curriculum changes is a big deal. I was on the board when they did it for a math program that was awful, and they approved it, and they said everybody, you know, endorsed it within administration. It was a disaster, and audit tore it down.

I like to hear the public response first. So I've just— we're bypassing that by adding things in that were not in the original budget if we had the funds. And I think that's what we're not honoring the, the voice of the public to, to participate and to share with our concern— their concerns when we make this type of decision. So I support this motion completely. Thank you.

Member McDonough, um, in response to the sentiment, and I appreciate Dr. Bryant especially chiming in with a suggestion. I'd like to speak to that to clarify my intention, and then I'd like to speak to some of the comments while encouraging that this motion is, is granted by the board. Um, Dr. Bryant suggesting that what we can do is essentially to modify today's memo, removing items for the reason of them not being presented as 2 readings, and then the administration can present them again at some future meeting, and it would constitute 2 readings. And while that is correct, I want to remind the board that while we follow Robert's Rules, we present each other with a, a binary yes/no choice along the way. And there could be multiple reasons to say no to something, and there could be multiple reasons to remove something from a memorandum.

We could all 7 have the intent of removing a particular item unanimously, and if we don't have a way of explicitly showing that there's a future second reading approval It would be unclear as to what the no vote is for. It creates instead of a bifurcation, a trifurcation, because there's going to be two different types of nos, which we really must avoid with Robert's Rules. There should be a clean yes and a clean no, and then other business within the realm of the nos should have their own places. And it's up to us to create that scatter plot basically, or that flowchart. Um, as far as the precedent set last year where there were items on the— in the late veto that went straight to action in service to our students, I appreciate the board and the superintendent respecting the urgency in that case, but I will point out that everything funded under both of those memoranda were the reversal of cuts, which is very different than the issues that I— 2 of the things tonight are not things we cut.

They're just new things or increases to the cost of things that we have not thoroughly vetted in front of the public. So while tonight doesn't follow that precedent, I also want to remind the board that a short or inadequate public process has cost us a great deal of political capital already. And we're still joined by many families from Campbell Elementary, and they've reminded us every time we've met since we've presented their school in front of them that we're making a hasty, rash decision without thorough, adequate vetting of the information. And I do not relish an agenda that does not properly park items in an agenda where we can thoroughly and adequately vet the information. To that, I have an obligation as a board member, as a publicly elected representative.

I believe the other 6 on this board have an obligation to only vote on business that has been fiduciarily and publicly vetted And that includes a no vote. If it hasn't been fiduciarily vetted and publicly vetted, my vote is obligated to be present or to abstain. I can't vote affirmatively or negatively if it hasn't been adequately presented to the public. So even if we choose to remove something or not to remove something, the ability to even choose to remove it in the first place is not authority we have under our fiduciary and ethical obligations. So if another member raises to move to, to remove the Alaska Middle College School Contracted Services because it hasn't had two readings, and then that motion doesn't get carried by the body, that invalidates every other vote we have because the entire memorandum has basically been conditioned with this poison pill of a particular item that we haven't seen twice.

And I do not relish more and more lawsuits and more and more drawn-out public debates with our own community that feels like we don't listen to them because we won't even structure an agenda in a way that puts business into two different categories so that people can adequately get involved and actually speak with us. So I'm really not asking to shut anything down here. I'm asking for us to place a second piece of business on our agenda tonight that creates a two-tier structure where the urgent things that we can— we've already debated, or that are far too urgent for us to skip— we can have— we can vote for them tonight. And then there's a second bucket of the things we admit we ought to present this to our constituents first. I want to hear what people have to say, and then I'll vote on it when the board comes back.

Um, I, I would at least say We owe that to the Campbell community for shortchanging their public process over a holiday weekend. And this memo is coming to us also immediately after a holiday weekend. So there's a lot of parallels here. I think I would ask just vote yes on this because it's going to give us the ability to actually honestly debate with the public the resources that we're spending for them.

Member Wilson, then Member Lessis. Again, I need clarification because I, I do hear what you're saying, but it's— I'm not completely understanding in that what I, what I've heard multiple times is without putting the— I think you phrased it as additional bucket, um, the non-action items. If we put on the non-action item on here, or if we don't put the non-action item on the agenda, we can come to the same conclusion. We don't have to vote on every piece and part of this budget. So I guess that's my confusion, is, is why go through the additional process if we're— if we can come to the same conclusion?

I think that presumes the conclusion is yes on all business, and if that's where this board goes, I would say we don't have the ability to grant yes on all business. There are parts of our business that require us to pause, let the public sink its teeth into the business, tell us what they feel about it, and then we vote after we've heard from them.

If we— or we remove it entirely, and then we just never take it up for business in the future. My concern with that is It's, it's not an honest presentation of an agenda to the public to say, should I fund the Alaska Middle College school contracted increase of $437,000 when Saturday morning was the first time they ever saw that ever? And what I'm much more comfortable doing is just creating a space for that to go. So that we can debate it only after we've heard people's feedback. But if we have to debate removing it, I'm concerned that we don't even have the right to debate that in front of the public.

According to our own established precedent, we don't debate non-action items. And if we're calling the Alaska Middle College School contracted services increase non-action, then it permits us to present it to the public and we can discuss it, but we're not debating a vote. And my concern is, if we're presenting each other with a vote on stuff the public has never seen before, it's rhyming really heavily with the Campbell closure in a way that I'm not comfortable with, and I don't think we have the fiduciary or ethical responsibility to support.

Please. Um, still not quite where you're at with the thought process in that you want to only add a non-action item, or are you asking that this entire memo be considered a non-action item and the board meet again and no decisions be made until the board meets again? Essentially what I would ask is when we create on the agenda a new memo I would spend the next couple minutes just drafting an S version of tonight's business of everything we've already discussed, which we did a lot of debate when we passed ASC Resolution 2526-2 or 2627-2 in the special meeting back in May. Yeah, 25-26-2. Okay, so I think there's a lot of tonight's business that we will still be able to vote yes on and give administration direction on because of the debate we had for that resolution.

It wouldn't remove everything into a deferred bucket. It would just move the stuff that we didn't— we didn't know we even had to talk about, and the public didn't even know it had to give us feedback on. Because it's the first time it's ever come up. So the English curriculum, notably, it did get presented to the board in Board Connect, which is not a public medium.

And the Alaska Middle College school increase is not something we knew about. We were, we were just not expecting that. So at a minimum, I would ask those two get moved, and if the board chooses not to move both, that's fine. That's something I think we would have to debate our ability to even vote on. But most of the business I think can stay because we did have a pretty robust debate for that resolution.

I will go to Member Lessans and I'll join the queue. Thank you. I appreciate all of this conversation and the chance to flesh out this concept. What I think I'm taking away from this is that Member McDonough is ultimately proposing essentially a new Item E non-action on the agenda with this motion, and then Item E— the current Item E adjournment would become Item F adjournment. But because of the sequence in which we would work through the agenda, my understanding from our process would be that we would first work through action item D1, ASD Memorandum 006, At that point, we can discuss any of the elements of that memo, and I would submit that we could take one or more elements from that memoranda, make a motion to move one or more elements to the new Item E, Non-Action Memorandum number TBD.

And in some way have our cake and eat it too, right? We create a new space for the agenda, and then to Dr. Bryant's point, essentially use our current act— and President Jacobs' point— use the current, um, memoranda which has been presented to us, uh, to essentially winnow, winnow anything out that may merit that additional review, that additional public process. But really, with this memo, which is— I move to modify the agenda by adding non-action section to the agenda and add a memorandum under non-action. That, that's sort of a blank check, but as I interpret it, it is simply creating item E, non-action, for, for consideration in our process. Does that make sense?

Would that, uh, yeah, the motion agree? Through the president, to answer the question, I don't actually see any difference between the, the motion on the screen and what you just described. So I support what you just described as giving us, like I said, a bucket or a place so that instead of just shutting down a particular element of this memo and say, I won't fund it, which is the only thing a no vote would do, um, to say it belongs better in a future reading and to affirmatively place it there, and, and for that to be a declared action of the board. So we would then have bucket number 1, which is stuff we need to vote on tonight, bucket number 2, which is stuff that we would defer, and a third rejection pile of things that we've already come to consensus is not something we would fund ever. And that's then a bifurcation of the bifurcation.

It's giving us two tracks on each path instead of three tracks. And so that would— it would add a Section E. That's correct. And I think we describe it differently, but we're envisioning the same thing. And I just would If we don't do that, we then only have a yes/no vote to things that need two different tiers of no.

We'll go to Member Bellamy, and then I'll join the queue. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question, I guess, for the Chair. Um, in discussing Memorandum 006, we can send items in this memo during that discussion back to the administration for future consideration, correct or not?

Um, a motion to refer typically is done to a board committee.

I think—. Okay, the—. It's a bit more complex. A member indicated that there's different kinds of nos, and that's correct. You can get to no for multiple reasons, and that's why the context of debate matters.

If we were to proceed with our current track of debating ASTM M-006, there could be a motion to remove a particular item indicating that they value the item.

However, the current approval track is not something that they feel is in the best interest of the public process or the district or students, and that then would be public record. Um, from a process standpoint, my concern is creating a second bucket of items that are deemed, for whatever reason, not fit to move forward tonight. We may be failing to consider other items that have equal importance and certainly have a dueling priority status, and that's something to consider as well. Does that answer your question, Member Bellamy? And then do you have other discussion?

No, it— I mean, it's— and I guess to rephrase my question, There are things in here that I, I, I'm not— I don't think I can approve tonight, but I would like to send them back to committee or back to probably back to commit to the Finance Committee for further discussion. Or, um, I mean, I creating, so I think we, I think To move through memo 006 will give us, will put us where we need to be. I don't think we, and it's not about, I hear member, board, a couple of board members talking about the Campbell situation. I, we understand, I mean, I understand that and I think it's very convenient to do that. I think that our process, while we want it to be improved, I don't know that we want to deviate so much that we, that, that we are not getting the business of the district done, and that includes having a viable public input process.

So while I absolutely agree that we, that some things in here should not move forward, at least not tonight, I think our process will allow us to do that without creating a whole nother bucket to put things in at this time. The things that are not approved can either come back at another time, another date, um, or be, uh, submitted back to committee in some way, and, and that's up to the board's discretion.

Thank you. I'm going to enter the queue. Um, I, I The intent of AST Memorandum Number 006 was to address administrative recommendations for critical spending items that are necessary in their estimation, and it's there on, on administration's shoulders to make the case as to why those expenses are urgent and the most prudent use of limited resources that are guaranteed to us in the state FY27 budget.

Um, if there is an interest in a board interest or administrative interest in removing an item that was recommended, I think the appropriate process is to take up the memorandum, which is effectively an urgent priority list, address those items, indicate not that there's a lack of support, but that it isn't a fit or isn't the best use of this funding that was made available at a date months after when the funding should have been made available. And that's a responsibility that falls on the state.

And at that point, the funding can be reallocated at a time when it makes sense from administration's perspective and the board's perspective.

From a procedural standpoint, creating a second memorandum with, with two, a couple items, a majority of the items, even one item from the spending list creates a different class of items that are deemed relevant to further discussion, which I think every expense.

That we both reduce from our budget as well as potential uses of new revenue fall into that category without a clear track for what approval looks like and when approval looks like and why that approval would fall ahead of other budget priorities if we were to receive certainty from the Department of Revenue next week. And so I think this decision as to how to allocate resources is best addressed in the most simple and transparent manner possible for the public. Which is one bite at a time. Administration has made a recommendation to allocate the known available funding. We should address those priorities one by one, and if there is available revenue afterward and administration wants to make another recommendation, or if there's a board interest in making a subsequent recommendation, there's a space to do that.

Um, I don't think creating a new process which is a hybrid, is necessarily the most easy to understand. And I think the, the number of board questions as well as the nature of this discussion that has made it clear that this process, while well-intended, isn't going to be digestible by the public. So I think our, our historical practice, which adheres to board policy of taking up this memorandum, addressing its merits, and making amendments to add, remove items and language in it, is the best path forward. So for that reason, I still am not in support at this time. We'll go to Member Lessons.

Um, we're still talking about the agenda, so in the interest of actually being able to open Pandora's box, I'd like us to find a way to resolve getting past agenda adoption. To that end, I would move to strike and replace the amendment with the following language: add Section E, Non-Action, to the agenda and renumber accordingly. I did email that to Ms. Sullivan, so if I get a second, I can second the move to strike and replace. Great, thank you. I think it maybe tidies up the intent of the— tidies up but aligns with the intent of the maker.

It simply creates a space to potentially move things. We may or may not once we actually discuss the memo, but we can't even discuss the memo until we adopt the agenda. So for simply adopting the agenda, what we have done in joint assembly school board meetings is sometimes add an agenda item. So that is the essence of this simplified amendment, which is add Section E, Non-Action, to the agenda and renumber accordingly. Really, the only thing that would be renumbered would be E, Adjournment, becomes F, Adjournment.

Uh, Member McDonough, you're in the queue.

Oh, while we're— I, I think it's kind of germane to both the stated motion and the amendment. Um, the only comment I think that's lingering that's very important as we decide if this intentional shift in how we structure public process— that's what Member Lessens and I, I think the wording that we've presented to you, while not perfect, it's acknowledging we need to be intentional about our ability to wield our public process. Um, several members have said that this is the state of Alaska's fault, and there is a lot of business in this district that is the blame of terrible legislation or terrible government administration or some combination of both from Juneau. And I would be the first to admit that. I would also say that how we engage with the city of Anchorage is not the state of Alaska's business..

It's not their fault that we don't adequately consider public input, and it's not their fault if we fail to consider and then get sued because of it. Um, I'm simply asking, and I think this language does a good job at recognizing there is a considerable amount of tonight's business that we have not heard enough feedback on, and we need to be able to accordingly admit that and become humble stewards of public funds in addressing how these decisions are made.

Um, I'll enter debate one last time because I think at least one of those remarks was reference to something I said. Removal of an item from Memorandum 006 would also accomplish the same thing without some of the semantics. And without an additional agenda section being added, an item could be removed from the agenda because the public process didn't meet that personal criteria of a particular member or a majority of the board. Adding a section of an agenda does not, to the extent that it creates additional public process, is a pure I, I see it most appropriately as a matter of optics. If a majority of the board chooses to remove an item from memorandum number 006 because of any particular reason to include public process, the board's remarks during debates are what are most important in my estimation, and not adding a section of an agenda that the majority of the public will never see.

So I place weight on what we do and what we say, which I think are best addressed by taking head-on the memorandum that administration's prepared and making those comments. We'll go to Member Blakeslee. Yeah, I guess I would just— I like this amendment to the amendment. I think it captures the intent that Member McDonough was speaking to. I think it's a nice, clean, simple way I don't think it's confusing for the public to understand that addition to the agenda.

I think they're pretty capable and smart. Um, and I, uh, I do disagree though that not having a non-action item bucket, um, is effectively an optics component. Um, because it— if we don't have it, then there, there isn't a mechanism. Just removing it from the agenda doesn't necessarily guarantee that we're going to commit to taking up that discussion or item discussion on that item in a future meeting. Whereas my interpretation of what the non-action item bucket does— and correct me if I'm wrong— then gives us the responsibility of discussing it in the next meeting, right?

Whereas removal doesn't, doesn't obligate us to then discuss it again unless we choose to, right?

From a procedural perspective, Member Blakeslee, when items are moved to non-action, they— when items are added to a non-action calendar, they become action items to a second action calendar at a future meeting is typically the past process. Right. And that's what I guess— that's what I'm saying is that having the non-action item category is essential so that we are able to discuss those items, whereas if we don't have the non-action item bucket, then we are not guaranteed to discuss it in the future without having that there. Is that—. Am I— is that wrong?

Maybe Medver Bellamy will correct me.

Not necessarily, no. We are guaranteed to discuss something in the future if a board member member brings up an item and makes a motion at a future meeting, or if a committee takes something up. It's not accurate to say that if the board fails to add a non-action item tonight and moves— for example, you know, we— this specific proposal has not been discussed before. There has not been a first reading and a second reading being tonight of how to spend approximately $11.6 million. The board has discussed the importance of adding teaching positions, and we've discussed how to potentially spend significant new revenue through a BSA increase.

Those things are not the scenario that we find ourselves in tonight. The scenario we find ourselves in tonight is very different and very nuanced compared to any other discussion that's happened thus far in our budget process, which is if we are only allocated $11.6 million, and recognizing that that may not be the case, how should that— how should that funding be spent? And so, uh, what administration has asked to do is bring forward an urgent list of priorities that if this funding is allocated, these are the ways that in their estimation is the best use of resources. And so the board was asked to weigh in, debate, amend, and address that memorandum and take action as it sees fit. Um, after tonight, the board could schedule a committee meeting, generate a memorandum.

We could call a special meeting. Majority of the board could call a special meeting. The board chair can call the special meeting in consultation with administration. Um, there is no lack of paths to guarantee additional discussion on any item in this amendment or memorandum, as well as any other item a board member deems critical to discuss. And there are certainly many of them.

Okay, long answer to a short question. I appreciate the question. Member McDonough. Um, I think I realized that this has been drawn out for so long with the misunderstanding that I and others perhaps are advocating for an optical like that this is about optics and theatrics. Um, to me it's not.

What's most important to me is that we do not alienate our stakeholders. But while we could continue to debate that forever, I don't think it will really help persuade people about how, and especially whether it's an optical theater or not. So I will ask that we call the question and just, and just vote. I think we have enough information. Everybody knows where their votes are going to be.

Member Wilson, one last clarification on the vote before we vote. We can't call the question without a second, so we're under discussion unless there's a second to call the question. Second. Is there any objection to calling the question?

Seeing none, still have clarification. Just clarify again what we are voting on and how would it affect the agenda. Please. Okay, well, right now we're going to vote on calling the question to end debate, and then I can reframe the, um, where we're at, what we're voting on. Is there any objection to the question being called?

Seeing none, the question has been called. What we are voting on is an amendment to Amendment 1, which is effectively a substitute made by Member Lessans and seconded by Member McDonough. It would add a not-blank non-action section to the agenda.

No, a blank section of our agenda titled Non-Action.

If there's no questions on that, we could have a voice vote.

Member Bellamy, I had a question before the vote. Did you not see my hand? Sorry, I did not. Do you—. Is your question regarding what we're voting on?

Yes. Yes, it is. Okay. So the amendment to the amendment is better than the original amendment.

If we're looking for consistency with— I mean, you know, this was a special meeting to address Memorandum Number 006, and we've spent an hour now trying to decide whether to amend the agenda of a special meeting. And that's fine.

Um, the original motion, uh, the original amendment was, was different. It wanted to create a space to put stuff tonight. I don't agree with that, so I'm hoping— making sure that this amendment to the amendment will create a non-action item which is consistent with all of our agendas in the first place, even though this is a special meeting to deal with one item, it will add— it would just be consistent to go along with the public process and the public's expectation that all of our agendas will have an action and a non-action space on it moving forward, including special meetings. Is that correct? Member Lessons, do you want to speak to the intent behind adding a section with no items to discuss called non-action?

The intent is to get to the memorandum itself and get past the roadblock that we've spent the last hour in. What the board chooses to do with a potential new Section E is whatever the board chooses to do with Section E upon discussion of the memo. I just want to get to the discussion of the memo. Thank you.

See no additional discussion, and it sounds like members know what they're voting on. Again, we're voting to add a blank section of our agenda called non-action.

Members, we can conduct a voice vote. Miss Sullivan? Member Bellamy? No. Member Wilson?

Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Higgins?

Yes. Member Lessens? Yes. Member McDonough? Yes.

President Jacobs?

No. Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 is adopted by a vote of 5 to 2. We have Amendment 1 as amended before us. Is there any additional discussion on Amendment 1 as amended?

Just a quick— Madam McDonough, I'd like to make sure it's clear the actual stated purpose of tonight's meeting, as the school district sent tens of thousands of people. I'll read it out, it's very brief. ASD community, now that the governor has approved the FY27 state budget, the Anchorage School Board will meet to discuss the next steps for ASD's FY27 and FY28 budget planning. Um, it did not specify any memorandum number. It is a broad— we have a broad— we've called the meeting for a broad purpose, and I do think we're still with an intent of the broad purpose of this special meeting.

Is there any additional discussion on Amendment 1 as amended? As amended.

Seeing none, uh, can we have a voice vote on Amendment 1 as amended?

Member Higgins. Yes.

Member Lessens? Yes.

Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Bellamy? Yes.

Member Wilson?

Member McDonough? Yes.

President Jacobs?

No. Amendment 1, as amended, is approved by a vote of 5 to 1. We are on our agenda as amended, with the amendment being that we've added a non-action, a blank non-action section of our agenda. Is there additional discussion on our agenda as amended?

Seeing none, can we have a voice vote to approve our agenda as amended?

Member McDonough? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Lessans?

Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Bellamy?

Yes. Member Wilson?

I had to step out, so I'm going to have to abstain unless somebody wants to catch me up. Yes, please. President Jacobs. Yes, our agenda is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. We'll move on to public comments.

Welcome to the board's opportunity for public comment this evening. Uh, during public comments, the board will not answer questions or engage in discussion with members of the public. This is the public's time to speak and the board's time time to listen. The board welcomes the public to observe and contribute to our meetings. We utilize Robert's Rules of Order to run our meetings and to encourage civil and respectful engagement.

We ask that you honor Robert's Rules by not attacking a member speaker's motives, no profanity or foul language. Please refrain from disturbing the meeting, and if you have handouts you wish to share with the board, please hand them to Ms. Sullivan, who's seated to my left. Additional details can be found on the handout located the door.

Okay, our first speaker tonight is Brad Kalb. Welcome, please come forward. You'll have 3 minutes. You can begin when you're ready.

Good evening. Campbell STEM is not just a line item on a spreadsheet, and it is not just a building. Campbell's a specialized science immersion program that is doing exactly what this district should strive to do— close the achievement gap. Campbell STEM has a diverse student population that is around 62% economically disadvantaged. When you compare Campbell to other schools with similar demographics, Campbell significantly— Campbell significantly outperforms them in both MAP growth and MCAS scores.

This program is a verified academic equalizer. It is a space where a diverse student body thrives because of an innovative program that should be emulated at other schools, not thrown away. Despite the— this objective success, there was zero logical justification for selecting Campbell out of the more than 50 elementary schools. Throughout previous rounds of right-sizing, Campbell was never once mentioned. Our community was blindsided by a sudden 10-day unvetted, unvetted decision.

The board has acknowledged this failure by creating an ad hoc right-sizing committee to fix school selection for the future. It is fundamental, fundamentally illogical to execute a flawed arbitrary closure today using a broken system while creating a committee to fix that system for tomorrow. I urge this board to undo the Campbell closure while this committee establishes a fair, data-driven process. Furthermore, the administration's financial justification is bad math. The administration omitted moving costs, holding costs, and failed to disclose that this closure forces the district to add at least 2 new bus routes to receiving schools, an estimated cost of more than $260,000.

The projected savings in year 5 is a mere $51,000. Those bus routes alone turn this closure into a net fiscal loss. When you ignore the public, hide the data, and use flawed math month to close successful schools, the public stops investing in you. The failure of the recent propositions was a direct referendum on broken trust. The decision to close Campbell cost the district more than $90 million in community investment.

Tonight you have the opportunity to restore some trust in the district. You have $11.6 million on the table, with likely another $32 million coming soon. Additionally, with the passage of HB 28, you'll have approximately $20 million in future years in the form of energy cost reimbursement, essentially giving you the permanent BSA increase asked for this— by asked for by this board for to reopen Campbell. The administration's proposed spending plan includes nearly $3 million for a new curriculum. I urge you to pause that adoption and prioritize keeping Campbell STEM open instead.

Curriculum updates can wait for the $32 million arriving by the end of August. Do not pocket this new revenue or rush into curriculum purchases while executing an arbitrary closure closure decision that alienated families and voters. Use this money tonight to protect a unique and innovative science program, and let the new right-sizing committee do its job properly. Please undo the closure of Campbell STEM tonight. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Mike Neals.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Please begin when you're ready.

Now, surprise, I'm here to talk about Campbell.

So to repeat a lot of the things that Brad just said, and, uh, specifically for our, for our newer members, um, Campbell has consistently tested higher than, than all the other schools that it's feeding into. All the schools that you'd closed previously went to similarly performing schools. You know, um, we sit between 150 to 300% above the other schools. Would you send your kids to another school like that, that much lower? Our indigenous population scores two-thirds higher than any other school in ASD.

Sorry, I just have a bunch of notes here. I don't have anything really, really going. Um, Campbell STEM is the only school in ASD in this and the state to perform substantially above its socioeconomic averages. Half of our students are not even enrolled for next year. We don't know if they're going to be enrolled into charter schools at Moore Lostview or, or homeschooled.

You—. We've been telling you, not just us but a lot of people have been telling you, uh, why you lost your bond money. Um, you've lost trust. Trust since February. We've been saying trust and transparency is— it's our number one thing that we keep going on.

In order to rebuild trust and transparency, you're going to have to back up to one of the places where it was broken. Carl, you've said on multiple occasions, if we get more money, that's the only way we can— we can open Campbell. Well, we got more money. Whether it's, uh, it's not how you wanted in BSA increase, but it does equivalent to what you'd asked for. Oh, what's the number?

It's about a $400 increase is, is what these, these one-time fundings equate to. So my question to you is, were you lying then, or will you be lying soon to us in the future?

This is another thing too, I guess, uh, is that, um, the numbers we keep hearing keep moving. It's $900,000 for a school, But with, um, with the bond debt reimbursement, now there's $2.1 that could be moved. That's why Campbell was targeted. Well, the state was able to choose 2 schools out of the state to fund, and Campbell was one of them. So this roof that's been funded twice has now been funded a third time to an additional $5 million.

The money is there. Let's rebuild some trust, because I'm tired of coming up here talking down to you guys. You know, I want to be up here congratulating, and, and I just can't. Um, I don't have a whole lot to do, so I, I'm just going to go ahead and, um, advocate for members of the board that will listen to the public, unlike half of you up there that won't. No, you don't need to be there if you're not going to listen to what we want you to do.

You don't need to be there if you're not going to work on what's best for the students according to the data instead of the theoretical math given to you by the administration.

Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Katrina Wilkoff.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. You can begin when you're ready. So I gotta walk up here.

Okay, uh, so good evening. My name is Katrina Wilkoff. I'm a parent as well as a teacher at ASD. Um, I've mostly been kind of looking at your guys' proposed budget and some of the areas I have some questions of. It's just, it's not very clear for public, and being an educator, we want to make sure that the way things are worded are clear to the people reading it and the people who are trying to learn from the information.

So one of the areas I was really questioning was, is you're requesting $120,000 for what is titled of school board membership. And as someone who does not know that lingo, school board membership, I'm like, you guys are voted into your positions, you guys are paid. So when I looked into school board membership, that funds goes towards covering legal fees and administration things such as like being able to serve on legislative boards. Again, this is what I have to Google on my own because your guys's information is not clear. So if that's not correct That's the only way I can get my information.

Um, and so that's concerning if it's going towards legal fees that you need $120,000 for certain types of legal fees. Second, there's an increase of $75,000 under fuel, and having had a school that's within a 5-minute walking distance of my house for my son, I'm wondering how much of that cost is because of the school closures. That you now have to create many more bus routes and have more buses. My son's estimated bus time to go to the school that you guys zoned him for is a 45-minute bus ride morning and afternoon. That's almost an hour he'd be on the bus.

There is also something I saw that I thought was very positive. You guys have a section under there that you guys want school board members to be allowed to serve as substitute teachers but you specified it in emergency situations only. School board members, I feel like you guys should be serving in those classrooms more than just in emergency situations. You guys pass decisions that directly affect our students, our teachers, and our staff. I think every quarter you guys should be spending some time in the classrooms, especially in the areas that you represent, seeing how the decisions you make affect your students, seeing how those decisions you make affect the schools.

Campbell STEM had the roof repaired. The only section of the school that did not have its roof repaired, Superintendent Bryan said, was leaking. That's because it was scheduled to be torn down this summer. That's over the library. It was scheduled to be torn down to create a double secure vestibule to create safety in our schools.

And you guys canceled that before it even had the chance to become. I'm hoping that as you guys are making these decisions with finances that you are looking at directly where those finances are going and how they are directly impacting your students that you are supposed to be representing for our parents and our staff. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Sarah Sundberg.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. You can begin when you're ready.

Hello, my name is Sarah Sundberg and I'm a parent of 2 students at Campbell STEM Elementary. Um, Board Member McDonough had mentioned a concern over public process regarding public knowledge prior to adopting the curriculum. Public process seems to be a theme for us, especially at Campbell, since February when we were notified of the school's possible closure. There's been no public involvement by way of an opportunity to have any type of two-way conversation between ASD and our community. Erin Baldwin Day ended up organizing a town hall so that we could discuss the school's closure.

I know that the school district was reached out to and offered to participate in this, but no response was received. And which is very disappointing to the family and community. Um, the process was skirted in court-ordered meeting during which an explanation outlining the process that was used to select Campbell STEM for closure. Um, Dr. Bryant had briefly discussed the lawsuit and explained that we didn't receive grants, but there were no metrics discussed for how Campbell was actually selected so the public was also kind of left in the dark. Um, the brief announcement didn't really provide any answers for us.

Public process and transparency are severely lacking, and I'm dismayed that it continues to be a problem. ASD lost the vote for significant funding because of this issue, and I thank board member McDonough for encouraging this due diligence. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Chaim Wenger.

Not seeing him present. We'll move to our last. Okay, Rob McDonald is not with us online.

All right, that completes our public testimony as community speakers to be heard.

We'll move, uh, to Superintendent Update C1. Dr. Bryant, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to use my time to, um, briefly recap what was shared during the board work session and to give our Chief Financial Officer Andy Ratliff the opportunity to present a brief presentation that discusses our spending proposal. Um, first off, I want to begin my remarks by thanking the Alaska State Legislature and the governor for passing and approving the state budget.

Their actions provide additional resources that will directly benefit students in ASD for the next school year. Tonight before the board is a budget proposal that reflects state funding that was appropriated by the legislature earlier this summer, well after the board adopted the original FY27 budget, which is why we're at this special meeting tonight. The budget proposal reflects a spending plan for approximately $11.6 million in new revenue that was recently approved by the legislature. Board Memo 006 directs these resources to the immediate priorities before students return to school. The largest investment restores more than 50 classroom teachers to help address class size pressures, elementary planning time, and scheduling pressures across all levels.

That remains the top priority— educator positions— for these dollars. It also proposes allocating funds for a grade 6 through 10 ELA curriculum. Curriculum. Uh, to be clear, the board is not being asked to adopt a new curriculum tonight. That would take place at a later date per our normal public process for boards approving curriculum.

The most time-sensitive piece before you tonight is our standard process entails that a small pilot takes place the year prior to full implementation, and that would be for this upcoming school year. So allocating dollars now would allow the administration to proceed expeditiously with the standard procurement process should the board formally adopt the curriculum at a later date. So our leadership team will be able to speak to the specifics of the process later tonight to extend upon our conversation in the earlier work session. But to clarify, no ELA curriculum contract has been signed because the board still needs to formally to adopt a curriculum and appropriate funding. So while the initial proposal before the board fully funds the cost of a potential adoption, the board has other options which could include allocating funds in phases that we'll recap in the, the presentation that Andy Ratliff will show you in a moment.

The pro of doing so would mean that the board would have freed up funds to use for other board priorities. Um, hold back teachers is one pressing need, and the board certainly may have a list of other items that, that are a pressing need. The proposal also includes smaller appropriations for the Alaska Middle College school, which we'll review. But in short, in June, our CFO received notice of tuition increases, which is why we're coming to the board requesting additional funds for Alaska Middle College to ensure that students have access to the full offerings at that school. Again, we'll have our leadership team speak to more specifics after the presentation, and we've also made smaller appropriations to various other operational priorities that we'll outline in just a moment.

And then looking ahead to FY28, I just want to recap that much of this funding is one-time., and it certainly does not eliminate ASD's long-term financial challenges. Many may have read in the media that additional one-time state funding may become available after the August 31st revenue determination, which is again to be made by the revenue commissioner. That uncertainty is why ASD, the board, and myself sent a letter to the commissioner asking for time timely revenue information. The timing of these dollars matters immensely because school districts need time to hire teachers, plan programs, and prepare. But unfortunately, it does not seem that the state is inclined to provide oil revenue projection ahead of that August 31st deadline, and that is not ideal, as August 31st is after the school year will have already started.

So as future decisions come before the Board will continue balancing two priorities: restoring targeted FY27 reductions where appropriate, and we also must be mindful of the projected FY28 structural deficit of more than $45 million. And just to recap, to balance the FY27 budget, we had to make $90 million in reductions across the entire district. And even though that FY27 budget budget was balanced. Our healthcare costs, our utilities costs, and wage growth continue to outpace the revenue increases from the state. Um, one of the reasons we executed a community survey was to understand the public sentiment on our approach, and the initial responses suggest that the community would approve of a balanced approach of restoring cuts while also being mindful of that deficit.

But with that said, we'll surely have more conversations as we get more information from the state. But just so the public is clear, every time the district uses $110 to fund a new position, for example, that will cause the deficit to grow, and there are going to be very limited ways to balance that FY28 budget given the severe reductions that have already been made. So with all of that context said, I'd like to hand it off to CFO Andy Ratliff to represent to the public what we discussed during the work session. All right, thank you, Dr. Bryant. So quickly, we'll go through some of the funding bills that passed and then what's in this memo, and then allow a little bit of time for any questions or comments.

Starting with HB 263 was the state's operating budget. It included about $144 million in one-time funding, of which ASD would receive approximately $5.5 million for energy relief and $32.1 million in one-time funds contingent upon revenue that's to be determined as of August 31st. So we're going to focus on the $5.5 million today, and that'll be in conjunction— and here's the language on the HB 263. That really says any amount over $6.3 billion in revenue that the state receives in unrestricted general fund revenue, the first $127 million will go to pay an energy relief payment as part of the permanent fund, and then after that is funded, the next $115 million, or up to $115 million, will go to school districts, and that'll make up the $32.1 million that we may receive sometime after August 31st. HB 28, kind of their omnibus education bill, would provide energy rebates in '28, but not really affecting FY '27.

There's a few other things: permits correspondence students to retain materials, allows school board members to be employed only in emergency circumstances. And that was really part of the actual bill to say it's an emergency circumstance to be be able to be employed as subs. School board member qualifications were updated. Reopening closed schools changes from 7 to 4 years, and then the required local contribution is really what is going to provide that $6.1 million in additional funding as well. And that's just caps that growth at about 4%, or at 4%.

In our current budget, it was at a little over 8% until they had capped that, uh, then a student loan repayment program. On the FY 27, or the required local contribution impact, um, our required local contribution would go down by $6.1 million, and that's a dollar-for-dollar change from the local to the state. So then the state picks up that $6.1 million, and we're allowed to use that through our additional discretionary contributions. So the $5.5 million from HB 263 and the $6.1 million from HB 28 really get to that $11.6 million that we are allocating in Board Memo 006. And really, um, going down the list, our most urgent need really is to have those teachers approved.

That way we can start the hiring on them. About $6.8 million, and for 50, it'll be essentially going to elementary specialist positions that were funded through holdbacks already and some additional holdbacks. So in the current budget, we had allocated or approved 40 FTE for holdbacks, and we used about 23 of those, I believe, just to shore up that specialist model to make sure we're providing adequate planning time for our classroom teachers. This wouldn't add new teachers into that classroom. Now we already have them in, in place, but they are being funded by holdbacks rather than just through the correct model.

So this will correct our financial model going forward and allow— essentially free up 50 teachers to be able to place into classrooms based on need. Alaska Middle College, the $437,000 that we've been discussing earlier, that's generally mostly a result of just increased participation in the program. Just more kids are taking those college classes. Classes wanting to get ahead.

So this would shore up that, you know, for a timing, you know, it's just a lot about the timing on when this would be allocated. Really, this payment would be for our— it would help fund the second semester of school so we could get through the first semester. But if we don't have the funding in place for second semester, it really is going to limit the number of kids that can participate or the classes they can take. There's a number of position corrections in there. It's about $70,000 in total.

Special Ed 504 Coordinator and the Indigenous Ed Specialist were inadvertently omitted from the budget. And this Whaley position was one we found later on that when we had actually prepared the budgets, we had reduced an FTE, but the salary amount essentially went in as a positive amount. We ended up that once we backed that out, it created about a savings of $200,000. So this is just kind of routine as we're checking our budgets, go back and reverify this over and over. We found this one, and again, you know, the total between these corrections for positions we need to make is about $70,000.

The English language arts curriculum, the $2.79 million there, we're going to discuss that on a later slide about how those payment options could come about. Um, there's activities addenda that we would need to fund, and that's really to fund— when we cut the sports programs and then added them back, there was still a pot of money left in activities in the budget that was for, you know, things like yearbook, some music stuff, just these other things, non-sport activity type things. And that money was really included in the amount that needed to be added back whenever that calculation was made. So this is kind of correcting that error to ensure those activities are provided to our students in high schools. Um, we did put money in what we call pending negotiations account, which really, as contracts are settled or about to be settled, we put money in there to, uh, to fund these kind of unknown items.

Um, so we do have some money that we could pay for that within our pending negotiations account, trying not to take that money from from the $11.6 million that was given to us through this memo. The fuel money is generally on our maintenance side. So as those maintenance, you know, those vehicles just cost more to operate now with the price of fuel going up. Hopefully that comes down, but I think we ought to go ahead and allocate some money into there just to make sure that we have enough to to get our drivers to schools to be able to fix what they need to fix. The school board memberships, um, again, that is the— for the Alaska Association of School Boards, the National Association of School Boards, the Coalition of Educational Equity, and the Council of Great City Schools all provide, you know, additional kind of trainings and professional development for board members and services that are useful.

The attrition we'll talk about a little later on, but really, you know, it's how much risk we want to take on as an organization, how much money we think we're going to save by having position vacancies. And then charter schools, about $440,000.

So for the ELA curriculum options, in the recommendation, it funds the entire, about $2.79 million, purchase in FY $625,000 in FY27. The other payment options that we have are about $620,000 or $625,000 in FY27, and then a little over $1 million in each of '28 and '29. So the $625,000 would be what we would essentially include in the budget to bring back to the board for the adoption of the curriculum and then be able to approve the contract with the vendor.

But the other money, that could be reallocated by the board, or however they— if the memo is adjusted to do something else with that funding.

Our attrition money, that's really used to account for financial savings of our unfilled positions and waived benefits. So what we do is we estimate the amount of savings we think we might have and direct those funds into additional student resources. The amount is $39.2 million is what we have budgeted as a— and you see it in the budget line item as a negative amount because we put the positive in those other school accounts. But really, you know, it's just a measure of how much risk we want to take on as an organization. As we've cut those positions, we cut quite a few positions, you know, fewer vacant positions may exist just due to not having those or those positions being reduced.

There may be fewer vacant positions due to improved labor contracts, and then just a smaller pool of employees to waive benefits. So that's really the, the reasoning by putting that money into the attrition is just how much risk we're willing to take on as an organization.

And then lastly, the charter schools, the required local contribution, the $6.1 million, their share of that is about $347,000. And that's distributed to schools on the basis of adjusted average daily membership. That's really just a standard practice that we have, and we receive one-time funding, and that's in state statute. The energy relief dollars were distributed to districts based on our proportionate share of our energy costs. So they took the pool of all districts' energy costs, um, apportioned a share to— or a percentage to each district based on how much they paid.

And then used that to multiply that percentage by the total amount of money they put towards energy relief, and that generated about $5.5 million for ASD as a whole. If we use that same methodology for charter schools and use their energy costs as a proportion of the district's— that our district's total FY25 energy costs comes to about $89,000. It doesn't exclude some charters that are in leased facilities that have energy costs included in their lease. So that is really, uh, the presentation. If there's anything you'd like to add, or Dr. Bryant, or anything else you want to touch on, I'd be happy to do that now.

Dr. Bryant, administration, are we clear to begin with board discussion and questions?

Yes. Okay, is there a board member who— well, we've completed the superintendent update, um, which is where we were on our agenda. We have our action item in front of us, ASD Memorandum Number 006-26-27 FY27 Budget Revision V2. Uh, is there a motion?

Mr. President, I move to approve Memorandum 006 to approve a revision to the general fund budget in the amount of $11,658,787 to allocate the initial funds approved by the state and increasing the total general fund budget to $616,199,000.

$673, With an upper— with an overall upper limit spending authority of $881,865,741.

Second. The motion made by Member Lessin, seconded by Member Wilson. Member Lessin is the maker of the motion. Do you have any discussion? Um, yes, thank you.

First of all, I appreciate the enormous amount of work and intentions behind this memorandum and the conversations we've had since 5:30 this afternoon, this evening.

But as I indicated earlier, I am concerned that in two— sort of in two areas, well, maybe three, that primarily that the recommendation, the initial recommendation to invest in the English language arts curriculum, is not something that the public has had a robust opportunity to weigh in on as a board action item. There has been a prior public process, but it was news to the board. However, I also recognize that there are time-sensitive concerns with respect to establishing a pilot for that program. So at this time, and in, you know, at a moment where we have radically eliminated classroom teachers in passing a balanced budget, I believe there is a path forward to initiate a pilot this year prior to formally adopting that curriculum and use a substantial portion of the $2.7 million proposed here, uh, in a way— actually, a series of ways that would benefit students, um, across the district. So at this point, I will move, uh, Lessons Amendment 1 and ask for a second.

At which point I'll talk about the amendment itself. I'll second. Motion made by Member Lesson, seconded by Member Wilson. Member Lesson, the floor is yours. Thank you so much.

Okay, so I'm going to direct board members to, um, the papers that America gave you. The first one on top should be labeled Lessons Amendment 1, and I will flag that due to our conversation, there slight difference, uh, towards the back of the second page. But for the purposes of working through this amendment, I'm going to talk through it right now. So the amendment is essentially to strike the English language arts grade 6 through 10 curriculum for $2.7 million bullet point and the supporting language on page 2 of the Memorandum 006 and replace that expenditure in that language with the following investments, which total the same $2.7 million. The first bullet point is $1.2 million, and I'm paraphrasing here, $1.2 million for 9 additional classroom teacher holdback FTE to address class size bubbles and scheduling conflicts at all levels.

This would bolster the additional investment the administration is making and speaks to— it is actionable tonight or tomorrow morning. The administration could take that $1.2 million and begin the allocation and hiring process if it— if and when it so chooses. The second bullet point, and, and it reflects, I will say, the will of the board as indicated in ASDR 2526-2S2 back at our special meeting in May when we we tried to allocate additional— we said we would allocate additional teachers if we received additional funding. The second bullet point is the restoration of 5.5 school-based nurse FTE, which amounts to $715,000, which would permit— and this is really based on the board's conversation during the work session at the early June meeting— permit an FY27 pilot of a fully staffed regional nursing model. When I listened to that meeting— I wasn't able to attend— what I heard is that the administration has a regional nursing model, but it is not essentially fully staffed.

And there was, there were questions indicating this would be of value. We could have nurses allocated to every school but also work through the pilot. The third bullet point would align with ASD Resolution 2526-2, 2 from May 12th and restore student access to both riflery, which I believe is a fall sport, and the dome, uh, for FY27. And again, we've invested a substantial amount of funds in secondary activities, um, so middle and high school student athletes will be able to use the dome. That $187,000 investment reflects the dome manager's offer to the board this spring to lower the price.

It's something that we talked about and prioritized earlier this spring. Um, the fourth bullet point is $52,000 to restore student transportation for the career expo and UAA visits. The next bullet point is $5,000 to restore freshman first day expenses, and I was the maker of the amendment in February that eliminated those items we carved out a handful of low-dollar amounts to fund zero-hour middle school learning, classroom opportunities, FTE, to deal with the fact that, um, middle school students wouldn't be able to meet all of their requirements and be in immersion. We then subsequently restored the entire middle school model. This is an opportunity to restore the opportunity for freshmen to broaden their horizons by accessing the career expo and complete university visits, as has been the case for the past couple of years, um, and would also restore the small amount of money cut for supporting their first day.

The second to last bullet point is just a remainder, and I suggest allocating the $833 to student supplies. There's another suggestion, I'm happy to take it, but we keep reducing student supplies by 10-15% every year, so let's buy some more sticky notes and paper and I don't know what else. And then finally, it invests $625,000 for the SAWAS My Perspectives Grades 6-10 Curriculum Pilot Materials. And here I want to be very clear that the next section— and, um, if you go through your paper, uh, the next section really leans on the, um, information that was shared with the board on June 12, 2026. It's essentially a copy-paste with some corresponding edits just to make it read better about the background of the ELA curriculum.

That, that fills out the bulk of the first page.

It underscores in the middle of the second page that purchasing these pilot materials will allow the following implementation timeline. The implementation timeline I copied and pasted and adapted from the implementation timeline that was used for the April 18th, 2023 approval of the Illustrative Math Timeline. So there was a multi-year sequential order, and I am adapting it for this purpose. But the revised, um, where it's different on your printed paper because that was printed before the meeting from what I believe is posted online, the correct one is posted online, and I will just flag that, um, where it currently in your printed paper says under the 26-27 pilot, it says purchase district-wide materials when revenue via HB HB 263 is finally allocated. Instead, it channels our conversation and clarifies— and it's actually in bold online— that pending formal board adoption after revenue from HB 263 is determined and allocated, purchase and distribute district-wide materials at an estimated cost of $2.16 million.

And I think I might have missed the word 'and.' We can make a corresponding edit. Later on. So that is, that is essentially what we have here. So the takeaway is that by striking the current proposal of $2.7 million all to an ELA curriculum, we essentially invest in the pilot and use the remaining $2.1 million to restore teachers, nurses, student activities, student opportunities, student supplies, and we initiate the pilot sequence, but not an actual board approval, which would come at a later point in time this fall. I'm happy to field questions.

Thank you for listening. Thank you, Member Lessons. I'm going to jump in the queue to ask administration a question. Um, there was, um, I think some confusion, um, at least a couple different attempts to explain how the curriculum adoption process for SAVAS grades 6 through 10 came to, to be its current state. Could administration take some time to explain what transpired, why this expense wasn't in our initial budget that was put forward by administration, then approved and then why this funding wasn't addressed when the board addressed potential spending priorities for a significant BSA increase that never came to pass.

Thanks. Sure, thank you, President Jacobs. Um, so I, I got some clarity between our work session and the meeting tonight from the team, and, um, so essentially, um, we're in a different budget year. Typically in the past When we've had curriculum adoptions, we've had a $1 million curriculum budget wedge essentially in our budget. That's not in our current budget, and typically that actually funds pilots like you're talking about tonight for our curriculum process.

And so, um, I thought the memo had been given in the spring, but it was actually just a briefing. So I'll own that, that memo hasn't come to the board yet, um, and in the transition with Mr. Gustafson leaving and handing off between all of us, that detail was dropped on my end, so I apologize for that. Um, what is at play now is that we have done the curriculum review process. We briefed the board, which essentially led us to starting to cost out what that curriculum would be. And so we're at the point now where we essentially, regardless of what the curriculum is or what we chose, those, in order to plan ahead, we need to know what the board is willing to fund so that we can continue that planning.

Um, we do have a curriculum adoption memo essentially that is being drafted for the board as the next part of the process, but part of the reason this feels somewhat backwards to the board is that, that the removal of that $1 million wedge in our budget has, has caused us to come to you earlier than we normally do without a memo memo because we need to conduct the pilot. Typically, that pilot has been funded already by the board with that $1 million curriculum wedge in the budget. And so we're here in a different process asking for permission to fund the pilot so that we can then come to the board with the official adoption memo and contract process. And so, um, that's kind of where we're at. Um, the To speak to President Jacobs' mention of how, how come we didn't know about this, to be honest, we just had a lot of things happening in this budget year, and we have put off curriculum adoptions for years and years despite what subject it is, based on really unpredictable funding and lots of budget complications over the past few years from the state level on down..

And, and honestly, from the federal level on down, because we've had that uncertainty as well. So, um, there's really not like one specific reason I can give you other than we've been trying to juggle all of that as an administration and likely did not come to the board with all transparency at the beginning. We were just following our approved public process.

Thank you for that explanation. We'll go to Member McDonough and Member Higgins. Um, thank you, Mr. President. On the amendment, I, I will have two matters I would ask the board for the board's vote on. Um, the first is just on the, um, I'll suggest a wording change here in a moment, but I'd like to explain the intent first.

Um, I do appreciate revisiting the parts of the budget that were stricken that feel very urgent and high priority. I agree, I think, with the intent of this priority list very closely, um, with the Deputy Superintendent— or the, the Chief Deputy Superintendent, I think is your title. Sorry, um, with Dr. Johnson-Strumpeler's explanation of the process, I'm much more confident— comfortable using tonight's business to reappropriate into the fund, but not to specify exactly what it's used for, because the board has not yet gone through the process of publicly presenting the curriculum and approving the curriculum. So I would prefer that the memo has some changes so that we fill the curriculum fund with as much money as the administration says it needs for a pilot and only a pilot. And then we'll be able to look at the very likely scenario of one-time funding here in the near future to, to fill the next 2 years of that curriculum.

Um, so I will move, uh, the first action I'm asking, I will move to remove or move to strike the words 'savvas my perspectives' from the 7th bullet point and to strike the 1, 2, 4th paragraph onward from Lessons Amendment 1, including on the back side. Everything from the 4th paragraph on. So, and for the public who doesn't see the memo right in front of them, the 4th paragraph onward is explaining the process the district has used to present a series of curriculum to its teachers, to the public. Basically, the administration itself has agreed on a single recommendation, which is this My Perspectives curriculum. And while it really is the board's, um, I think we owe it to the process the administration has to affirm what it brings forward as a recommendation.

It hasn't yet brought it forward as a recommendation, so I would rather leave these out of this memo, let them come to us in due course. I'm basically removing these from the Lessons Amendment with my move to strike because I would like to avoid a scenario where we accidentally have the tail wagging the dog, where we've already specified a curriculum without yet fully being able to engage the final ends of that process. So this description will be presented to us later by the administration in justifying the recommendation to adopt SAVA. This, but tonight I think the only thing we need to do urgently is to fill the fund with the amount so that they can begin the procurement process. Um, I'm going to ask if there's a second first.

Member McDonough, I need you to get to work on typing that out, please. I'm sending it to Miss Sullivan. Um, is there a second? I'll second. Okay, we can engage in additional discussion while Member McDonough is doing Um, Member Higgins, I see you in the queue.

Are you attempting to discuss the amendment to the amendment?

Um, no, I guess I'll pass while we do that one. And then the only other member is Member McDonough in the queue. So is there any other discussion on the amendment to the amendment?

Okay, then we're going to take Um, a 60-second recess while we get the amendment typed up and uploaded to our system.

Okay, we're going to gavel back in here at 8:41 PM. We're on the amendments to the amendment made by McDonough, seconded by Lessens. Which is to move to strike the word Savas Mai Perspectives from the 7th bullet point, replace with ELA, English Language Arts, and to further strike the 4th paragraph which begins the curriculum review process and everything afterwards from Lessons Amendment 1. Is there discussion?

Um, can I just get an update from Um, I'll give Kirsten a moment and Jim, because this is probably their question.

Um, that we are still like— so what this would do is, is put the money in the fund.

And is this, is this lacking clear direction for administration to continue the process?

No, I mean, Jim could chime in here too, but essentially, if you if you fund the pilot, that will keep us on track and we can come back to the board for the official approval process.

Seeing no other discussion, Miss Sullivan, we can have a voice vote.

Seeing no other discussion, we can have a voice vote on amendment. Member Bellamy, this—. We're voting on the— you didn't state the, uh, we're voting on the amendment to the amendment. So didn't get to clarify for members. So we are voting on Amendment 1 to the underlying amendment.

And Member Bellamy, can you see the motion on the screen? I can, yes. Okay, perfect. Okay, so we'll have to adopt separately a vote on the amendment as amended if this is passed. Move a voice vote, please.

Member Higgins?

Yes. Member Lessens? Yes. Member McDonough? Yes.

Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Wilson?

Yes. President Jacobs? Yes. Amendment 1 to Lessons Amendment 1 is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. Is there additional discussion?

Member McDonough? Okay, I'm already reeling in my head where now the discussion is, um, so with the amendment passing— oh, we're back on the Lessons Amendment 1. Um, so we're now on discussion. Yeah, Amendment 1 is amended. Yeah, as amended.

Um, there's a bit of a procedural change up here for the purposes of debate that I think I would like to bring forward. And this item is the— it's the part of this memorandum where I found the closest fit of the dollars match. Um, so while we have not yet I'm sorry, I will— I need to, um, trying to think the right way that this needs to be presented in order, because I respect the need for this. And I think if this— I'll just state my intent and then fumble around a type of motion. Um, so while we're looking at this particular item of the English English Language Arts 610 curriculum, which was originally proposed to cost the board $2,786,873.

Um, this lessons amendment changes out what that money is spent to include only the piloted option of $625,000, and then another $2.1 million basically, um, assorted into different areas of priority need, such as classroom teachers, nurses, the sports contracts. And I want to affirm, I think, that we need one final, basically, vote. The board needs to make its will very clear to the public As we're all, I'm sure, grateful and share the gratitude that our superintendent expressed, that the state has given us the ability to plan ahead for the future. Um, House Bills— these two House Bills that are in this memorandum are structural revenue. I think that they are an inadequate dollar amount to address all of ASD shortfalls, but they have shown that the state lawmakers are listening when we say we need structural, recurring, and dependable revenue structures, especially because of how volatile the costs of running a district are in Alaska.

I will make it clear that I think this is the last time that a vote vote can even exist on this issue. And I don't relish constantly relitigating old business, but the old business is about Campbell, and it's about the justification this board gave in choosing to close— declaring that it will close the school. Um, and basically the way that Juneau has responded, I think, warrants a public response from the board. So not really to strangle out the Lessons Amendment, but it— this is where I would put a Campbell restoration, is in the amount of about $2.7 million. We could get Campbell back, and I think we have to decide that before we decide the merit of these specific bullet point changes.

Um, I will make it very clear that due to our advocacy as parents community members, as an administration, as board members, the state of Alaska returned with at least $12 million of mostly structural funding. This money will keep coming back year after year after year and address the volatility of things like fuel prices and property values, which can be some of the spikier points of an education funding graph. So this is state stable money, which is one of the things that the board said was an issue at the Juneau level when it closed the school for Campbell. I will quote a comment made by the board was, quote, I blame Juneau.

They gave us recurring funding. In addition, there's capital funding and one-time reimbursements that will probably amount somewhere in the $20 to $100 million range when all things settle out, uh, the capital funds being the larger share of that. And I think it just calls into question, because we have never really justified beyond I blame Juno, I think we have to commit to the public if there is any changes of our justification, if there's any change of will, where does the priority of Campbell lie? Um, I think it has to be decided, so I'm going to ask to move to strike, and, and I can, you know, if through debate, I think this is going to take its own debate. Um, I would encourage people to suggest how this is worded, but move to strike from I suppose it's amend the entire amendment, um, so that what everything in the bullet points down is simply stating the restoration of Campbell Stem Elementary School.

So move to strike bullet point 1 on down and replace with, uh, fund the restoration of the Campbell Stem Elementary elementary school. And I think this is— it's, it's less—. It—. First of all, I, I will dispel in advance, there's no optical gain here. I'm not standing to gain any form of optical victory.

This is about decency and honesty and about being able to authentically show people where our will is. So we need to make a vote. We need to be able to show people what we justified 4 months ago. The factors really have changed. The state did respond exactly to what we said was the problem.

And if our will has not budged, we need to be able to make that commitment now.

And I think secondarily, um, we can litigate, we can ask administration for timelines. If this is a restoration in the year 2027-28 because of an impossibility, we can look at that later. But really, the state undermined our own justification, and so this Amendment, and the reason I'm taking over the Lessons Amendment is not to remove those as priority. I think they'll need to be brought back, but it's because it's this dollar amount. $2.78 Million is nearly identical to what we said we recovered from the first year of closing Campbell.

So with my move to strike, it would be from the Lessons Amendment 1 1. I move to strike everything in the first bullet point down and replace it with restoration of the Campbell STEM Elementary School.

Uh, Member McDonough, please type that up and send it to Ms. Sullivan via email. Uh, is there a second? Second. Okay, uh, Member McDonough, do you have any additional discussion?

None. No, none at this time, but I'm here for questions from members if they have any. I see Member Higgins in the queue. Thank you. What— one of the things I had hoped that we would have tonight would be a list of all the things that you're looking at adding and all the things you're not adding so that we could evaluate options here and actually participate in the discussion without being asked to approve what we decided and we won't discuss more.

You don't— I don't know whether or not Are you targeting Bowman to eliminate the kindergartens even with this, or is there other changes out there that are going on? The Campbell to me has been straightforward from day one. We've heard it with the assembly when we met with them. They voted budget, prove it 7-5. They want to send a message.

We got a message from the mayor, please delay this a year. They really pushed that issue. We got it from the public. No $90 million. We've got it from legislators.

We've got it from everywhere except we're not listening and we need to. STEM is a great program. There's no way you're going to keep STEM program going for all the kids because they're being divided in 3 schools and we're not going to have a STEM program for them anyway. And, and the savings, I like the idea or the point being made that next year we got a deficit. We don't know what we got.

We need to be careful. Well, in 5 years, if we're going to keep doing the deficit, we're going to have a bigger deficit by closing Campbell because $51,000 is not going to cover the cost of closing that school. And what really bothers me is that in this discussion, the discussion is how do we close schools. The discussion is not focused on what's best for kids. What options do we have?

We got daycare programs, we're funding from the state right now for free. We have a lot of options. We don't discuss that. We haven't put a thing to say our goal is and put kids in there without saying it's a building we can close. It—.

That is what really drives this bad. We gave them no time for the public. What are we going to do if we lose lawsuit? How are we going to handle that? Let's eliminate that as an issue.

We can do that now by simply saying this may not be the best decision. I don't, I don't see how Campbell is a better decision over other schools. I'm sorry, it doesn't make sense at all. It's a high-performing school and it just shouldn't be out there. So I'm hoping that somewhere along here the school board will say, let's clear the plate.

You know, some of these monies that you're asking for, if you get it approved in August, is not going to impact you that bad. Some of it you need to approve today. So I appreciate that. That's a difference. The $2.79 million today or August, I don't see how that's going to make a difference.

And you even made a comment yourself, if you had not gotten the funding, you would find a way to make it work. That kind of takes that off the plate a little bit of being critical at this point, except it's a good number to throw out there to say, oh, it's not available because for the— for keeping Campbell. I hope that we will have some— I know we have a majority minority on the board. That's the way the public sees it. That's the way I see it.

I hope that we will have an opportunity here to say, given the cost to the— to the school district, given the cost to the trust and the transparency of the school board, that we were willing to step back and say, let's examine this again. Let's—. Let's do this properly. We realize that it rushed through. We realize that we've lost confidence.

We want to reestablish confidence and make this change. And I hope that, that I know is pushing people who, you know, have that control. But I'm hoping that we are listening to the public right now. We are putting kids first because I do not believe closing Campbell is going to help the students. That's off the plate.

I do not see that. That hasn't been supported. That is not out there. And if we're not putting kids first, what the heck are we doing on school board?

Member Lessens.

I think it's helpful to have a conversation. To Member Higgins' point, doing what's best for kids is is, I think, a passion of every board member up here. You don't run for school board unless you care about students. I think it's important to understand that as board members, we, we have to make really hard choices, and I'm going to vote no on the amendment. But to your question, Member Higgins, if the board votes no on the amendment, we will be in total adding 59.5 teacher FTE.

I don't know how to calculate the impact to our district. It's certainly not enough. We cut— I don't know, triple that amount. From the budget, somewhere about that, um, for next year when— with our PTR plus 4. But we will be decreasing— when you add one 4th grade teacher to a school of, I don't know, 80 4th graders, all of a sudden you go from maybe 2 teachers to 3 teachers.

You are impacting all 80 4th graders, or the weird combination classrooms, right? That one teacher has a ripple effect. We can do that 59.5 times over. That's just at the elementary level. At the secondary level, when teachers are responsible for, I don't know, 170, 180 students over the course of their day, unless they're a music teacher, in which case they have a whole lot more, um, right?

The, the— we are providing students with opportunities up and down the system to learn in smaller settings than our budget in February allowed. Restoring nurses to effectively one nurse per school, but with the interesting and important new twist of the regional nursing model, right? We're going to be able to maintain support for high acuity schools without chronically leaving low acuity schools, uh, I think at a loss of their nurse, right? If you're a low-acuity school, my takeaway from your convers— the board's conversation at the last meeting, uh, was that low-acuity schools probably aren't going to be seeing their nurse— nurses a whole lot. Restoring 5.5 nurses will help hundreds, if not thousands, of students depending on the size of that student body.

Um, the restoration of this memo, because I sort of see this amendment as part of the memo right? We're also going to be restoring a special education FTE, an Indigenous education FTE. Restoring services for the dome is, um, however many thousands of students are participating in middle and high school sports that utilize the dome in inclement weather, as well as the students who, um, would be utilizing riflery. Um, the list goes on. So I understand your focus on what's best for kids.

That's who you are, and I appreciate you underscoring the importance of doing what's best for kids. I just want to underscore that that's a complicated thing, and this— the amendment to the amendment restoring Campbell would do a good thing, but it would also prohibit the ripple effects that utilizing those funds across the district would enable.

Um, we'll go to member— well, before we go to member Wilson, um, no, we're going to member Wilson, then I'm going to enter the queue to ask a question.

So I appreciate also what, um, Member Lesson said, and I, I also appreciate, um, what Member Higgins said. I, I agree that we all— I, I don't believe any of us would be here if we didn't put kids first in our decision-making. That doesn't mean we always agree on that decision-making. Which is why there's 7 of us elected. We have the opportunity to agree and disagree on each decision.

I, I will reiterate that I do believe that each of us is here because we are putting kids first. I do— this amendment to the amendment also brings up a lot of questions. Into the administration, the staff from Campbell specifically, because that's what we're discussing, um, have they taken other positions in the district? And if this was to move forward and the board chose to move forward with this amendment to the amendment, how would this affect staffing?

Member Wilson, I can address that. So there were, I believe, 54 staff members assigned to Campbell STEM this previous year. We did have about 10% resign, probably an average attrition rate. The remaining staff were given opportunities to take positions other places in the district. I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, by the end of April they were Spread across over a dozen different schools throughout the district, so they didn't all necessarily follow students to the 3 receiving schools for Campbell STEM, and that includes the principal who took a new position at Chinook Elementary.

So if we—. If the decision—. Board's decision were to restore Campbell STEM, we would have to jump very quickly on the process of of hiring or, you know, figuring out who's going to be the principal for the building, probably bring them back on contract early, and then begin the process of working through our contract processes to see which of those staff would want to transfer and return and which would need to be hired, you know, through new hire, the new hire process.

Mr. President, a quick point of order, because I do understand, and I don't mean to diminish how hard it is to restore a school. Um, that's why I worded it very carefully to fund the restoration but with no date. Um, so what this does is tells the superintendent to put the money back into the account. I think at then a future moment we would—. Mr. McDonough, are you— the point of order is on, on the A point of order is a procedural rule that you believe has been broken.

If you would like to clarify the intent of your amendment, you can do so. Okay, sure. Uh, Mr. Member Wilson, would you like me to clarify the intent then on, um, sure? And then I would like some follow-up.

Okay. Um, I, I honestly think, like, if I'm, if I'm wearing my school administrator hat still I would have a lot of heartburn at a board trying to put a school back into operations in July, and I would say the, the cleanest and least harmful way to do that is to do it for the following school year. Um, and then I think that type of permission needs its own vetting with the, with the board. Uh, so this is to say the funds are held and that we're directing that the funds are preserved for the intent of the school, not to effectuate the changeout of the schools at the 11th hour, because I think there's going to be a lot of reasons they can't move a school in a month.

But it would— if we don't even have the funds available, like if the funds are there and they say the best way for it to happen is to do it next year. Then we grant that permission. We, we make that motion at a future meeting.

I don't think we could, and I just don't think we have the right ability to even debate how to restore a school in a month. So right now, this is to make sure that we have the ability to open it and for the administration to present its best course of action, and then we approve that plan, or we we, we issue that order to the superintendent.

Member Wilson, does that conclude your remarks and questions? No, that actually really gave me a slew of additional questions.

Um, I, I would like the administration to have the opportunity to respond to that because there's just so many questions in my mind and so many concerns. That clarification brought up. Dr. Bryan, administrative team, Member Wilson's asking for your feedback on the comments and discussion thus far on the Amendment 2, uh, to Lessons Amendment 1. Do you have any perspective you'd like to share? I think my only wondering is whether Member McDonough intends to set aside the $2 million or so for the purpose of Campbell STEM for FY28, but the money would not be spent until the board approves a plan to reopen the school.

So I guess the question is, so in other words, are we recommending that funding be set aside and not used for immediate student needs? Um, and just asking clarification.

So my understanding of most of this amount of money, and it really isn't exactly 2, but this is the amount in, um, the change-out. Um, $2.2 million, as the administration has presented to us several times, is the amount of a bond debt reimbursement account that we've been able to move into the general fund if the school is basically not a school that we operate. Um, what this amendment would do is to not deem the school in excess, and therefore we have to immediately put that money back into the bond debt reimbursement account. And so most of this money would pretty much be spent as soon as the motion is passed. Um, the remaining funds, again, I think I think the devil is in the details, and what matters most is that we are able to actually justify decisions as a body and take ownership of the decisions we make.

But there would be about $586,000 remaining in the fund, which I would imagine would require— we'd have to keep a principal for the school. To manage this weird, bizarre school state that we'll have with, um, an unprecedented changeover. Um, so to me, um, having the money held, it is for the immediate gain of students. And there's a lot more I could talk to, but while we're still answering, uh, Member Wilson's questions, um, I think that to me, like, most of this money is actually just going to go back into that, like, change out of the state bond debt that was otherwise placed into the general fund because of the, the decisions made back in March.

Member Wilson, do you have other questions at this time? I'll hold for the moment. Okay, I'm going to jump in the queue with a couple questions.

Um, the first, and Dr. Bryant, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ratliff, any member of administration, could you remind me how much new and recurring revenue ASD can expect due to legislative action this session?

So I think we can expect for— are you asking for FY28, Mr. Jacobs?

Yes, what can FY28, FY29?

So I mean, to kind of reiterate, I guess in FY27, we're dealing with now, we have the $11.6 million that's before you for FY28, 5.5 of that, it will go away. So that's the one-time money. We could potentially get $18 to $20 million in energy relief in FY '28 and going forward if, if it's approved by the state, if they authorize the funding. But aside from that, there's no additional BSA dollars or anything that has— is planned. Okay.

So the majority of the new revenue that we can expect for FY28 is for energy relief.

It would come back, I believe, in the form of just general dollars that we can spend, however, but that's how it's calculated, is based on the amount of energy districts spend. Okay, and then what was explained just a minute ago? That, um, this motion would have the effect of adding $2.7 million to a school bond debt reimbursement line item in our budget, and that the money would be spent almost immediately. Is that, Mr. Ratliff, your understanding of how you would effectuate the impact of this motion?

Um, yeah, I mean, we may want to discuss how the mechanics of it— if we were to say we don't need that, we would need to revise the budget in a way where you don't have that transfer in from the capital projects for $2.2 million. Um, it would essentially be just less reliance on fund balance, I believe.

So, I mean, we could— I'm sure we could make it work if that's what the board approves, but we would have to delete that line item on the revenue to say there's the $2.2 million there, or we just budget $2.2 million less somewhere. Essentially, we just don't spend all the money that's out there. Okay, we'll go to Member Lessons, then back to Member Higgins.

Um, is it maybe a question for the administration and probably Mr. Ratliff? We're talking about, and I appreciate the, the novel energy relief, which I believe the language is subject to appropriation, um, in future years of $18 to $20 million. Can you help remind us what the— like, we have growth year over year in our contracts and the cost of our contracts. Will general, you know, the cost of our 9 different bargaining units, can we assume that contractual growth will exceed an $18 to $20 million? I mean, just as our contracts contracts currently stand, right?

Sure. So the, um, the contracts we have, I think most of them have about 5% wage growth in them for next year. Uh, 5% across all of our budgeted items would be about $30 million in growth. Um, that coupled with about $14 million in one-time funds that we're spending this year currently, that's how we get to about the $45 million structural deficit that we're facing for FY28. So yeah, if we do, even if we do get the energy relief money, the $18 to $20 million, we still have, you know, $25 more million to go or so after that.

Great, thank you. So, so energy relief will be appreciated but will not close our structural deficit on its own for FY28. No, ma'am. Thanks. Okay, we'll go to Member Blakeslee, um, and then Member Bellamy.

Okay, I had, I had a lot of questions. Now I gotta reorganize my thoughts.

Um, Andy, can you just re-explain when you were speaking, when you said that if you took that $2.2 million and you put it back, you took it out of the, the general fund, it have less reliance on the fund balance. Can you, can you explain what you meant by that?

Uh, sure. Well, I guess it may not be actually fund balance now that I'm thinking about it. We just have, um, essentially if we got $11.5 million by this $11.5, $11.6 million of new money by the state, you would budget— I guess that would be $9.4 in new costs. So it'd be new state money. I guess we'd have to adjust that line item for, uh, the transfer out or in from the capital projects.

Okay. Um, And I know that this $2.2 million, or I guess this $2 point— where the amendment is, $2.7 million referred to here. Um, can we just verify that that is the true cost of restoring the school? And second question with that, what the true— just a reminder, I know we've talked about it— the true net net savings in year 1, accounting for additional expenses associated with closing a school, like new bus routes, etc., right? What the net savings is— is that— is this number on here correct, and what the true amount is?

Um, I don't believe it'd be the correct amount to actually restore it, and I believe Member McDonough actually alluded to that as to as well. The $2.2 million would go to replace the school bond debt money, which leaves about $586,000 remaining. I believe it cost a little over $900,000 to restore that. Um, that's— and as far as the bus routes go, I don't— double-check with Mr. Anderson, but I don't believe we actually— I think we were able to reroute those where we didn't add any bus routes to it.

There are no new bus routes for Campbell STEM students to go into their receiving schools.

I'll confirm tomorrow. I do know that the— for all 3 schools combined, um, plus the HG to Rogers Park, we were able to actually reduce the total number of buses. Um, honestly, I didn't expect this to come up in detail tonight. Right. So I, I don't have the buses, but I will get that to the board.

And I guess I'm just curious about the buses as a facet of expenses that are added, right? When you close a school, you reshuffle students, and there might be additional expenses. So I'm not speaking only to bus routes— that's one component of additional expenses that I'm speaking to— but I'm most interested in what the net savings are, not savings in, in terms of $2.2 million, but the net after you factor in additional expenses associated with cost, like closing a school, which again, I know you aren't prepared for this topic, so— but that's what I'm interested in as we're talking about this topic. Um, and then can, can the administration, um, give a little bit more insight as to where Campbell STEM is specifically in, in the closure process, right? And I know we've talked about a little bit about staffing.

I heard you say— I wrote this down really fast— um, there were 54 staff at Campbell STEM, 10% resigned. Is that right?

That's correct. I think as of mid-April, and it may be higher since then, there were 5 or 6 staff that had resigned. And so yeah, roughly about 10%. Um, and do you know Did they give rationale about why they resigned? Would they— they resigned because their school was closed, or were they going to resign anyway?

Do we have, I don't know, data on it? We can look at the reasons that they listed on their notice of resignation, but we haven't done that analysis, no. Okay, and I'm only asking that to see if there's like an expectation that those teachers might come back if circumstances changed, if we might receive those teachers back. We're also talking about attrition in this broader budget proposal. So I'm just thinking about if there are factors to consider around, you know, teacher satisfaction.

Okay, so 54 staff, 10% resigned, principal took a new position. That's staffing. Do we have any metrics about where— and you might not have this, but a preliminary assessment of how many of those students from Campbell STEM have actually signed up to go to their receiving schools? Um, because then that's another just metric about potential loss in student population, or what, what the impact is on those receiving schools that might be expecting to receive those students. So I could speak to that, Member Blakeslee.

Um, so we don't have totality of numbers yet because the registration process is still ongoing and it will continue through the start of school. So I can't give you exact numbers right now off the top of my head. Okay, um, and I, I know that a lot of people haven't signed up or registered yet, but it just— again, trying to, to sort of really look at the big picture of, of this particular topic. Um, and then beyond that, where Campbell Stem is in the specific closure process— I know we've talked about moving furniture and things out of buildings, right? And I've also heard from parents at Campbellstown that maybe that process hasn't actually initiated yet at the school.

So while we're talking about expenses that would then be required to then bring furniture back to a school, is that, you know, where is it in the, in the closure process? So they've moved about 50 pallets of equipment out of Campbell. They didn't work Fourth of July, but they have been working there since I don't— I know there's IT equipment has been redistributed. I know some other equipment's already gone, unique equipment has gone to other schools like Klatv and Chinook as well, or, or been tagged to move. But when I checked this afternoon, they were up to 50 pallets in the last couple days of equipment that's already moved.

Okay, and I, I did not ask the details on what was on each pallet that though. I, right. And I, well, do you have a concept of how many pallets are typically used to—. I mean, are we looking at a school that size? Um, that's probably in the 15 to 20% range.

Okay. Of, okay, so there's still sort of at the beginning stages, it sounds like, of moving out of the school, right? It was on purpose because of a lot of things to include legal We intentionally did push the biggest moves to be later, but, um, you know, as you know, in about 4 weeks schools have to be set. So yeah, yep. Um, and then my another question, and then I'll yield for other colleagues of mine to ask questions, um, is just a question to Member McDonough about the— I'm a little confused about I think I understood the original amendment, but now I'm a little more confused.

The idea of putting that money back into the— taking the bond debt reimbursement, putting it back into its original purpose and out of the general fund and holding it, but then not actually reopening the school. I guess I'm— maybe we can speak to a little bit more clarity about that.

Um, yeah, I think a, like, a full discussion of not declaring the school in excess is a very difficult discussion to have. Have with the way that our agenda is, and it's even outside of our agenda. So while this special meeting is only called to talk about the budget of next year, this motion engineers the budget such that the school is not in excess. And because it is not in excess, we have to put the bond debt reimbursement back into the account. Now, how we put kids back in the school, I think, needs its own discussion.

And if this amendment passes and then the memorandum to it passes, um, we would have to give administration as much of our bandwidth as we can all give during our summers to work with them and approve their course of action. So I'm not taking lightly that this would be one of the hardest things that the school district has ever committed to.

I think given the way that the state has responded, we have to respond to our lack of original justification outside of 'I blame Juneau.' And if this prevails, what it does is it engineers next year's budget so that the school can be reopened. It's not in excess. Uh, it doesn't state when or how we reopen it, because I don't think anybody has that course of action. And I really do not envy Jim's job at being able to come up with a plan to reverse all of these things. But how difficult something is is not the same as whether or not it's right to do.

So I would ask for a lot of grace given to our administration if we pass this motion and pass the memo that it's Everybody in the whole city owes a lot of grace to the administration in being able to effectuate one of the hardest decisions we've ever asked them to do. But I would be proud that we asked them to do it because it's the right thing, not just because it's not a hard thing.

Go to Member Bellamy. Thank you. Um, turn on my camera. So I'm not surprised that this, uh, came up tonight, um, because I know how important this is for not just the Campbell, uh, STEM community but also for several board members.

You know, my, my role as a board member is to do the best I can for every single kid in the Anchorage School District.

And while I accept whatever, um, um, uh, you know, the board has made a decision that we keep picking at, we keep picking at and undermining ourselves regarding the decision to close schools, in this case Campbell. Personally, I see a big difference between a STEM building and a STEM program. I do, and I have always felt that way. Can we replicate the program? I believe we can.

I really do believe we can, and I think, I think that that is very possible. But opening it, we are still in a climate of diminishing resources. We are facing declining enrollment. We're going to have empty seats, and this is not because people hate the district. This is because people are leaving our state in massive numbers.

They are finding opportunities elsewhere. So, you know, if we— the board will vote, uh, tonight to do— to spend these declining resources as best it can. But for me, I need to look out for every single kid, and if you're telling me that our PTR, our teachers, our nurses, opportunities for kids is worth setting aside for a building which did house a very successful program. But this is not about Campbell not being a great program. This is about where we are systemically.

And, uh, while the board may want to continue to come back to why don't we reopen Lake Otis, why don't we reopen up another— the other schools that we've had to close, I mean, I, I just think that we are continuing to fan a flame of mistrust, a flame of one program being valued over another. And I don't think, in my leadership, I don't think that that's a healthy or thing for our students. So if we're looking to do what's right for students and we're putting kids first, then we need to do what we have to do to make things better for every single kid in our district. And unfortunately, where we are right now, we have got to clo— we've got to righten our footprint, whether that's in my tenure or beyond my tenure. There, there is no way for us to systemically sustain closing schools and then reopening them because a couple of us just disagree.

So I will not support the motion. Thank you.

Okay, trying to get a semblance of a queue, we'll go to Member Higgins. And then we'll decide where we go next. I've said it before, I'm not opposed to closing schools when it's done right. We have the options here of selecting the best school, but we have a goal, and is that the best way to achieve the goal? We had a discussion with the assembly.

The assembly said, how come you didn't select one of the other schools that you had previously selected and said that was a higher list? And the response was, well, we're looking at those for child care. Wait a minute. Then you could have done that with anything. And then when we looked at Bear Valley, the superintendent responded and took it off the list, and I still remember that comment.

He didn't realize how much that school was being utilized by the community. How can you make that decision and recommend coming to us? This process needs to start off with, this is the goal, okay? There was a goal that's kids-oriented, and then you look at options, options of what school. We have the options out there with childcare.

Member Higgins, and this is really all board members, um, I want to make sure we have— make the wisest use of our time. Please constrain your comments to the amendment to the amendment, um, and not any broader context, in the interest of ensuring we get our business done tonight. Thank you.

I don't know what comments— I think the issue here is whether this is the correct selection for it and can we reverse it because it is hurting us with the public. We need the childcare. Legislators asking us to do it. The mayor's offered to meet with us. Remember, Higgins, this motion, this amendment, Campbell Stem has nothing to do with childcare.

And so, I mean, if you want to debate the merits of bringing Campbell STEM back online, we can do that, but our child care priority is not relevant to the discussion. We'll go to Member McDonough, and then I'll enter the queue.

Yeah, I will now— especially with— I appreciate all the comments, and again, I— this is the hard— like, it will be the one of the hardest decisions the administration will have to follow through on. On. And so, um, I want to speak to two very important things that I think I only fully agree with everything shared. Um, I also have the goal to do the best for every student in the school district. That was expressed by Member Bellamy, and I fully agree.

I think I wouldn't have proposed this if I don't have that I also really do not relish constantly relitigating old business, but I, I think what's more harmful to public trust is when we can't make a decision and explain ourselves to begin with. I, I think when I was a child in Anchorage School District, I would often get scolded by my teachers for asking why too often. And they'd say, well, because I'm, I'm in charge. And that never sat well with me. And, uh, on the Campbell question, I've been joined by dozens and hundreds of other people.

Why have you done this? Because I'm in charge. And that doesn't sit well with us. And I also agree with the question of, I want to replicate the program of STEM and the innovative curriculum that's come with it. And what I would love to see is many schools in Anchorage that embrace the pedagogy of STEM.

However, it would be incredibly expensive and ineffective to try and replicate something that doesn't exist any longer. We won't have a model to scale. The science of implementation, the science of curriculum and instructional design, the art of teaching, all of which I come here with graduate degrees in. So I can say if you cut the pilot model before you've had a plan to scale, you're having to reset the entire engineering process from square one. So if the intent is to replicate the successes of Campbell, which I don't think any of us disagree with the numbers— if the intent is to make Campbell's STEM curriculum and community engagement successes in every school, or in 10 more schools, or even one more school, to cut the pilot, the foundation, the blueprint, to throw it away and to not have access to those people for interviews, for reverse engineering systems, for iteration, for means testing.

There's all of these concepts of a curriculum and instructional design scaling plan that I'm a graduate degree holding expert to be able to speak to, that if we get rid of this school, we'll start from square one when where we're actually at is probably square five or six. We have created and seeded a successful community-based curriculum that is decentralized, which means they answer to the, the parents less than they'd answer to the district, which I think is something we all like. We want to see parents get more involved, and it's successful. It's working, especially for the students in Anchorage that need it most. When I was an administrator in the Anchorage School District Campbell kept showing up on my list because I was the Indigenous Education Department lead.

I'd run reports on the Native children in every school. Campbell and the Alaska Native Cultural Charter School kept coming to the top of every report I did. Attendance was highest, academics was highest, growth was highest.

I don't know how to rescale that. I don't know how to replicate that. So I agree with board members that said, can we, should we replicate STEM? Yes, we should. It's working.

How? So if this amendment doesn't pass, I urge every one of the votes that are no to come up with a viable scaling plan for the community and to show us this is how I will faithfully replicate successful results. Because if there is a no vote and no plan We're gonna cost this district far more in the future. And that's just a disrespect to public funds and a disrespect to the permission structure that we've been granted with.

The rules.

The state responded with one-time funds. I just want to reiterate that the state responded with one-time funds. Which has been a challenge over and over for planning and sustainability. They did not respond with an increase, an additional increase to the BSA, which is what we absolutely need for planning and sustainability of our programs. Um, I just want to keep reiterating that because I'm hearing that the state responded with additional funds, which I absolutely and greatly appreciate.

But they are one-time funds, and that makes it— we've been in this situation before, and it's made it a tremendous challenge over and over and over again for many years to plan and to provide sustainability for our programs, for our kids, and for our families. I do have one question because it was mentioned, or at least what I heard was that the school was declared in excess. Um, I, I don't believe that to be true. Can somebody clarify if Campbell STEM, the school itself, has been declared in excess? It was declared excess as part of the closure.

Um, obviously we're talking about reversing everything, um, so, but we have not returned it naturally to the city at this point, um, nor do we have a timeline. Until after the building was completely empty. Okay, thank you. I'm gonna jump in the queue with another couple questions. Member Wilson, I want to provide clarification on something you mentioned.

The state provided this year for FY27 a mix of— and this was addressed in the question a few minutes ago, but it was pretty nuanced— one-time funds, and then going forward, some new and additional revenue, uh, with what the legislature has labeled, um, as with the intent of having energy relief. I believe, uh, Member— Mr. Ratliff indicated that was roughly $18 million for FY28. Um, the— I, I think your underlying point, um, and, and what I hope we as a board will consolidate around very soon if we haven't already is that. The state responded with a couple sentences of what should have been a page-long essay. Their response was incomplete.

It did not address inflation adjustments that were necessary according to their own Legislative Finance Division for the base student allocation.

There's also, I mean, I think we asked for, a $920 BSA increase. Um, at the conclusion of my remarks, I'll ask Mr. Radcliffe to tell me approximately how much that would generate ASD in FY '28, um, had that happened. But I think there's also questions regarding how the state will pay the energy relief payment and a host of their other obligations next year. Due to their fiscal house not being in order. The volatility of oil prices, a change in leadership in the executive branch that's upcoming, as well as reorganization in the House and Senate will not be conducive to new revenue bills passing, which, you know, combined with a spending cap, some sort of PFD reform, oil tax reform, something needs to happen.

There's a few levers that they can pull. It will be extraordinarily politically challenging for them to coalesce around a solution, let alone a suite of solutions, very quickly. And I think that's what we're going to have to discuss in earnest this fall regarding our legislative advocacy. Um, So I would caution board members, one, uh, to avoid giving the state too much credit. I'm grateful the state took action.

Um, their job is not finished. They need to get back to work. Um, and members of the majority and minority agree with that, which is why the Education Task Force continues to meet potentially rewriting the formula. I also just want to speak back up to a 30,000-foot view, and I appreciate what— I think there's been multiple board members who are of differing opinions, it sounds like, on this amendment. All have claimed to have been doing, in their opinion, what is in the best interest of students.

We've had board members indicating that there's a right and wrong decision on this.

Claiming, claiming that is another example of, um, I, I think, pure language. And, um, I'm going to assume every other board member at this table is interested in doing what's in the best interest of students. I will never tell you, my colleagues, that I'm interested and my position is in the best interest of students and not that— not yours. Um, the fact that any board member, um, considers doing so, I think, is a detriment to our governing body and should probably stop immediately.

We'll continue with Member Blakeslee.

Um, now that we're talking about the building being declared in excess, I would like to ask a question of, um, Mr. Anderson. It's a legal question.

Um, has this school legally been declared closed? And if it has not, when does that happen?

Does it happen when students are no longer in the building, or does it happen as soon as the previous board made the decision to close Campbell Stem, and I asked that with the, um, context that you'd shared with us before, um, to the board, that there is a statute, I believe, that you referenced that prevents us from reopening a school by a certain date. And if that date has already passed, it seems like I would like— basically, the statute, the way you had described, is once the school is declared closed, that the state of Alaska prevents us from reopening that school for a certain number of years. And so I would like to know if Campbell STEM is actually closed, or if we— if that closure hasn't happened yet because the next school year hasn't started. So until House Bill 28, it was 7 years. Once a school is closed for consolidation, you couldn't reopen it.

But in this past legislative session, they did change it to 4 years. We were texting a little while ago, and we would have to get with Legal and Deed. We, we know that when we turn in the verification report this fall and Deed accepts it, that technically it's officially closed. Naturally There's a lot of publicity. I think everyone already knows it was closed by board vote, and I, I suspect we would have to get some legal advice as to how the state statute— um, I don't know that any of us could be absolutely certain without getting a hold of some legal advice.

And who, sorry, and who makes the determination? The state makes the determination that the school is closed, or the board makes the determination, or the school district, or paperwork makes the determination? What, well, by the, the last Supreme Court ruling on school closures, it said the school board is the one and only body that can vote to close schools, not the Assembly, not the mayor, not the legislature, at least if it's in a district Um, and so there is some precedent for the school board having the only authority of all bodies to be able to decide. We know that the state statute was never written for a discussion like this, but they did change it from 7 years to 4. And the reason they did the statute initially— and it's been quite a few years now, probably 6, 7 8 years maybe, um, was because of the way the foundation formula works.

And when you made larger schools, or schools larger than they were the prior year, you hypothetically by the formula would have lost money, but it let you pretend that you still had, for accounting purposes, a smaller school if it was a gaining school. So, um, I am unaware of any schools that have been brought back that have closed in the last 5 or 6 years. So I, I mean, I know what the state statute says. I know that when we turn in the verification report for these are the schools you're going to pay us for this year, that when we turn it in this fall and DEED stamps it or signs it, then it's now been, it's now been validated, right? What I don't know is You know, I, I think what, what, um, Member McDonough wanted to do was keep it closed for a year.

I don't know what happens with that. I don't know what happens when we're not getting paid for students for a year. Um, and honestly, we really probably need to seek legal counsel on this. I don't, I don't think we're going to be able to what-if and come up with what may happen.

Okay, so it sounds like we don't know— we don't know if the school is legally, technically closed, but that's something that— because the paperwork hasn't been submitted to DEED because we haven't reached the fall, so that's something that legal needs to vet.

And also, we don't know—. It's bigger than that. I think it's if we don't have students in that building this year, we— I don't know that we can put them on a list saying this school is open but it's really closed. I, I don't know that that's even something that would be acceptable to anyone, saying we have an open school with zero students. So the only way to restore Campbell STEM would be to truly restore it for the upcoming school year, and it would have to be deemed legal or allowable because the school wasn't closed yet?

Yeah, well, you could say it's not part of a consolidation, probably. Again, I would feel a lot better talking to legal. If you look at the way the statute's written, it says school consolidation closures, so there might be some wiggle room there, um, and we, we'd really have to run that down. I think possibly a temp closure like the schools on Typhoon Halong. Those schools still stayed open even though clearly they weren't operable for a year and, and who knows how long.

Ursa Major, although actually Ursa Major we did close, close it because we had to rebuild a new school. But, uh, I, I think we would have to call Deed and, and talk to him to confirm, but maybe a temp closure for a year would be an acceptable thing for them. And outside the statute that says any school consolidation closing, which technically this— I, I know you want a clean answer. I don't think any of us can give you one tonight. I just want to understand as much information as I can is what I'm looking for.

And if we don't have the information, I'm not asking you to magically create it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of the variables that I think are important to consider. And now, like, a temp closure being a potential loophole, if you did something like that, would you have to— would you have to put that bond debt reimbursement money back in the way that it was originally intended? So if it was a temp closure or or could you still use that funding? So these other bullet points, to be quite honest, the bulk of the $2.2 million was part of the SVU project for Campbell.

The library's—. Sorry, SVU project? Oh, the secure vestibule project for that building. Okay. So the library in the front of the building is in a non-standard design, and it was going to be demoed at a new library being built behind.

So, so quite honestly, whether we restored that $2.2 million right now or we restored it at some point in the next 5 or 6 months, and if the board were to want the CIP to be modified and maybe put Campbell back as the number one school for an SVU, or maybe it just gets delayed, I don't really think the bond debt reimbursement money would have to be put back tonight. I think we're not— either way, we're not going to have a contract. Um, it's— it wasn't— we don't have any way of spending that money if we were to put it back right now. It would be— we would need to put it back in to be able to get a contract if the school were to be saved and declared the one school that can't close. Um, and, and if that's what the board wanted, then it would be a construction project in the future.

And that's even if it was a temp closure for a year versus—. I think we would have many, many more discussions if we decide to do a temp closure as to where this building fits in the long-term plan. We have $1.5 billion worth of deferred maintenance. Um, there's two ways to get rid of deferred maintenance: massive bonds, which have not been overly successful for us, um, or close and get rid of a school to where you no longer have those long-term capital costs for the next 10 to 20 to 30 years of maintaining that building. That's the only other way to reduce deferred maintenance.

Um, so in all through the lower 48, there are a lot of districts closing schools, and part of it really is we have all these schools, we've lost a lot of students. Like in ASD, we've lost over 7,000 students. So do you need the infrastructure that you currently have, or as Member Higgins was talking about, alternative uses and other things?

And, and that's why you close and consolidate instead of having a school. I mean, there's a number of reasons. I think we've done about 100 briefs on this as to why that even is something that gets discussed and brought up and voted on by the board. Um, but I don't think the $2.2 million would necessarily have to be a decision tonight if the board Board were to decide that Campbell's going to be open, and there's probably no one in the administration right now without talking to legal and probably deed that could actually talk about the ramifications of, of what we would have to do. And so do we have a— and I'm— I know this is just— it just feels like this is it.

We're having the conversation, so I know it's going on long, but so if the $2.2 million isn't going to be used used immediately, no matter what, no matter what the decision is. Let's say the board votes to keep the school open. $2.2 Million isn't going to be used. And what would be the cost, kind of, so keeping the school for the $2.2 million? Here's where it does come back.

Um, that $2.2 million was unlike any other state bond debt reimbursement money that we've gotten in the past decade. Um, in '17, '18, I think it was '20 and '22, the, the state vetoed a lot of state bond debt reimbursement. So when it came back in 2022 and they said, okay, we're going to backpay all the money that we had vetoed on those 4 years, we're going to make it fungible because across the state everybody had dealt with it differently. You had boroughs that just put off construction projects on roads or whatever it was in order to get the money, because the governor vetoes come out typically for us at the end of June, beginning of July. Um, and so everybody did it different, so they made that fungible.

So the one part that Andy would probably step in is—. Sorry, and what do you mean? If you give back the 2.2, it may not go back to Campbell as state bond reimbursement for tearing down the library and building the secure vestibule. Somehow we need to find $2.2 million for, um, the total cost of all of the personnel we did retain, because they're in that $2.2 million, and supplies and equipment. It's not like you see like this one line go to Jim Anderson, right?

It was, here's our total revenue, here's our expenses, how do we get to a balanced budget? And $2.2 was part of it. So something else either has to get cut that, or the memo tonight that talks about what would be added back.

You know, but I mean, it could go to unallocated while Andy figured it out or whatever, but I'll let him— I'll let him speak.

Okay, thanks. I'm gonna stop asking questions.

I'm going to jump in the queue for actually to get my question answered from earlier. Mr. Ratliff, do you have an approximate value for how much ASD would receive in FY28 if the legislature had adopted a $920 BSA increase?

Uh, yeah, that would be roughly $65 million. Okay.

I think the only member I see in the queue to is Member McDonough. Do you have additional comments you'd like to make?

Uh, yes. Well, this is, um, I, I would like to, I guess, first start with the veracity of things about state funding, um, because it's just so muddy. And I, I, all of us have to deal with, uh, what's the word, interpreting the way that Juno gives money to schools in very backwards ways, and that, that's hard. So, um, with the misinformation that has been shared, I just want to clear that, um, I did not say this is a BSA increase, but I did say that the board has been shown both in the Finance Committee meeting and in the joint MUNI assembly and school board that next year, as a result of HB 28, which, um, one of its provisions has a restructuring of the way that the municipality is required to fund schools. Next year, that alone would be bringing in about $4 million in addition to the money, the $18 to $20 million of estimated fuel reimbursement that we would be able to submit to the state.

It was also shared that the state of Alaska— I think it is correct, but there's a nuance— the state of Alaska has given its governor the ability to basically take any appropriations out of the budget that he wishes to line item or reduce veto. He could do that with the BSA. So if this is funded in a fuel reimbursement versus the BSA, It's not really stopping whatever our next governor wants to do. So the fact that it's not yet been appropriated under the FY28 budget doesn't— if that was— if this was a BSA provision, it still would be under that same vulnerability. So to me, the way I see this is we spend about $20 million a year on fuel, and if the law that the legislature passed gets fully funded, budget, which is something I believe we should be expecting with some level of scrutiny.

Um, there's $20 million about in addition to the $4 million about. So FY28's budget sees, as a result of legislative action this cycle, an additional $24 million that we did not have in February when the board passed a budget. So they are offsetting our structural deficit by $24 million. And, and again, both of these, the fuel reimbursement and the RLC adjustment, were both stated by lawmakers that they are intended to address the highest volatile areas of inflation and to take those costs out of school district operations. So they did adjust inflationary pressure.

I don't think it was the right way. I would have liked to have actually seen the BSA given an actual percent over year, but they did give us $24 million for FY28, and it is an inflationary relief provision. So, um, while that said, I do— I will now take the quick opportunity to actually just simply go for optics here, because, uh, if this doesn't pass I called on the board to justify what it couldn't justify 5 months ago. What I didn't say, and, and now I'm just simply saying for the sake of optics, we have spent 5 months where the people who voted to close this school never demonstrated why, and has never responded to the questions about why, and has refused to make appearances at the school to be able to address why. And so I raised this amendment to the amendment trying to give the board members a reason for why is this the school that we have deemed unviable.

I think there is some evidence that merits the need to have closed Fire Lake and Lake Otis. Some evidence was enough for the time, and it's enough to keep going. I could explain to them why, because there's a science behind it and we followed the science and we did actuarial math and we— I can demonstrate that. But I've shown up to Campbell multiple times, other members of this board have, but we can't say why because we don't know why. So for optical purposes, because I don't know if this is even helping the debate, I will remind that this board so far has spent about 45 minutes debating something where no more affirmative reasons why Campbell is an unviable school have yet been raised.

And I find that heartbreaking and unacceptable to my oath of office and to what I have said I will do for this community. But I can't control the way that 4 people have an indifference to rationale. Member McDonough, you're speaking too intense. You need to—. Okay, Mr. Jacobs, I will end my statement there.

Thank you for giving me the time. Okay, I just want to note one remark, um, to ensure that board members have accurate information. Um, the additional revenue that the state— that the state is taking on obligation to free up resources at the municipal level, um, may or may not generate $4 to $5 million in FY 28. My understanding is that is far from a certainty. I think municipal leadership has gone on record to state that we can't count and count that as a guarantee at this time, given their fiscal situation.

With that said, I see no other members in the queue. Can we have a voice vote on the Amendment 2 to amend Lessons Amendment 1, please.

Member Blakeslee?

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes.

Member Wilson?

No. Member Bellamy? No. Member Lessons? No.

Member Higgins? Yes. President Jacobs?

No. Amendment 2 to Lessons Amendment 1 has failed to be adopted by a vote of 3 to 4. We're on the underlying Lessons Amendment 1. Is there additional discussion?

Seeing none, can we have a voice vote on Lessons Amendment 1, please?

Member Bellamy, we're voting on the amended version as amended, right? Member Bellamy, so into the board, we are voting on Lessons Amendment 1 as amended. Amended. Yes, my vote is yes.

Member McDonough? Yes. Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member Lessans?

Yes. Member Higgins? Yes. Member Wilson? Yes.

President Jacobs?

Yes. License Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted by a vote of 7 to 0. Okay, we are on AST Memorandum Number 006 as amended. Is there additional discussion?

Seeing none, can we have— oh, Member McDonough, additional discussion on AST Memorandum Number 006 as amended? Uh, as amended, yes. Um, I did— sorry, now all these papers moving in every direction. Forgive me, uh, the— I would like to move to strike from the, from the memo. So move to remove from the memo, uh, the Alaska Middle College portion of approximately $440,000.

Um, on this PowerPoint I don't have the full dollar amount.

And that would be the motion. So if there's a second, I could explain more.

Second. Yeah. Okay, motion made by Member McDonough, seconded by Member Lessens. Member McDonough is in the process of transmitting that to Ms. Sullivan. Member McDonough, do you wish to make comments at this time?

I do. Um, so my, um, trying to type and talk at the same time, but I'll make this brief.

Um, with the amended agenda including a non-action item, this would be the strongest candidate for us to basically defer or send back to administration or something where I don't think we have enough information to even say this money is not worth spending. I don't think, um, I just don't think we have the facts yet, including earlier during work session I asked administration what is the cost per student, and then how much is this increasing that per student, and how does that compare to the other high schools, uh, from which I will note now that the Alaska Middle College actually basically siphons resources away from those schools and, and centralizes it into this this really innovative and excellent program, but my concern is what does it cost and what is the impact? And all of these questions where our two-reading policy gives us the ability to actually deliberate. So when I—. When I—.

I'll, I'll have this in writing to Miss Sullivan to put in front of you, but my motion to strike ideally is then placed— like, we would then need a second motion afterwards to place in non-action items the Alaska Middle College school appropriation, so that during the, the next time we meet, we will have the ability to affirmatively vote or decide if it's, if it's something that merits our vote.

Member Lessons. I had a technical question, and it relates to, um, I don't know when bills are paid for Alaska Middle College. So we have students, 75 more of them, so ballpark 424, 25 kids based on my tally of the budget book plus 75. So anyways, we've got students enrolling in a matter of weeks, then and the university must be paid. So does delaying this, um, conversation, um, negatively impact the student's first day of AMCS?

I see a head shaking, but maybe you should turn on your mic.

And Mr. Ratliff probably can run the timeline better than I can, but I served as the principal the first year AMCS was open, so I'm somewhat familiar with the process. So students have already met with advisors, they already have their schedules for the fall for the most part, unless they're newly enrolling or they haven't done their placement testing. So that, that's already set for this fall. Then they go through the traditional college add/drop period right up to the withdrawal period, and sometime in that timeline, you, UAA will bill the district invoice us for the number of credits that students are taking, any fees that we're responsible for that are associated with those classes. So it's, it's not day one of school.

It is weeks into the school year at the earliest. And I think Mr. Ratliff said earlier as well that we have the, the budgeted funds to cover first semester tuition for AMCS students. This would just ensure that we have the appropriate balance to maintain the same offerings for kids second semester.

That's helpful. So the first semester could proceed, um, as, as currently planned, I guess, if we were to engage with this, um, in a subsequent vote, and, and the board— the will of the board was not to support the investment as recommended where will that leave students for the second semester? I mean, that's sort of a hypothetical that seems useful to at least understand what that path could be. Yeah, I mean, I think there, Mr. Ratliff already mentioned that it might mean that they don't enroll new students for the spring because there are those, those students, they usually do an enrollment period for both semesters and some students will choose to join AMCS second semester only, or it may mean reducing the number of courses that students can select.

You know, there's a number of ways to sort of manage the budget that way if there weren't additional dollars.

Thanks, that's very helpful.

If I could just add one thing, President Jacobs, to the narrative here. The— if we did take those measures second semester, I think it's important for the board to know that those students would need to enroll in classes somewhere. And so if they're not at UAA, then they then are added to probably our comprehensive high school classes, and, and we haven't adjusted PTR for that influx. So that's just a secondary issue to think about.

Seeing no additional discussion, we'll have a voice vote on Amendment 3.

Member Higgins?

Yes.

Member Lessens? Yes. Member Wilson?

Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Bellamy? No.

Member Blakeslee? Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. President Jacobs?

No. Amendment 3 is adopted by a vote of 5 to 2.

Is there additional discussion on ASTM memorandum number 006? 6 As amended. Just a point to flag. I haven't yet calculated what this actually changes to the wording of the memorandum, or even if it needs to, because we've removed $437,000 from it. And I think, I think we'll have to subtract that from the 3 points before we actually vote, and I don't know if that's going to need its own clean new amendment.

From a process standpoint, Member McDonough, we explicitly— or our process inherently allows administration to make conforming changes to the amendment as needed to effectuate what the board adjusts to any memorandum that's adopted by our body.

So a subsequent amendment isn't necessary to correct other financial calculations that are listed in the memorandum unless there's a member who objects Objections to administration making conforming changes to the document?

Seeing none, I'm seeing no other discussion. We have a voice vote on ASD Memorandum Number 006 as amended. Member Bellamy? Yes. Member Wilson?

Yes. Member McDonough? Yes. Member Bliksley? Yes.

Member Higgins? No. Member Wilson— sorry, Member Lessens. Yes.

President Jacobs.

Yes. ASD Memorandum Number 006 is adopted by a vote of 6 to 1.

Mr. President, can I make a motion?

Uh, you're always welcome to make a motion. Okay, well, um, now that that has passed, I would now like to move to add to the non-action items for the board's future decision-making, the appropriation of $437,000 to the non-action items for the increased funding to the Alaska Middle College School. Um, Wrapping my head around that for a moment.

I think, um, I think the motion may technically be in order. I'm not 100% sure, so I'm inclined to allow it. Member Bellamy, you have your hand raised. Do you want to second that amendment? Uh, no, I just— I wanted to offer a different path, if, uh, if that's in order, so that we can, uh— so that we can—.

In order as we're going to be at this point. Okay. Um, Should I continue? Yeah, so we really need to dispatch of—. Mr. President, I can withdraw the motion if that's okay, and then I'd like to hear the members supplementing.

Hearing Member McDonnell has withdrawn his motion. Member Bellamy? Yes, because I do— I also agree with, uh, uh, Member McDonnell that we need to look at this, and so that especially to bring the new board the new board members up to speed, um, and get them the answers that they, that they require. So I would like— I, I think it's appropriate that we send this back to, uh, I want to say Finance Committee, so that it can come forward as a non-action item at our next meeting. Uh, and I'll leave it up to the president whether or not he wants to call the special meeting to look at that.

But it sounds like we have time, uh, because our— the kids will get enrolled in the first semester. We just need to sustain them for the whole year with this, with this piece. So that would be my friendly, uh, suggestion, uh, in how to get that item on as a non-action item and then as an action item, just following our processes.

Was that a motion, member Bellamy?

I—. It wasn't, but I can make it a motion. No, I guess— can you restate what your intent was then? My intent was to, I guess, move that we send the middle school allocation to Finance Committee. Committee so that we can have deeper discussion, and then it can come back as either an action or a non-action item depending on the committee's decision.

Is there a second? Second. And I've typed that, so I'll send that to you.

Thank you.

I have a point of order. Do we actually have a memo that we are working off of and making a motion? No, there is no— so we're— there's the empty bucket that we created, right, which is part of the deficiency in this path forward. The— I don't think the Finance Committee does— the board does not need to refer an item that was not on our agenda to a committee that sets its own agenda. I think if there's agreement from members of the Finance Committee, two of which who made this motion, I believe, um, for Bellamy and Member McDonough, I believe it could just indicate its intent to address this at the— at a Finance Committee meeting in the future, and we could stick to our established process instead of trying to at this point break BoardDocs in two, um, with our limited software capabilities.

Okay. However, if we're looking to celebrate. I'm trying to avoid using the word optics, but I don't have a synonym. Um, we're trying to utilize optics. We can try to proceed down a different path.

Uh, so I'm looking to the will of the Finance Committee, two of which— two of the members have made this motion. Point of order. Member Bellamy is not a member of the Finance Committee. It's chaired by Member Blakeslee, and Member McDonough and I are—. Perfect.

Okay. Uh, is there— is there any objection from the Finance Committee regarding its intent to address the motion to remove the Alaska Middle College funding at its next meeting as to how to move forward with that.

There's no objection to that, but I would say that that would require the Finance Committee to likely— well, I would schedule a special meeting or a meeting quickly so that it can be addressed. Since this is part of a larger package of funding that does have implications for the whole school district. So, um, I would just say that the caveat that we should have a meeting soon if it's going to be funded to the Finance Committee.

I would just encourage you to partner with administration on timing regarding the recommendation there. Okay, so members Bellamy, And McDonough, do you wish to withdraw your motion at this time? I will withdraw my motion based on the discussion and process. Thank you. I'm—.

McDonough, do you agree? Second. Perfect. Okay, so there's no motion on the floor. We don't have to worry about if it's in order or not.

Um, that completes our agenda for tonight, so we are adjourned at 10:17 PM. Thank you.