All speakers are asked to complete the Listening Session Sign-in Form including as much detail as possible and including a printed / written copy of your presentation if one is available. This is an opportunity for the Board to listen, the Board will not engage in dialogue. As a general rule, the Board will not comment on or respond to any comments made by speakers. Please do not include names of Greenbush Middle River employees or representatives, their title, or location in your remarks for your own legal protection and the legal rights of staff.

Each speaker will have five (5) minutes to speak: speakers may not roll their time to another speaker. Speakers will be timed and are asked to complete their comments in this time frame. Board members may ask questions if needed.  Please begin your presentation by stating your name and topic only.

In the spirit of fairness to all participants, we request that you respect the format above. Thank you for taking the time today to attend this meeting and share your concerns and suggestions.
Members of the public may wish to email Board [listening session] communication(s) to <info@greenbush.k12.mn.us>

.

None at the time of the release of the Agenda

I've provided Legislative reports to the Board during Board meetings since January.  The Legislative session is coming to an end soon.  The recent activity at the Minnesota Legislature will both increase funding for school districts but also increase expenses.

So it's kind of one of those, I call it, a bait and switch type thing.  Legislatively, it looks good to say, Hey, we're getting a lot of money to school districts.  But then, Here's how you're gonna spend it. Here's all your added costs. So there's some added costs and some, like, some of the things that have been legislated.  So on the surface, it was great. It looks like we're getting a lot of funds, but there's also going to be potentially a lot of costs associated with it.

Bills in both the Minnesota House and Senate call for increases to the basic school district funding formula, with House Bill 2497 calling for a 4% increase in fiscal year 2024 and 2% in 2025, while Senate Bill 2684 sets increases at 4% in 2024 and 5% for 2025. The combined 6% increase in the House bill would raise per pupil funding from the current $6,863 to $7,281 by 2025, while the Senate’s increases would climb to $7,495 in 2025.

Among concerns to note are proposed changes to unemployment coverage for non-certified school staff and to the special education aid cross subsidy.

The unemployment change would allow school employees working in areas other than instructional, research or administrative capacity eligible for unemployment benefits between school terms, if they meet other eligibility requirements. While beneficial to employees such as paraprofessionals, it could create significant additional expense for the school district. Additionally, both House and Senate bills specifically exclude summer term hourly unemployment insurance costs from the school district’s annual levy.

This is a big item of concern for school administrators because current legislation does not provide for additional funding to cover it.  The provision seems to have strong support in both the House and Senate, There are groups working on behalf of school Administration [eg:  MSBA, MNREA]  to say that it’s just something that school's can’t really afford.  However there are groups working towards passage [eg:  Education MN, MN School Employee Association].

Both bodies have proposed changes to the special education funding cross-subsidy, which helps cover the gap between program costs and funds from state and federal sources. Normally, districts use general funds for special education, and as costs rise, districts often are forced to cut programs or seek property tax increases. The cross-subsidy for all districts in the state is estimated to be more than $750 million next year.

The House bill would raise the state’s cross-subsidy from 6.43% to 47.8%, while the Senate version proposes a gradual stepped increase that moves from 40% in 2024 to 47.3% in 2025 and 60% in 2026.

That could generate additional funds (of state funding) on one hand, but on the other hand, more unemployment (creates) another cross-subsidy for the unemployment side.

Proposed funding changes in the House bill, including the general ed funding formula and the special education cross-subsidy would provide additional funding to schools over the next two years, most of that  coming in the next fiscal (2023-2024) year.  The Senate’s proposed bill would be more beneficial for schools mainly because of the higher percentage increases in per pupil funding.  This, by itself, would help schools, but add on additional proposed expenses and it will be like taking two steps forward and 1 1/2 steps back.

Information source(s):  copied and pasted from various different sources

Motion by__________________        Second by ____________________ to ADJOURN