New Childcare Partnership

At the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year, we had planned to host the before and after school childcare program in the elementary small gymnasium. However, at a very early cabinet meeting before the school year was even underway, substantial logistical issues surfaced that forced a shift. When advisors and directors of school programs passionately advocated for space, it became clear the small gym was not going to be a viable option. In the final analysis, I'm not so sure a compromise was reached to resolve the issue. My direct reports would probably just suggest that I simply told people where they were going to live for the school year. The end result was that one of our programs was promised a space that ultimately was taken away so we could move the childcare program to the location where it currently resides. This was never meant to be a permanent solution.

In fact, as I shared back in my February 25th post, we informed the Ys kids program that this would be the last year they would operate at Hudson Elementary. It really came down to a couple of key reasons. First, space was, and is going to be an issue. Second, as our needs have changed in the district the program has evolved. As such, the program no longer aligns with our revised expectations. Finally I'll say this: we have always been a staunch advocate of our community and want to support our community partnerships in any way we can. 

Perhaps it was faulty reasoning, but at that time I didn't really think there would be too much problem with childcare. From my standpoint, St. Timothy 'had the ball'. But it wasn't long afterward we learned that space limitations were going to be a constricting factor for them as well. Feedback and input from many of you encouraged us to re-examine the issue to see if we could find a viable solution. As we announced on Monday of this week, we have found that solution. 

The logistical issues that created barriers at the beginning of the school year still existed. But, with the benefit of time we were able to work our way through those logistics and come up with creative solutions. Hopefully my team will agree the pathway forward will be much smoother! So, now we are ready to start with a new partner for the 2025-2026 school year. St. Timothy will operate a satellite before and after school childcare program right here on campus, utilizing the small gym as their primary location. We are excited about the partnership and grateful for the work that has gone into the planning and preparation for the program. I am also grateful for the internal collaboration and problem-solving that had to happen in order to make this work.

The school site program will operate from 6:30 a.m. until the start of the school day. The after school session will be open until 6:00 p.m. A registration and orientation meeting will be held on Monday, May 5 at 5:30 p.m. at St. Timothy Lutheran Church. You can read the full press release right here. 

Solving for Solvency

Barring movement on the property tax reform bills that are currently being discussed in the state legislature, I anticipate this will be my final blog on school finance for the year. I am somewhat skeptical they will be able to get a law passed this session. There are too many unknowns, and with just two weeks remaining in the legislative session it would seem unreasonable to fully vet these proposals. The stakes for getting it wrong are incredibly high. Understandably we are all eager for property tax relief. But at the same time we must ensure it is done correctly. It would be wise during this interim period to study the issue in greater depth so we can hit the ground running in January of 2026 with a proposal that has been fully vetted.

Today I want to focus on the concept of financial solvency in school districts. But before we get there, a brief primer on 'unspent balance' (USB). As I have hammered home time and again, the most important financial metric in school districts is 'unspent balance'. Unspent balance is the measure of unspent budget authority that either accumulates or deteriorates dependent on the fiscal discipline of the school district. This metric rises to the top of fiscal measures in a school district because it is a violation of state law to have a negative unspent balance. In fact, one can be held legally responsible for cratering an unspent balance. But even more ominous: a school district can be forced to dissolve. The way one increases budget capacity, or spending authority is simply to spend less than the full capacity year over year. In Hudson, we are in very good shape in terms of our unspent balance. In that past decade, this measure has grown from $1.3 million to $5.3 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. During fiscal year 2024, our expenses accounted for 94.4% of that years budget capacity, hence our improving USB metric. Over the next five years, I anticipate expenditures will be in the range of 96%-98.1% of [budget year] capacity, which suggests our unspent balance will continue to grow. The caveat though, is this capacity is not all funded by cash. 

Which brings us to the second most important financial metric: the solvency ratio. The calculation is rather simple: ending fund balance divided by total revenue for the fiscal year. The target range for this calculation is between 5%-10%. In the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2024 our ratio was at 16.82%, well above the target range. The challenge however is the trendline is heading in the wrong direction, and it is heading in the wrong direction fast. Why? Well, there are two primary reasons for this.

First is very rapid residential enrollment growth. For the year that we are currently in, our residential enrollment count increased by 50 students. Because of this growth, we had to add staffing to the school district and those students were subsequently counted as part of our enrollment certification process in the fall. As you know, that number forms the basis of our budget a year from now. So, while the cost to employ those additional staff is a real time expenditure, the funding is delayed by a year. This means that cost has to be paid for with cash on hand, causing the cash balance to deteriorate which negatively impacts the district solvency ratio. It is also important to point out, and in fact underscore the impact open enrollment has on this metric. It actually helps. Funding for enrollment growth due to open enrollment isn't delayed, it is on time. If the increase in enrollment was limited to open enrolled students, the impact on the solvency ratio would be blunted because the revenue generated by those students is realized during the current fiscal year. 

The second reason our solvency ratio is headed in the wrong direction is because of special education cost overruns. You see, special education isn't bound by the same 'per pupil' limitations as regular education programming. Students who are served by special education programs are governed by the federal 'Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act', or IDEA. This law requires that each student served receive individual and specialized instruction. Oftentimes these cases can be quite complex, requiring 1:1 support services in the form of paraprofessionals, nurses, specialized transportation; or in the most complex of cases specialized schools. The challenge is that the funding for these programs falls far short of what is needed to fund the students' IEP. Because of this, most school districts in Iowa deficit spend special education programs in Iowa. Hudson is no different, to the tune of more than $650,000 annually. Because the state isn't properly funding special education services, the burden of doing so falls on the local community in the form of property taxes. 

Solvency is really just a fancy word that tells us how much cash is remaining at the end of the fiscal year once all expenses have been encumbered. It's important because Iowa public school districts will continue to operate for approximately 90 days over the summer months without an infusion of capital. Less than 5% may mean the district doesn't have enough cash on hand to fund the operation over the summer months. So we need to ensure our solvency ratio stays above 5%, which means we would need to have no less than $800,000 in the bank once we've solved for all expenditures. That may seem like a lot, but it really isn't for an operation this size. 

Without intervention, our solvency ratio will drop below 5% in fiscal year 2027. However, there is a remedy that includes two parts. First, we need to slow the rate by which our expenditures are growing to just 4%. Now, 4% may still seem like a pretty rapid rate of increase, but keep in mind that at that rate we will still expend just 98% of our capacity. In other words, our budgeted expenditures could grow in excess of 4% and we would still be under the current budget capacity for that fiscal year! (We would just use more cash, which doesn't solve the problem at hand.) Moreover, the rate by which our enrollment has been increasing over the last two years has caused our expenditures grow in excess of 8%. To reduce that growth rate by half is a tall order. However, we are making moves in fiscal year 2026 that should enable us to execute a 'soft landing'. Second, we need to increase our cash flow and fund part of that unspent balance. The way we do that is through a cash reserve levy. I hope you picked up a couple of key words: increase levy.

All of this will need to be done under the context of property tax reform. Now, those who we look to for advice and analysis point out that if the goal of the reform is to simply the property tax system this would accomplish that. It would also provide property tax relief across the state in aggregate. But in reality, it may simply shift the burden from your right front pocket to your left. Instead of this complex bill, if the legislature would simply fund SSA at 3% and meet their obligation for special education funding it would fix our solvency ratio problem: and it would take pressure off of property owners. 

Property Tax Reform

I think everyone can agree that Iowa's property tax system is complicated. Here are a few examples that confound the general public whenever this topic comes up: Taxable valuation isn't the same as assessed valuation. TIF (Tax Increment Financing) districts are economic development tools that incentivize development while suppressing the increased property value of that development until expiration of the TIF district. Depending on what kind of property you own: residential, commercial, industrial, or agriculture; you may be subject to a 'rollback'. Then to confuse everyone a little more, just last week we all received new assessments for our property that didn't match anything that we have been discussing over the last several weeks. That is because those assessments are what will be used for FY2027.

Your property taxes are subject to multiple taxing authorities: school, city, and county; and not all taxing authorities are equal. Taxing authorities that are considered 'property rich' are those with more valuable property such as commercial or industrial. Oftentimes property taxes in those taxing districts are lower because commercial properties have expanded the tax base in way that has brought down property taxes for everyone. On the other hand, a 'property poor' district is not a measure of socio-economics. Quite the contrary. It simply means that taxing authority has a smaller tax base without a lot of valuable commercial property. A smaller tax base simply means it takes greater 'rate' effort to generate the revenue needed to fund the program. Think about our case here in Hudson. Sometimes people will look at their tax bill for Hudson, compare it to surrounding areas and wonder why it's higher in Hudson. Well, there are a lot of reasons for this (hence the complication in our property tax system). Yet in keeping with this idea of 'property poor' we are geographically very small: only 57 square miles. And, our property tax base relies heavily on residential property owners. Compared to many around the state, we have few commercial enterprises to help ease the burden. And those that have come to our community in recent years are in TIF districts so it will be awhile before we are able to benefit from the increased valuation of this property.

Think about this: there are currently 325 school districts in Iowa. If you were to rank them 1-325 with '1' begin the highest property valuation and 325 being the lowest, Hudson would rank 300. But if you include the TIF districts in that same ranking, it would improve our position to 273. I'll concede that's not a lot, but it would absolutely make a difference in the property taxes we all pay. 

If you are confused at this point, you are not alone. That is one of the reasons why the Iowa General Assembly is proposing to simplify the property tax system with an end goal of lowering property taxes. Two identical versions of a property tax reform bill are currently working their way through both the House and Senate. The legislators sponsoring the bills have approached this work collaboratively, asking for feedback and input from the public. At this point, they have taken that feedback seriously and the versions of the bills that are currently being discussed are different from the original proposals. I am grateful they are taking a thoughtful approach to this work. There is a keen understanding that while property tax relief is needed it is paramount they get it right. With that stated, it is unclear (and perhaps unlikely?) this legislation will be enacted during this legislative session. 

Because the proposal continues to be modified based on the feedback our legislators are receiving, I'll avoid getting too deep in the weeds. This is because the legislation continues to evolve. However, I'll start with just one quick observation and theme that everyone will need to keep in mind. If the idea is to provide property tax relief and lower property taxes, we must be clear eyed of what the by-product of this work will be: if the taxing authority is generating less in revenue, it will need to be balanced on the expenditure side of the ledger. I suppose that is a technical way of stating the obvious: budget cuts will be necessary in many taxing authorities. The top news of the day will include even more stories about school districts (big and small), communities, and counties making budget cuts. 

With that context, I'll give you three big ideas to think about with these proposals: the elimination of the rollback, reduction of the uniform levy, and revenue restriction instead of rate restriction. Keep in mind there are other concepts in the property reform proposals that are also incredibly important, but for the sake of this discussion I want to focus on just a few concepts. 

From previous posts, I have explained to you that each year, the property taxes each of us pay are dependent on 3 separate variables: the rate, the rollback, and the value. (See 'Understanding Your Property Tax Statement' from March 19th for a detailed explanation.) In that article, I shared that even if the property tax rate remained exactly the same from one year to the next; the rollback does not. In fiscal year 2025, property owners' taxable valuation was calculated on 46.34% of the value, whereas in fiscal year 2026, taxable valuation is calculated on 47.43% of the value. So, your property taxes will go up even if the rate is the same. Under the proposed legislation, the rollback is eliminated. In short, you will pay property tax on 100% of the value, less the homestead credit. Now logic would suggest this would cause a spike in property taxes, and it would, unless you consider the other two big ideas that are part of this proposal. 

Reducing both the uniform and additional levy in the school funding formula would definitely lower property tax. It's called a uniform levy because its uniform across every school district in the state. Currently, the uniform levy of $5.40 is applied to all property and is the first layer of funding for a school district's annual budget. The second layer is school foundation aid, and it funds up to 88.4% of the capacity, and the remainder, or what is needed to get to 100% is funded through an additional levy. Under this proposal, the uniform levy would be reduced to $2.97 and the additional levy would all but be eliminated with the exception of some special purpose general fund levies like instructional support and dropout prevention. By reducing these levies, it shifts that burden from local property tax to the state. Estimates put that shift north of $400 million. While this would definitely lower property taxes, the unknown variable is affordability. We have already put a lot of stress on the state budget with other priorities, and as such I am skeptical this is sustainable. One unintended side-effect would likely be continued or even compounded underfunding of SSA. Underfunding that fails to keep up with inflationary costs. 

Finally, the property tax reform shifts from a 'rate limited' property tax to a 'revenue limited' concept. Essentially, what this would do is limit the growth of school district special revenue levies to 2% per annum. In so doing, this would appear to suppress the tax base while forcing the levy downward. Think about this. Assume you have a year with a lot of tax base growth. When you apply a rate limited tax to that tax base growth, it will capture the benefit, and revenue of that growth. However, if you limit that growth, regardless of how much the tax base grows to 2%, it will suppress the taxing authorities ability to fund facility improvements and capital projects. It may also impact the bond rating of the authority and make it more difficult to pay off debt quicker. Yet on the other hand, it will force that rate down. 

I agree with the position that our property tax system is in need of reform. I'll even go so far as to say that it is entirely appropriate to justify and explain to the public why property taxes are going up or going down. It is also incumbent on us to be able to share with our stakeholders how those tax dollars are being invested on behalf of the public good and to share a coherent strategy in terms of long term planning. For too long, taxing authorities have looked the taxpayer in the eye and shifted the blame elsewhere; with a shrug of the shoulders would say, 'our tax rate is exactly the same as it was last year, so our taxes didn't go up'. Making this claim illustrates ignorance on the part of the authority at best; malpractice at it's worst. I am grateful the legislature is taking its time on this. We all just need to be prepared that, if we reduce the revenue side of the ledger, we act in concert when it comes to the expense side.

FY 2026 School Budget: General Fund

Last week we began a discussion on the FY 2026 school budget. In that post, I explained that the budget published in the newspaper and on our website is, in reality just a summary. That summary budget is composed of multiple funds, and our conversation last week centered on our capital improvement and project funds. I started there because the projects that are funded through this portion of the budget are the most visible to the community. You can see them, touch them, and when finally complete, they hopefully evoke a sense of pride in our school and community. But the reality is that portion of our budget is a relatively small part of our overall annual operation. To refresh your memory, next year we anticipate roughly $1.68 million in facility expenditures for the fiscal year that begins on July 1. If you closely scrutinize our budget summary, you will note that overall our total budget expenditures are expected to top $16.7 million for fiscal year 2026. (Bonus points for anyone who can tell me why we drop from a high of $25.9 million in fiscal year 2024.)

So then, what you can see, touch, feel: the tactile portion of our fund(s) account for about 10% of our overall proposed budget. Perhaps the tip of the iceberg? The lions share of the budget is of course the general fund. This is the portion of the budget that is used to fund the operation. It ensures the buses run on time, the schedule and bells operate with continuity, and we have the personnel with the right training to deliver instruction to the students of our community. In fiscal year 2026, we anticipate a general fund budget of $12.56 million. Of that, approximately 80% is in personnel costs. As I've mentioned many times, education is a very labor intensive enterprise. According to our most recent employee census, there are 152 individuals on payroll in the Hudson Community School District. Of those, 111 are considered full time.

Preparing the next fiscal year budget begins by first centering ourselves on the current year's budget. This provides for a 'jumping off' point when developing the spending plan for the new fiscal year. If you were to look at the internal budget documents for the new fiscal year, you'll see a number followed by zeros. That number is derived by looking at the current fiscal year, increasing the budget by a set percentage and rounding to the nearest $1,000. Once that budget is adopted, over the summer we begin to refine those numbers and by fall have a pretty accurate idea of how the (new) current year will perform and what we can expect. That really is the key: you can't prepare the budget for the next year unless you have an accurate grasp of how you are currently performing. Each month of experience that we have in any given fiscal year provides us with more data to evaluate the performance of the budget. 

We have numerous tools at our disposal that help us to measure a variety of metrics in our budget. The one shared here is one of the most powerful in our arsenal and helps us understand the performance of the current fiscal year. This is a variance report, and what it tells us is how far over/under the budget each primary category is operating. For example, in the month of February, we collected $1,470 more in property taxes than was budgeted (compare this to January where we collected $2,710 less than was budgeted). Cells that are shaded in green indicate budget categories that are performing better than expected, whereas those shaded in pink represent categories where we are performing worse than expected. The primary takeaway with this report suggests that we are currently underperforming our revenue by just over $62,000 and overperforming our expenditures by $67,771. Both revenue and expenditure are uneven, meaning they don't always arrive at the same time, which is one of the reasons you don't see a uniform color across the report. The other explanation is that the budget category is simply not going to be 100% accurate. If it was, well that might be suspicious; or lucky. And by lucky I mean lottery ticket lucky. In any event, this is the report that was used when we developed the draft FY2026 fiscal year budget. With 66.67% of fiscal year 2025 encumbered, this provides us with enough experience to begin development of the next fiscal year.

Once we have an accurate idea of the current year budget, then work can begin on the 'out' year budget. When developing the budget, the strategy deployed is to underestimate the revenue and overestimate the expenditures. Beginning first with the revenue side of the ledger, much of this is formula driven. In fact, roughly 78% of our revenue is generated by the formula. The formula determines how much property tax AND how much state aid the district will receive. Our inputs are known as miscellaneous income, which is comprised of anything that isn't property tax or state aid. As a reference point, our miscellaneous income inputs come out to just over $2 million. The largest driver of miscellaneous income is open enrollment tuition, at $1.42 million. This number has been suppressed by roughly $200,000. (Under-estimate revenue, over-estimate expenses)

On the expense side, we again start with the current budget. For this exercise, we've increased each category by 8% and rounded to the nearest $1,000. 8%! That seems crazy, right? Well, keep in mind that as our enrollment continues to grow, so too does our need to properly staff our programs. Also understand that the 2% SSA rate that was passed by the legislature nets out to 9.37% for Hudson Schools. See 'This Was Predictable' March 26, 2025. At the same time, the expenditure side of the ledger is developed in a way to capture all of the next fiscal year's spending authority. To put this in perspective, this spending plan would still result in an increase in our unspent balance-with the caveat that it is not all backed by cash. We'll discuss that in a few weeks when we tackle the concept of solvency. In any event, the expense side of the ledger is exaggerated by at least $140,000. (Under-estimate revenue, over-estimate expenses)

The balance of our total budget comes through a couple of funds that we won't spend much time talking about here: the debt service fund, which is used to service our long term debt. Primarily this where the property tax revenue that is generated for the repayment of general obligation bonds is accounted and expended. The final two funds that round out the total school budget include the activity fund and the nutrition fund. Neither of these funds generate property tax, but instead rely on fees for service. Revenue for the activity fund is largely gate receipts from events and the nutrition fund is primarily through the sale of student breakfast and hot lunch. 

Next week we'll spend a little time talking about the proposed changes to Iowa's property tax system and how that may impact our school district. 

FY 2026 School Budget: Facilities

We are about two weeks out from finalizing our school budget for the next school year, and I thought it might be interesting to have a look at the components that make up our budget. To see a summary, go to the 'About Us' page of our website and click on the Basic Financial Data tab. The summary document is included as item '2', and the link directly above is the total FY2026 budget presentation. This school budget summary shows 3 years of high level data: what was actually spent in FY2024, what we think we are going to spend in FY2025 (this is considered an estimate because we are still encumbering this fiscal year), and what we have budgeted in FY2026. 

Each of these 3 columns are subdivided into numerous funds, the largest of which being the general, or operating fund. In the FY2025 school budget, we are utilizing 8 separate funds while the FY2026 school budget utilizes 7 separate funds. The reason we are using one less is because our high school construction project will be completed. Before we go too far, it is important to understand that, in the majority of cases, revenue from one fund cannot be utilized for expenditures in another. Funds used to purchase school buses, for example, cannot be used to pay employee salaries. 

Today I want to zero in on two specific funds that are, for the most part are interchangeable in terms of allowable expenditures. While there are certain caveats, for the purpose of this discussion it isn't necessary to delve into those details. What I want to focus on instead is our facility expenditures, or those specific to our PPEL Fund (Physical Plant and Equipment Levy) which is a property tax levy; and our SAVE Fund, which is our sales tax revenue. 

The top half of the table above is like any other budget you might see; it shows the revenue side of the ledger and runs the calculations for determining how much each funding stream will generate. As I mentioned, the PPEL is generated by property tax based on a set tax rate where the sales tax is generated based on, well sales tax revenue. But, it is distributed based on enrollment. At the far left, you will note the operative fiscal year. This illustrates how much was budgeted, where the second column illustrates how much was expended, followed by the remaining budget. Most important is the ending fund balance, which we anticipate will be around $1.38 million at the conclusion of the fiscal year. 

Directly to the right, you will see what is budgeted for FY2026, which is the fiscal year that will begin on July 1. It is also important to try and look into the future to see what may happen roughly five years out, which would be the columns to the far right (FY2030). Admittedly, one could argue this is an academic exercise, but it does allow us to see what may be in store down the road, assuming our inputs are accurate. For this, we assume conservative revenue estimates and expenditures.

The color coding serves a purpose as well, as it helps to illustrate the type of expenditures that are being allocated to the fund. As the graphic suggests, anything in yellow is an annual appropriation that grows 2% per annum. The categories are pretty self-explanatory: technology covers hardware expenditures; primarily our Apple Computer lease. The transportation line item assumes we will purchase one school bus and one vehicle for the small feet annually, and maintenance is typically reserved for repairs that exceed $500. The line item 'contingency' is generally where emergency repairs are accounted, or in most recent cases classroom furniture.

Items highlighted in pink are related to our long term debt obligations. Not to be confused with the general obligation bonds, this is debt that is specific to revenue bonds. While this does include some of the high school construction, it also includes the bonds that were sold when we renovated the K-8 building. These costs are considered 'fixed' because they are not prone to an annual increase. 

Finally, this leads us to those items highlighted in green. Those are projects that have been posed in previous fiscal years that fall outside the aforementioned categories. Once they are ready for execution, I recommend them for approval and the board can decide whether or not to move them forward. A primarily litmus test for affordability is the impact the project will have on the ending fund balance. My goal is to keep the ending fund balance above $1,000,000. If we can do so, I feel comfortable recommending approval to the school board. So, what are those projects?

Elementary Lockers: At the end of January, in my post, 'Growing Pains', I shared with you the challenges, both seen and unseen the went along with growing enrollment. This is one such area that needs to be addressed. According to our calculations, we are going to be short approximately 25 lockers a year for the next couple of years until we reach full capacity. This project calls for the installation of 100 lockers on the north side of the hallway that contains the elevator. This project was approved for completion over the summer. 

Network Replacement: This is all the equipment that makes the internet and intranet work. Without it, we have no ability to communicate with the outside world (or even the inside world). It enables our bells system to function, the clocks to sync up correctly, the intercom system and emergency alert/tornado or fire alarm to work. Because of the rapid pace that technology evolves and internet speeds increase, this equipment is generally obsolete after about five years. This will be our 3rd generation network and it has been approved for replacement this summer as well. The good news is, as a governmental entity, we are eligible for eRate benefits that equate to a 50% discount on eligible expenses. This proposed project will replace all network switches and wireless access points. The project is valued at $128,308 and the district cost is $64,154!

Second Floor Carpet: The staff that live on the second floor have lobbied me for carpet upstairs for several years. My response has always been, maybe next year. It's not so much a comfort issue (although that is certainly part of it) as it is a noise issue. Whenever students move chairs across the floor, you can hear it in the library and 5th grade classrooms that are directly underneath them. This project will make the rooms downstairs quieter and the upstairs rooms more comfortable. The current ‘Little Pirates’ room will also have carpet installed as part of this project as it will become a special education classroom next year. This project will start as soon as school is out for the summer.

Auditorium Sound System: This is more of a 'coda' (see what I did there, music folks?) to the high school project. Last summer, as part of the high school renovation we replaced the lighting system in the auditorium. What was not addressed was the sound system, which is woefully inadequate for modern high school music and theatrical productions. It became even more evident once we experienced the equipment specified for the new gymnasium (sans microphones)! This proposed project will rectify that at a district cost of $45,771. 

Kindergarten Restroom Renovation: I've saved the biggest for last! This project is actually scheduled to span two separate fiscal years since it is scheduled to begin right away when school dismisses for the summer and won't be completed until the second week of August. You will see that noted in the green shading under the FY2025 budget. Like the locker project mentioned above, this is related to growing enrollment. The restrooms in the kindergarten wing simply aren't adequate for the class sizes we are now experiencing. This project will relocate the maintenance shop and turn that space into a restroom, and convert the two restrooms across that hall to one large restroom. Once completed, we will double the capacity of the kindergarten restrooms. The project also calls for the replacement of all the floor tile in the kindergarten hallway and the replacement of classroom doors. You may remember, the kindergarten wing was remodeled as part of Phase I of the elementary renovation project. Subsequent phases included door replacement with the idea we would circle back to the kindergarten at some point. That time has arrived!

We'll continue this conversation next week with a peak at the largest fund in the school budget, the general fund. Following that, we'll examine the proposed property tax reform legislation that is currently being discussed in the legislature.