Fremont Re‑1 board adopts staff and student AI policies and hears budget that is flat despite higher per‑pupil aid

Fremont Re‑1 Board of Education directors on Tuesday approved two updated technology policies addressing artificial intelligence and heard a budget presentation that projected only a marginal increase in available funding for school operations next year.

CFO Glenn Hayes walked the board through the district’s 2026–27 projections and the effect of HB1448, a statewide school‑finance change implemented in phases. Hayes said the new formula yields a higher per‑pupil amount — an increase of about $536 over the current year — but projected enrollment declines and three‑year averaging mean the district’s total program funding is essentially flat at about $35.5 million. After the Mountain View Core Knowledge School pass‑through (projected at about $2.9 million), the locally available program funding Hayes identified was about $32.6 million.

The presentation highlighted a long‑term enrollment decline (from a recent five‑year average of roughly 3,570 to a projected 2,962 under three‑year averaging) and several fiscal concerns. Hayes told the board the district’s projected ending general fund balance translates to roughly 70 days of coverage — below the auditors’ recommended target of about 90 days — and that salaries and benefits account for roughly 81% of expenditures. “Our goal isn’t necessarily to get the biggest fund balance possible. The goal is to get to the right fund balance,” Hayes said.

Directors pressed for detail on several line items. Hayes attributed a lower net assessed valuation figure used in state calculations to numbers provided by CDE and outlined the district’s debt capacity: the state allows 20% of net assessed valuation for debt limits and existing obligations (outstanding bonds and Schneider project debt) reduce remaining capacity. He also confirmed that buses and some other obligations are included in the district’s capital and debt planning.

Hayes described planned cost‑saving measures already factored into the proposed budget: an estimated reduction of 13 full‑time equivalent positions, school budget adjustments, cuts to travel and subscriptions, moving some services from cloud to local servers, and a change in health‑insurance provider that limited premium increases to about 2% versus a previously projected 25% rise. He said those and other departmental changes yielded more than $400,000 in savings after bargaining.

The CFO reviewed other funds: the food services fund (a $75,000 local‑food grant and a small projected shortfall), the grants fund (about $5.1 million in revenue with federal Title funding estimates supplied by staff), and funds that support student activities and athletics, which rely on general fund transfers and are showing growth in costs. On the building fund Hayes warned of an arbitrage repayment risk anticipated in 2029 that he estimated at roughly $700,000–$800,000 and recommended setting aside funds now to manage that liability. He proposed an $85,000 transfer to the capital reserve fund this year to cover near‑term obligations.

On policy business, directors introduced and voted to adopt two updated policies from CASBY: file GBE (staff use of technology) and file JS (student use of technology). Both were presented for second reading and final vote and include technical updates and explicit parameters related to artificial intelligence. Both motions passed on roll call with all present directors voting in favor.

There were no public comments. Superintendent Mr. Hartman gave a brief report saying the district showed improvement on most accountability measures in 2025–26 but acknowledged the financial challenges described in the budget presentation. The board adjourned after routine final motions.

Next steps: the budget numbers are still subject to final adjustments in coming months as the district refines assumptions and reconciles grants and other revenues; directors were advised to expect further budget detail in subsequent meetings.