The project remains a proposal and is still subject to approval. The available report does not establish that the solar farm was approved after the hearing.

Project scope and timeline

The proposed solar-energy project would cover about 6,000 acres and have a generating capacity of 300 megawatts. Its reported investment is about $600 million.

If approved, construction could begin in 2026, with operations potentially beginning by 2028. Those dates are proposed timing, not a confirmed construction or operating schedule.

The project would change the use and value of thousands of acres, shifting the land from agricultural use to commercial zoning. That makes the proposal relevant not only to nearby landowners and agricultural interests, but also to county taxpayers and the school districts serving the area.

Projected payments to county and schools

Reported projections for payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOT payments, over 50 years include $7.5 million for Lonoke County, $20.3 million for the Pulaski County Special School District and $34 million for the England School District.

Those figures are estimates tied to the proposal, not guaranteed receipts. If the project moves forward, the payments could become a significant fiscal consideration for the county and affected school districts. The packet does not establish the final payment terms or whether the projected amounts would be realized.

The hearing brought residents and officials together to consider the proposed land-use change and its possible effects on property values, county revenue and school-district funding. The available material does not identify the project sponsor, establish the final parcel boundaries or provide a final permitting schedule.

What happens next

No project-specific approval or post-hearing decision is identified in the approved material. The City of Lonoke’s official government records page lists an upcoming regular council meeting for Aug. 10, 2026, but the packet does not establish that meeting as the next action on the county project.

For now, the Keo-area solar farm remains a proposal: large enough to affect agricultural land use and projected public revenues, but not yet documented as approved, financed or under construction.

The fund is described as a roughly $510 million program serving public-school employees statewide. The warning emerged from a discussion on August 4 and was reported August 5. It does not establish that the fund will definitely run out of money on a specific date, and no final changes to premiums, contributions or benefits had been adopted in the sources reviewed.

A statewide school-finance issue

The program is administered through Arkansas’s statewide public-school employee benefits system. Its financing is shared by the Arkansas Department of Education, local school districts and employees, making the fund’s projected financial pressure broader than an issue affecting one district.

The Arkansas Department of Shared Administrative Services’ official public-school employee benefits page identifies medical, prescription-drug and related insurance offerings for public-school employees. The statewide structure means decisions about the fund could affect employees and school districts across Arkansas, although the available sources do not specify how individual premiums, contributions or benefits would change.

For school districts, the issue is tied to operating budgets as well as employee compensation. If officials ultimately decide that districts or employees must contribute more, those costs would be distributed through the existing funding structure. If benefits or covered services change, employees could face different insurance terms. Those are possible outcomes identified by the fund’s financial problem, not decisions that Arkansas has made.

Prescription-drug costs under review

Arkansas officials are renegotiating the state’s pharmacy-benefit-manager contract as part of an effort to reduce prescription-drug spending. A pharmacy-benefit manager generally handles elements of prescription-drug coverage, but the approved sources do not provide the contract’s terms, the size of any anticipated savings or a deadline for completing the renegotiation.

The contract review is one of the steps being pursued while officials consider how to address the fund’s projected depletion. The available report does not say whether renegotiation alone would close the projected gap or whether the state has selected a broader plan involving appropriations, higher contributions or benefit changes.

What is known—and what remains unresolved

The consultant’s warning is a projection, not a finding that the fund is insolvent. The located evidence did not include the complete actuarial presentation or an official response from Arkansas agencies. It also did not establish the fund’s exact current balance or annual deficit.

Those missing figures matter because the roughly $510 million figure describes the program’s resources as presented in the report, while the three-year timeline describes a projected outcome if corrective changes are not made. Neither figure, by itself, shows how much additional money would be needed or which combination of cost reductions and funding changes could stabilize the program.

The next known step is the state’s renegotiation of the pharmacy-benefit-manager contract and its review of prescription-drug spending. The sources do not identify a scheduled deadline for that work, a legislative vote or a final administrative decision. The Arkansas Legislature is among the entities identified as relevant to the fund’s future, but no legislative action was reported in the approved material.

For now, Arkansas public-school employees and districts face a warning about the long-term stability of a statewide benefit program, rather than an announced change to their insurance or payroll costs. Any future adjustment would need to be distinguished from the consultant’s preliminary projection and communicated through the state’s public-school employee benefits system.

The policies must establish procedures for notifying a student’s parent or guardian about both excused and unexcused absences. Each district determines the point at which notification is required, but state law sets a limit: the threshold cannot exceed 5% of the required annual instructional hours.

What districts must put in place

Beyond family notification, each policy must include prevention strategies, tiered interventions and supports, and one or more absence-intervention teams. Those provisions mean the local policies must address attendance through both notification and specified support structures.

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce says that, as of Aug. 1, each school and district must establish a local board attendance policy. The department has made available a model local board attendance policy and resources related to family notification.

Rules will differ by district

The statute does not establish a single statewide number of missed hours or days that triggers notice to a parent or guardian. Instead, districts set their own thresholds within the 5% cap. Families may therefore encounter different notification procedures depending on their local district’s policy.

The law also bars suspending, expelling or otherwise preventing a student from attending school based on absences under these provisions. The policy requirement is not a basis for excluding students from school because of absence.

Background and what comes next

The cited section of Ohio law became effective Sept. 30, 2025, and requires district boards to have the policies in place by Aug. 1, 2026. The next known step for districts is adoption and implementation of their local policies, including the locally selected family-notification threshold and required intervention framework.

The available state sources do not establish whether every Ohio district had complied with the Aug. 1 deadline. They also do not identify which notification threshold any individual district selected.

Voters approved the referendum on April 7, 2026, authorizing the district to exceed its state revenue limit by up to $5 million annually for four years. The authority applies from the 2026-27 school year through 2029-30 and is intended for ongoing operating needs rather than a one-time construction project.

What the preliminary budget shows

The district’s preliminary 2026-27 budget treats the fiscal year that began July 1, 2026, as the first year of referendum-supported operations. The preliminary general-fund plan projects approximately $20.47 million in expenditures, a $16.85 million property-tax levy and an ending general-fund balance of about $4.63 million.

Those figures are projections, not the district’s final adopted budget. The June 17 preliminary-budget hearing was an early step in the process, and the district will still need to complete its fall budget and levy actions before the final tax impact is known.

The estimated tax effect is not final

District referendum materials estimate that the referendum could add about $0.41 per $1,000 of assessed property value. Using the district’s example, that would equal roughly $82 per year for a home assessed at $200,000.

That estimate should not be treated as a final bill. The actual amount will depend on the district’s final levy, property assessments, equalization, other taxing jurisdictions and the board’s final budget decisions. The referendum gives the district authority to raise additional operating revenue; it does not by itself determine the exact amount ultimately levied on each property.

What the money is intended to support

In its referendum materials, the district described the operating request as a way to support planning around staffing, class sizes, enrichment and student services. Those categories indicate the areas the district expects to consider as it incorporates the new revenue authority, but the preliminary documents do not guarantee that every specific staffing or program decision has already been made.

Because Glendale-River Hills serves both the City of Glendale and the Village of River Hills, the budget decisions will apply across the district. For Glendale families, employees and homeowners, the practical questions are how the board allocates the operating funds and how much of the authorized amount appears in the final levy.

October is the next key checkpoint

The district’s next consequential steps are scheduled for October 2026, when it is expected to hold its final budget hearing, adopt the budget and certify the property-tax levy. Those actions should provide a clearer answer about the first-year tax effect and the district’s final spending priorities.

Glendale taxpayers should watch the district’s final budget documents for the adopted general-fund expenditures, levy amount, referendum-related revenue and any changes from the June projections. The preliminary fund balance offers context about the district’s projected financial position, but it does not determine an individual homeowner’s future tax bill.

Sources

• Glendale-River Hills School District preliminary budget presentation
• Glendale-River Hills School District referendum materials
• Milwaukee County official election canvass
• WUWM referendum explainer

The approvals do not redirect all federal education money, eliminate federal accountability rules or automatically change every district’s budget. Their practical effect will depend on South Dakota procedures, future waiver requests and annual reporting.

What the state can consolidate

The U.S. Department of Education approval letter permits South Dakota to consolidate state-level activities funds from five federal programs for Federal Fiscal Years 2026 through 2029:

• Title I, Part B, for state assessment activities
• Title II, Part A, for supporting effective instruction
• Title III, Part A, for English language acquisition
• Title IV, Part A, for student support and academic enrichment
• Title IV, Part B, for 21st Century Community Learning Centers

The federal department described the covered amount as more than $19 million. That figure is not a guaranteed annual allocation to districts or classrooms. It refers to funds reserved for state-level activities that South Dakota may consolidate and use for allowable purposes within the covered programs.

South Dakota officials said the flexibility will support priorities including literacy, family engagement and mathematics instruction. The state announcement also cited the Science of Reading and new common-sense math standards as initiatives that could guide how the flexibility is used.

What districts and schools may request

South Dakota also received Ed-Flex authority through the 2030-31 school year, provided the state continues to meet applicable federal requirements. Ed-Flex allows the state education agency to approve selected waiver requests from individual school districts and schools without first seeking approval from the federal department.

One issue involves Title I carryover. The South Dakota announcement says the authority can remove the normal limit on how much of a district’s Title I allocation may be carried over from one year to the next. That creates a pathway for a district to seek flexibility; it is not an automatic change to every district’s Title I budget.

The federal approval letter makes clear that Ed-Flex does not give South Dakota blanket authority to waive requirements that apply to the state education agency. District-level waivers must also continue meeting the underlying purposes of the affected federal program and follow the approved state process.

Rules that remain in force

The approval letter lists several areas that cannot be waived through the state’s Ed-Flex authority. They include standards, assessments and accountability requirements; maintenance of effort; comparability of services; parental participation; equitable participation by private-school students and staff; distribution of funds to local education agencies; supplement-not-supplant rules; applicable civil-rights requirements; and requirements that apply directly to the state education agency.

Those limits matter because the new authority changes how some programs may be administered, not whether schools must meet core federal obligations. The department’s Ed-Flex guidance likewise describes the program as a limited waiver framework rather than a blanket exemption from federal education law.

What to watch next

The federal approval requires South Dakota to submit annual reports by October 30 covering how the consolidation reduced administrative burden, how the state used the funds, how spending differed from earlier practices and how the waiver contributed to academic achievement.

For residents, parents and school employees, the next meaningful developments will be state implementation guidance, district waiver requests and decisions, and reports showing where the flexibility was used. The July 24 approval establishes authority; it does not yet document specific district-level spending changes or academic results.

Sources

• U.S. Department of Education approval letter
• South Dakota governor and Department of Education announcement

The leadership change comes as SAISD prepares for projected enrollment losses, a general-fund deficit and reductions affecting staffing and academic programs. Families and employees will be watching how the new superintendent manages those pressures while the district works through a leadership transition.

What the board approved

Trustees named Bustillos the lone finalist on June 24. The district said state law requires a 21-day waiting period before a superintendent finalist can be officially hired. After that period, trustees voted to confirm Bustillos during the board’s regular meeting on July 20.

Bustillos will become superintendent as Superintendent Jaime Aquino remains set to retire from SAISD in January 2027. Chief of Staff Toni Thompson served as interim superintendent beginning July 1 while the district completed the appointment process.

Who Bustillos is

Bustillos began his education career as a science teacher in El Paso ISD in 2006. He later held roles including science facilitator, assistant principal, high school facilitator and executive director of El Paso ISD’s Office of Transformation.

Since October 2019, he has served as chief transformation officer for Aldine ISD. In that role, he has overseen innovative school models and programs involving college and career readiness, career and technical education, advanced academics, online learning, visual and performing arts and newcomer schools.

According to the SAISD announcement, Bustillos holds a bachelor’s degree in biological science from the University of Texas at El Paso, a master’s degree in school leadership and a doctorate in curriculum and instruction from New Mexico State University.

Certification issue remains a follow-up point

The July 20 board agenda included discussion of submitting a request to the Texas Education Agency for a waiver related to the superintendent certification requirement. The agenda described the request as being permitted under the Texas Education Code and agency rules.

The waiver request should not be confused with completed state approval. The public agenda documents a proposed request, but it does not establish that the waiver has already been granted.

KSAT reported that Texas Education Agency records show Bustillos was sanctioned and served a yearlong probated suspension in 2017 while working in El Paso ISD. That information was part of the public discussion surrounding the superintendent search and appointment.

The financial pressures awaiting him

Texas Public Radio’s review of SAISD’s adopted 2026-27 budget lists projected enrollment of 41,112 students, a decline of 1,452 students. The district’s projected general-fund deficit is $23.25 million, or $20.94 million after using remaining money from its Strategic Initiative Fund. The fund is expected to be used up during the budget year.

The budget also includes $32.45 million in programming and staffing reductions, including 114 central-office and operations positions and 260 campus positions tied to lower enrollment. Those reductions were adopted before Bustillos begins and are not newly ordered by him.

Possible future tax-rate action and campus consolidation or closure discussions are separate matters still under consideration. They are not decisions made by the July 20 superintendent appointment.

What to watch next

SAISD families and employees can expect the next major questions to involve Bustillos’ August transition, the status of the certification-waiver process and how the district manages its budget pressures during the school year.

Any future tax election, campus review or consolidation plan would require separate district action. For now, the confirmed change is Bustillos’ appointment as SAISD prepares to operate with fewer projected students and less room in its budget.

Sources

• SAISD confirmation announcement
• SAISD July 20 board agenda
• KSAT 12 superintendent appointment report
• Texas Public Radio budget analysis