Superintendent previews tentative 2025-26 budget; board discusses proposed tax increase and priorities

Superintendent Horsley presented a tentative budget framework for 2025-26 and described revenue assumptions, proposed spending priorities and next steps in the budget calendar. "I hereby present ... the 2025, '20 '6, budget," Horsley told the board, noting the district had filtered many requests to focus on strategic priorities.

The proposal shown to the board included: an approximate $14,000,000 increase in property-tax revenue needed to balance the budget as presented; using roughly $4,500,000 of district reserves to support special education pilot work and preschool stop-gap needs; and targeted investments in K—2 class-size reduction, instructional coaching, additional elementary administrative support and deferred maintenance.

Superintendent and finance staff said the state set aside funds for a three-year pilot and that the district recently learned its preschool program will receive about $4,400,000 each year for the next three years from a separate state/federal grant process; staff called that "very exciting news." The presentation estimated the tax impact for the typical home: for an average home valued at $528,000 the proposal would add roughly $100 to the annual bill, a change board staff characterized as about a 9% increase.

Board members asked how the district would cut if voters or the board do not support the proposed revenue. Staff said the largest discretionary cuts would fall to the instructional-improvement investments (instructional coaches and added administrative FTEs) and to deferred maintenance replenishment; they said certain items are contractually obligated or required by law and cannot be cut. Todd (finance staff) described the pay-as-you-go and debt levy mechanics and told the board a portion of the revenue shift (the pay-as-you-go strategy) has been presented in prior years as no-net-increase, but holding a frozen rate can still produce an effective tax increase as assessed valuations change.

Board members expressed both practical support and concern. Several members thanked staff for the process and said they value investments aimed at improving instructional outcomes, but others said a near-term tax increase is a hard sell for constituents on fixed incomes or tight household budgets. The superintendent and staff emphasized the district is constrained by state funding changes and unfunded mandates and that some revenue choices reflect shifts in state policy away from income-tax funding.

Process notes and next steps: assessed valuation figures were not yet final at the meeting; certified rates are due the week after the meeting and the board's budget hearing will be June 17; truth-in-taxation hearings are scheduled in August (the presentation identified an August 5 truth-in-taxation meeting). The board did not vote on the budget at this meeting.