Fulton district unveils $94.2 million 2025–26 draft budget, outlines 59 position reductions and limited layoffs

Fulton City School District leaders on Tuesday presented a $94,197,840 draft budget for the 2025–26 school year and outlined staffing reductions intended to bring expenditures in line with projected revenue.

The district’s staff presenter, Kate (staff member), said the district’s initial rollover expenditures totaled about $99,300,000 — a 12.2% increase from the prior year — and that “through different reductions, the expenditure side was brought into balance with the revenue to reach $94,197,840 which is a 6.45% increase from 2024–25.” Kate said the draft uses $3,800,000 from reserves to balance the general fund.

Why it matters: Fulton officials said rising health-care and utility costs are the primary drivers forcing cuts. Administrators also described planned changes intended to preserve classroom services — including combining some instructional-coach roles with partial teaching duties and relying on train‑the‑trainer professional development to reduce outside-contract expenses.

Budget structure and revenue The district presented the three-part budget breakdown and the revenue sources behind the draft. Program spending would account for 75.7% of the proposed expenditures ($71,261,347), capital 14.7% ($13,879,637) and administrative 9.6% ($9,056,856). Kate said salaries accounted for almost 46% of the 2024–25 budget and that salaries plus benefits represent “over 70%” of district spending.

On revenue, presenters said state aid accounts for roughly 70% of general-fund revenue, the tax levy about 24.4%, and other miscellaneous sources about 6.7%. The draft includes a proposed tax-levy increase the board has discussed — presented in the slides as a 1.9% levy increase for 2025–26 — and the district provided estimated household impacts: an annual rise of $34.58 for a $100,000 assessed home, $83.98 for $200,000 and $133.38 for $300,000, which the presenter repeatedly described as “estimated.”

Staffing reductions and layoff process Administrators said the district identified 59 position reductions overall through a combination of attrition, resignations, retirements and "fair dismissals." The staff presenter said 13 resignations and 16 retirements occurred during the year; the administration also reported 15 "fair dismissals," referencing the statutory process cited in the meeting as Education Law 30 31 (transcript wording). The presentation said the 59 position reductions refer to position eliminations, while the number of actual people impacted would be smaller because some openings will be filled by reassignment.

A district operations staff member, Jeff (staff member), described how the reductions were allocated across job categories including administrative, clerical, MTSS coordinators, special-area interventionists, special-education and content teachers, instructional coaches, student support staff, teaching assistants/aids/monitors and custodial positions. Jeff said custodial reductions occurred through attrition and that the district planned to hire two custodial staff because it is currently short-staffed in that area.

On the prospect of layoffs, a human-resources–area speaker (identified in the meeting as a staff member) told the board: “I am pretty confident that we will not be laying any instructional staff off,” adding the district expected to notify certain employees of initial layoff or nonrenewal status by the end of the week and final layoff notices in June if needed. The presenter explained the district will use seniority for any potential reinstatements and emphasized the board’s goal of minimizing instructional layoffs.

Process, timing and staff communication Administrators said they have met with union representatives and reviewed seniority lists. They described a planning process that maps every building, position and proposed reduction to coordinate moves and minimize disruption. The presenters set a target of mid‑May to give staff clear information about potential moves where possible, while cautioning that state aid details still awaited from the governor’s office could alter the final numbers.

Services and program impacts District staff said they repeatedly prioritized student-facing services while right-sizing positions. Examples offered in the presentation: - Combining portions of instructional-coach duties with teaching assignments to preserve coaching expertise while cutting costs. - Maintaining MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) services, described in the presentation as tiered academic and behavioral interventions (tier 1 for all students, tier 2 for targeted support, tier 3 for intensive supports). - Reducing some 1‑on‑1 aide placements through CSE (Committee on Special Education) reviews and creating a new 12:1:1 class earlier in the year to address concentrated needs.

Board action items and next steps At the meeting’s close the board approved routine action items including acceptance of financials, award of a snow-removal bid, Committee on Special Education approvals and a personnel batch (motions recorded as passing by voice vote with a 6–0 tally in the minutes). The administration said the board will adopt the formal property‑tax report card and the final budget at meetings scheduled in May if the timeline remains unchanged; the public budget vote is set for May 20 with ratification on May 21 per the slides.

Public outreach District staff said they will hold community budget forums (presentation dates included April 10, April 15 online and April 21) and will post budget materials and an FAQ on the district business‑office web page. The administration also said it will post answers to emailed questions at fcfd-budget@fulton.cnyrick.org and use ParentSquare and the district homepage to notify families.

What administrators emphasized Throughout the discussion presenters returned to three guiding priorities for budget decisions — culture, systems and student learning — and stressed efforts to preserve classroom supports and behavioral interventions to the extent possible.

Looking ahead Administrators cautioned that the draft is based on current estimates of state aid and that additional state or federal changes could alter revenue assumptions. They said the draft represents a conservative, ‘‘bare‑bones’’ plan intended to preserve core services if projected revenues hold.

Ending note The board and administration encouraged community members to review posted materials, attend forums and vote during the May 20 budget vote.