Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Allocations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MMSD explains workbook allocation process; projects $25M–$30M in major operating pressures for 2025–26
Summary
District leaders explained how mid‑February workbook allocations are produced and adjusted, shared school‑level FTE change snapshots (elementary -3.12 FTE, middle +20.82 FTE, high -11.03 FTE) and presented preliminary budget projections showing $25.5M–$29.5M in recurring costs to address steps, CPI and health insurance.
District leaders presented the operations work group with details about how staff allocations are calculated, how building‑level conversion requests are handled, and how those allocations fit into the preliminary 2025–26 budget picture.
Officials described the allocation workbook process: the district uses enrollment projections (a mid‑December baseline), board class‑size targets and categorical funding rules (Title I, special education, DOI/bilingual) to produce a starting allocation released in mid‑February. That starting workbook is a working snapshot; principals can request conversions (for example, converting a certified teacher allocation to SEAs or vice versa) during a conversion window. Staff said roughly 100 conversions were processed between the workbook release and the March closing window.
The presentation included a snapshot of net changes in workbook allocations from 2024–25 to 2025–26 by school band: elementary schools net -3.121 FTE (-0.20%), middle schools net +20.819 FTE (+3.26%), high schools net -11.028 FTE (-1.46%); the district net change was +6.67 FTE. District staff stressed that snapshots can change as conversion requests and program adjustments occur.
Staff discussed Title I distribution rules and explained that this year the district made comprehensive high schools eligible for targeted Title I assistance based on economically disadvantaged enrollments. They also described efforts to establish early‑literacy priorities (K–1), four‑year‑old kindergarten expansions and a "grow your own" educator pipeline as candidate strategic priorities the board may consider funding.
The budget context presentation estimated the district could receive about $40 million in additional recurring revenue in 2025–26 (including the voter‑approved $30 million operational referendum amounts). District staff listed likely recurring cost pressures of roughly $25.5 million to $29.5 million, including step increases and compensation (roughly $4.7M), estimated CPI/comp actions ($10.1M as a working number), an unallocated staffing pool (20 FTE, ~$1.9M), and an $8M–$12M projected health insurance cost increase. Staff highlighted a roughly $22.4M previously identified structural deficit and noted federal ESSER funds will expire and must be replaced by other revenue to sustain programs.
Board members asked for clearer communication with principals and communities about the dynamic workbook process; staff said the workbook release is the first of three phases and principals are expected to review allocations with associate superintendents and staff before final presentations. Board members also requested benchmarking data and more clarity about unallocated positions and conversion history. Staff agreed to provide additional breakdowns, and asked the board for direction about whether to reallocate district (non‑school facing) positions to buildings; the superintendent said she would like board guidance if members want a different allocation approach going forward.
Votes at a glance: the meeting recorded three procedural votes during the session: approval of minutes for the February 10 operations meeting (motion carried 6–0); a motion to change the published order of agenda items (moved and seconded but failed); and a motion to adjourn (carried). These procedural votes do not change allocation policy.
