Ferguson‑Florissant board approves amended FY24‑25 budget and organizational chart after weeks of scrutiny

The Ferguson‑Florissant School Board on Feb. 26 approved a revised fiscal year 2024‑25 budget and an organizational chart that administrators say will yield roughly $1.2 million in administrative savings, after a lengthy public comment period and detailed finance presentations that showed the district facing a projected $7.6 million shortfall by June 30.

The board voted 7–0 to adopt the amended budget and later approved the proposed organizational chart by a 6–1 roll‑call vote. The amended budget was moved by Board Member Graves and seconded by Board Member Dunn; the organizational chart vote included one dissent from Board Member Graves.

Dr. Singleton, the district finance presenter, told the board the amended budget reflects a projected $5.1 million overspend in expenditures and about $2.5 million less revenue than originally budgeted. "Salaries and benefits are the biggest culprit," Dr. Singleton said during the presentation, reporting roughly $5 million in salary overages and about $1.6 million in excess benefits costs projected through June 30. He said the district is projecting to end the year with about $18.9 million in cash (about 11.7 percent of expenditures under the amended budget), below a policy threshold the administration discussed as desirable.

The presentation laid out several specific drivers: a salary overage (about $5,000,000), a projected reduction in state basic formula revenue tied to attendance (about $1.3 million), and lower-than‑budgeted investment interest (about $1.1 million). Dr. Singleton said the district borrowed a tax anticipation note in October for $7,050,000 to cover cash‑flow timing and that most of that principal has been repaid; the remaining principal payment was scheduled for the week following the meeting. He warned that, without cuts, the district could fall below 10 percent fund balance by June 30 and that continuing trends could push the district toward greater fiscal stress.

Board members and several public commenters pressed administrators for more granular detail about staffing counts, contract markups and the district's historical accounting. Public commenters and union representatives described staffing changes and program churn over recent years and said those changes contributed to the current financial stress. Dana, speaking for the Ferguson‑Florissant NEA (FFNEA), said union survey results showed overwhelming staff lack of confidence in current leadership; the FFNEA speaker called for rebuilding trust between the district administration and staff.

Multiple board members said they had repeatedly asked for more timely financial answers in prior months. Board Member Martin (the board president) said, "The buck stops with us in the terms of approving a budget," and urged more active board oversight of future budget assumptions. Board Member Thurman said the district must make cuts that are as far from classrooms as possible, while acknowledging the difficulty of workforce impacts. Several board members asked staff to return with further options—across contracts, substitute pay, and central‑office positions—to reduce next year’s projected borrowing need.

The administration also presented an organizational chart the co‑acting superintendents said would reduce central‑office positions and repurpose other roles to save roughly $1.2 million for 2025‑26. Co‑acting Superintendent Brent Mitchell and Co‑acting Superintendent Dr. P. Walker framed the recommended reductions as the first phase of a multi‑phase plan to align staffing levels with the district's current enrollments and neighbor‑district norms. Mitchell said the cabinet is larger than comparable districts that serve similar or larger student populations and that the chart is intended to streamline leadership "while preserving essential services." He added that affected staff would be given the opportunity to accept repurposed roles where applicable.

The board approved the organizational chart 6–1 after debate about which noninstructional positions should be eliminated or repurposed and how equity, family‑engagement and safety functions will be sustained. Board Member Graves voted against the chart and cited concerns that some eliminated roles provide direct student and family services; other members said titles and duties would be redistributed and that some functions could be supported with federal grant funds (Title I or ESSER) or shifted into other departments.

Administrators described cost‑control measures the district had already begun: a partial freeze on general supplies and material accounts (the presentation identified about $2.9 million in supplies that the administration targeted for tighter controls), renegotiations of staffing‑agency markups, and review of contracts over $100,000. Dr. Singleton said the district had identified roughly $800,000 in additional reimbursements and reclaimed funds (including early‑education reimbursements and other adjustments) but that those recoveries would not close the full gap.

Votes at a glance: the board approved the fiscal‑year 2024‑25 amended budget (motion moved by Board Member Graves; seconded by Dunn) by roll call, 7–0; it approved the consent agenda by roll call, 7–0; it approved the organizational chart (removing the chief‑of‑schools position and other central‑office changes) by roll call, 6–1 (Graves opposed); and it approved Section A (Foundations and Basic Commitments) policy updates, 7–0.

Administrators repeatedly warned the board that fund‑balance targets matter for borrowing costs and oversight. Dr. Singleton said auditors generally consider a 15–20 percent fund balance healthy and that the district's most recent audited ending fund balance for 2023‑24 was about 12.48 percent (per the ASBR data he cited). Board members and staff repeatedly referenced statutory and oversight risks if local reserves fall too low; one board speaker cited Missouri statute 161.52 as the legal framework the state may use to determine financial stress and the potential for state oversight if reserves decline toward statutory triggers.

Board members asked for follow‑up deliverables: a detailed analysis of potential central‑office salary reductions at various percentage levels, a list of contracts for renegotiation, clearer reconciliation of staff‑count discrepancies that contributed to the payroll overage, and a proposed operating budget timeline leading to the March 12 proposed FY25‑26 budget presentation. The co‑acting superintendents and finance staff committed to return with those analyses and to continue exploring revenue and cost options, including the long‑term possibility of a local operating levy if the district and community conclude that is necessary.

The meeting included repeated public comments focused on the budget and leadership questions (including an update that Superintendent Dr. Joseph Davis remained on paid administrative leave while an independent investigation proceeds). Several speakers requested more transparency and accountability for past staffing choices and program expenditures; others requested that the board protect classroom budgets and teacher compensation where possible.

The board president closed the meeting after routine business, noting that further budget workshops and the FY25‑26 proposed budget will be presented at the March 12 board meeting.