District leaders outline budget development and ROI process; academic coaching, attendance and compensation among priorities

District leaders used the retreat to outline a more rigorous, return‑on‑investment (ROI) driven budget development process for fiscal 2026 and to present the preliminary priorities and implementation risks that will guide their proposals.

The big picture: The superintendent said teams have been “interrogating every dollar” and reviewing baseline budgets, vacancy factors and program inventories to find efficiencies and potential reallocations. Staff said the aim is to produce a budget that reduces reliance on fund balance and aligns spending to the district strategic plan.

Key fiscal drivers and obligations: Staff reviewed expected state budget actions (Governor’s proposed increases for QBE and pupil transportation) and district cost pressures, including employer retirement contribution increases, cost‑of‑living adjustments, years‑of‑service steps and recurring textbook costs. Staff cited a current planned use of fund balance of roughly $8.2 million — about $2 million of which is for scheduled textbook purchases — and said the current process intends to avoid or sharply reduce reliance on reserves.

ROI approach: The district described a tiered ROI process to evaluate programs and investments: a broad program inventory and baseline cost review; targeted implementation studies of moderate/high investments; and full program evaluations of the largest initiatives. Staff said they will integrate program evaluation results into budget decisions so that funding follows demonstrable outcomes rather than tradition.

Top priorities presented (staff proposals under evaluation): - Academic coaches: Staff proposed funding academic coaches in every school (or supplements where department chairs perform coach duties) to provide in‑the‑moment professional development, model instruction and boost teacher retention. Staff acknowledged prior eras had coaches in some schools, and said the district previously removed many positions during budget cycles. Board members asked for historical cost and impact data before approving a districtwide rollout. - Attendance capacity: Staff proposed exploring attendance clerks/champions or restructured front‑office staffing to improve data fidelity and reduce classroom disruptions. Leaders argued that current attendance defaults and multiple hats for secretaries produce poor data quality and operational gaps that affect student outcomes and audits. Board members asked whether technology and process changes could reduce the need for new positions and whether targeted deployment to schools with the greatest need might be more appropriate. - Compensation and benefits: Staff discussed a proposal to offer a district retirement option (403(b)/457(b) vehicle) to employees not covered by TRS, with suggested district contributions to be modeled (examples cited a 3% employer contribution costing roughly $800k–$1.2M depending on the rate and employee cohort). Staff also revisited classified/certified compensation study findings and recommended using the completed classified study plus forthcoming certified analysis to set a recruitment/retention strategy. - Human resources capacity: Human Resources staff said they need additional investigator capacity to handle non‑criminal personnel matters and speed resolution so teachers can return to classrooms sooner. - Facilities and stewardship: Staff gave a maintenance and capital overview that included requests for recurring routine maintenance funding, replacement of aging school‑nutrition equipment and costs associated with temporarily relocating Bull Street staff and inventory while work on the Bull Street site proceeds.

Pools and community facilities: During the stewardship discussion board members pressed staff on the future of district pools. Staff said bringing pools back to usable condition could require capital investments ranging from roughly $600,000 to more than $1.5 million per pool (estimates vary by site and scope) and ongoing operating and lifeguard staffing costs. Board members suggested partnering with the city, county, Y, coast guard or CTAE programs but cautioned about liability, costs and the city’s historical divestment from pool operations.

Process and next steps: Staff said they are running parallel workstreams — identifying new investments and modeling reductions and efficiencies — and expect to return with more specific cut proposals and investment recommendations in the coming weeks. The superintendent said she expects a proposed budget that reduces or eliminates use of fund balance and will present detailed analyses, including historical spending and ROI evidence, before any final budget vote.

Board members asked for: (a) multi‑year ROI data linking coaching staffing to literacy/numeracy KPIs and historical counts of coach equivalents and spending; (b) targeted lists of schools where attendance clerks would be most impactful and per‑position cost estimates; (c) a more detailed cost model and participation plan for the proposed retirement option; and (d) a list of facility spaces (by school) that might be used to avoid external storage costs during Bull Street relocation.