Anoka‑Hennepin board narrows Phase 3 reductions to about $8 million; members urge protecting literacy intervention teachers

Anoka‑Hennepin Public School District board members on Sept. 8 reviewed an updated FY2026 budget overview and a narrowed Phase 3 reduction target of about $8 million, with sustained debate about whether to preserve elementary literacy intervention positions funded through pandemic (ESSER) grants.

District finance staff said the district’s total adopted budget is $780,000,000 and that the general fund under consideration for reductions is approximately $700,229,000. Michelle (district staff) told the board there is roughly "$7,500,000 of unallocated" dollars in year‑end staffing and line‑item fluctuations, and that those and other adjustments reduced an earlier Phase 3 target from about $15.5 million to an adjusted target of about $8,000,000.

The change matters because the board’s earlier reductions (Phase 1 and Phase 2) already reduced staffing and central‑office costs. The district summarized prior actions as roughly $5.1 million in Phase 1 (about 50 positions) and an additional $9 million in central‑office reductions (about 200 positions across departments), and said the Phase 3 discussion aims to protect as much site‑level instructional capacity as possible while meeting the new target.

District presenters and school leaders walked the board through how the general fund is structured and where legal or programmatic restrictions limit flexibility. Staff outlined restricted categories including about $126,000,000 in restricted/reserve funds, roughly $6,000,000 in federal grants (subject to supplement-not-supplant rules), approximately $135,000,000 in special education costs (with maintain‑effort requirements), and about $24,000,000 in transportation. Presenters said unassigned operating amounts include roughly $275,000,000 for pre‑K–12 site operations, $83,000,000 for facilities/operations, and $36,000,000 classified as “other” (severance, substitutes, miscellaneous).

That structure, board members were told, limits the portion of the budget available for Phase 3 reductions. Michelle summarized: "As we roll that and we look at how we finished fiscal year 25...there is about $7,500,000 of unallocated. So...that's about 1% of our budget." She added that because some revenue and expenditure variances improved the outlook, the district now projects an adjusted Phase 3 target of about $8,000,000.

Much of the ensuing discussion focused on about $8.6 million in positions that began as ESSER (pandemic relief) allocations and are scheduled to sunset. Board members and staff described a menu of options to reach the $8 million target that would combine sunsetting ESSER positions, modest staffing‑allocation adjustments by school, and restructured coaching/intervention models.

Several trustees urged the board to protect elementary literacy intervention teachers—positions described in the presentation as providing targeted, small‑group literacy support. "That ESSER position cut with the elementary literacy intervention teachers, is concerning," said Director Hochman. Director Simon said, "I would never be in support of cutting that," while other trustees asked staff to present a recommendation that preserved district priorities.

District staff and principals said they used a structured process over the summer, convening about 60 school leaders to evaluate options and explore a K–12 coaching and intervention redesign that could reuse some non‑ESSER instructional staff (for example, Q‑Comp coaches, instructional coaches and literacy specialists) to lessen the impact if ESSER positions are reduced. Corey (district staff) described that approach as a way to "shape that role in a different way to kinda offset some of this," while noting legal and contractual constraints (for example, some Q‑Comp positions are subject to negotiated agreements and restrictions).

Board members asked for a clearer recommendation and for a process that preserves the board’s strategic priorities — literacy, safe and welcoming schools, and measured class‑size ranges — while offering building‑level flexibility. The timeline presenters gave calls for continued stakeholder engagement this fall, community meetings in late September/early October, a refined presentation to the board Oct. 28 and final action at the Nov. 24 board meeting.

Next steps: staff said they will reconvene with school leaders to refine proposals based on board feedback, present more‑detailed options at upcoming meetings and hold community engagement sessions before the October board meeting.

Votes at a glance from the Sept. 8 work session (recorded in open session): - Motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented — approved, 6–0 (mover: Director Langenfeld; second: not specified in public record). - Motion to approve the consent agenda as presented — approved, 6–0 (mover: Director Odette; second: Director Simon).