Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District proposes $50.27 million budget for 2025‑26; board weighs cuts, contract positions and possible AP/AD reorganization
Summary
Administration presented a proposed 2025‑26 general fund budget with $50,270,100 in proposed expenses and $47,282,917 projected revenue, and outlined program and personnel reductions to close a multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar shortfall.
District business staff presented the proposed 2025‑26 budget and outlined recommended reductions and staffing adjustments the administration used to close a large portion of an earlier required cut.
Business office staff presented the topline numbers: proposed expenditures of $50,270,100 and projected revenue of $47,282,917, producing a planned use of fund balance of about $2.9 million in the proposed spending plan. The administration said the district’s unassigned general‑fund balance would be about 6.9% under the plan; the proposed overall millage was shown as 25.174 (current 25.127), with district staff noting the change reflects county rebalancing rather than a policy decision to raise tax rates.
Administrators described program and personnel adjustments that produced the reduction package the board reviewed. Highlights included delaying band uniform purchases, removing the teaching portion of a social studies hire while keeping the athletic director portion, eliminating a requested elementary library instructional assistant, and removing a proposed autistic teaching position from this budget pending need. Administration also proposed moving two contracted support services — a behavior specialist and an occupational therapist previously funded from one‑time ESSER grants — off grant funding and, if needed, eliminating or reprioritizing those contracts because ongoing general‑fund support is not guaranteed.
Administration said the district had secured a $200,000 playground grant and that other grants (including “ready to learn” funds used for kindergarten) were included in the revenue plan. The administration also reported that a partial freeze or reduction in federal ESSER‑related funding nationally could affect some districts’ capital plans; for this district administrators estimated the freeze would have only a modest near‑term fiscal effect (about $9,000) but cautioned it remained uncertain.
The board extensively discussed a separate personnel/organizational question: whether to advertise and hire a single person to combine the high‑school assistant principal and athletic director duties or to advertise two separate positions. Administration included a full‑time assistant high‑school principal in the budget and retained existing athletics salary allocations in the draft; board members were divided. No final personnel hiring action was taken; the board asked administration to prepare job‑posting language and compensation breakdowns for the next meeting so members can decide whether to post a combined AP/AD role or two separate roles.
Why it matters: The budget determines staffing, program continuity and capital planning for the coming year. Proposed reductions affect contract services and support staff; the board must balance those savings against instructional and student‑support needs.
Next steps: The board will consider the proposed budget at the public hearing/approval cycle in June; administrators will provide additional detail on the AP/AD job design and salary for board consideration and will return with any required contract or legal options for contested items.
