Greeley-Evans School District 6 outlines $6–7 million in cuts; officials say state funding changes could close remaining gap

Greeley-Evans School District 6 officials on Monday outlined a package of staffing and program cuts they say will recapture roughly $7 million of an estimated $12 million budget shortfall, while warning that remaining funding depends on action at the state level.

The budget presentation came during a Board of Education work session. "We started out the year building the budget looking to fill a deficit of about 12,000,000 dollars," said Dr. Pilch, a district staff member who presented the update. "We were able to recapture about $7,000,000." He added that the district still expects to need "probably a couple of million" more unless supplemental state funding is restored.

Why it matters: District leaders said a mix of rising employee benefit costs (including PERA and health insurance), salary step-and-lane increases, and higher utilities and materials partly created the gap. At the same time, the district faces reduced local mill levy override (MLO) revenue and uncertainty over federal grants.

What the district cut: The presenter listed several measures aimed at reducing district-level spending while trying to limit classroom impacts. Cuts described include eliminating three coordinator positions and one administrative assistant in central offices; reducing technology replacement budgets for staff Chromebooks and laptops; eliminating a position in instructional technology services; postponing an additional security camera project; and removing contracted security officers at the large high schools. District officials also described building-level changes: increasing the staffing ratio by one student per FTE across the system, closing the Jefferson Junior High School program, eliminating some dean positions at K–8s and high schools, and pulling back an assistant-principal position at Bella Romero.

"We did increase our staffing ratio by 1 student," Dr. Pilch said, describing that change as a source of savings. He cautioned that the formula for elementary staffing does not always translate cleanly across kindergarten and small-class configurations.

Counselor grants and other program changes: The district said it did not move some counselor-core grant positions from grant funding into the general fund as planned because of lower MLO revenue; those counselor-core grants had provided additional positions. The presenter said the district currently has eight positions supported by counselor-core grants and that some new three‑year K–8 grant awards are expected to bring additional positions, but that middle‑school grant-funded positions were being cut in the proposed budget.

Local revenue and state aid: Officials told the board the district is receiving more state funding than the previous year under the proposed school finance changes, but local MLO revenue will be down significantly because of a statewide freeze in assessed valuation implemented to limit homeowners' tax increases. "It's our own MLO money that we're down about $7,000,000," a board member summarized after the presentation. Presenters said the district currently expects to receive roughly $2.2 million under a potential restoration of at‑risk supplemental funding tied to pending state legislation; statewide the draft supplemental amount discussed was about $7 million.

Federal grants: The presentation noted uncertainty on federal funding, including anticipated planning for roughly a 15% reduction in Title I dollars. The district said about 13% of its overall budget comes from federal grants, naming Title I, Title III, McKinney‑Vento, 21st Century after‑school programs, and GEAR UP as examples.

Board reaction and next steps: Board members thanked staff for efforts to hold cuts "as far away from schools as possible," while acknowledging the difficulty of trimming positions that support schools. Several members expressed relief that the district will not need deeper cuts if state proposals pass as currently written. The presenter said staff will continue to refine the budget and provide weekly memos as legislative and appropriation details solidify.

The board also discussed timing for contract ratification for the district's master contract: staff indicated they hope to bring finalized compensation language to the board for a vote in May if the association ratifies its side.

Ending note: District staff emphasized ongoing uncertainty and said the final size of the gap will depend on the state’s action on the school finance act and on federal grant levels. The board will receive updated budget details as legislative appropriations are finalized.