Missoula trustees hear staffing and budget squeeze as enrollment, federal funds fall

Missoula County Public Schools trustees on Tuesday were presented with projections showing declining enrollment, reduced federal Title funding and rising costs that together could require enrollment-based staff reductions and classroom consolidations for 2025–26.

Administrators told the board those pressures have already prompted preliminary planning steps under the district’s negotiated placement process: notices tied to leave‑of‑absence deadlines and nonrenewal dates, preliminary arena hiring activity and discussions about moving students between neighborhood schools to balance class sizes.

The presentation laid out why the board needs to consider local levies and state funding changes. “June 1 is the date in the Montana code that allows school districts to nonrenew any non‑tenure teacher without cause up until that date,” said Trevor, a district staff member who led the human‑resources portion of the briefing. He said the district prefers to notify employees early rather than wait and lay people off mid‑summer, and that several contract deadlines (February 15 for leaves of absence, early February spring count and March arenas) make the staffing cycle compressed.

Why it matters: the district reported a multi‑year drop in pupils that reduces state A&B funding (the student‑count formula used to calculate most state aid). Administrators said elementary enrollment is down roughly 395 students over five years, middle school enrollment is down about 135 and the urban high‑school numbers have fallen as well; those declines translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost revenue for 2025–26 unless other funding offsets them.

Pat, a district finance staff member, summarized the immediate revenue picture and levy options the board is discussing with its Budget & Levy committee. The packet the board reviewed included three scenarios: (1) a baseline with only the 3% inflationary index for state funding, (2) the same plus the district’s proposed over‑base levy, and (3) that plus projected state “STARS Act” Quality Educator Payment revenues. With current assumptions the elementary general fund looked roughly balanced if the STARS Act revenue materializes, while the high‑school general fund still showed a shortfall without additional local or state revenue.

Administrators identified specific district actions they are preparing for: up to seven enrollment‑based full‑time equivalents (FTE) reductions in the elementary budget tied to lower class counts and consolidations at several schools; simultaneously adding 4.4 FTE to reflect enrollment growth or program needs in other buildings; building early‑literacy sections and several English‑learners (EL) program sections into the budget if funding is secured; and potential moves of staff to other positions to avoid layoffs when possible.

Public comment and EL concerns: Helen Moss, an English‑language‑learner teacher at Porter Middle School, urged the board to maintain funding for ELL supports as federal Title funding for ELL and related programs declines. “Most of the ELL students who have enrolled ... have arrived as nonliterate and semi‑literate students,” Moss said. She described the breadth of skills newcomers may need — from pencil‑holding and basic computer skills to phonics and numeracy — and warned that a single 45‑minute ESL class cannot meet the needs of dozens of such students. The district presentation later acknowledged declining Title I/II resources and explained that Title allocations fall to the district when enrollment and poverty counts change.

Leveling and transfers: administrators described the district’s ‘‘leveling’’ process used to reassign students when one school grade reaches capacity and another school has room. They said the district attempts to offer families the chance to return if a seat opens and that the district will supply transportation for students moved involuntarily for balancing reasons but would expect families to provide transportation if they decline return offers. Trustees asked for clarity on criteria and on the timing of transfer notifications; staff said families will receive letters by mid‑April and have until May 12 to respond to inquiries about returning to home schools, with final notifications typically issued before the last day of school.

Costs and tradeoffs: trustees and staff discussed tradeoffs the Budget & Levy committee faces — for example, whether any extra local dollars should prioritize lower classroom sizes or higher staff salaries. Administrators noted that roughly 90% of elementary budgets are staffing costs, that some inflationary pressures (insurance, utilities, supplies) have outpaced the 3% funding index, and that the STARS Act funding (if it becomes law and if the district reaches eligibility thresholds) would provide one‑time and recurring aid but not necessarily close all gaps.

What’s next: the board’s Budget & Levy committee and district negotiators will refine the proposed budget, weigh which positions to preserve, and present final budget recommendations before the board’s August budget adoption. Administrators repeatedly emphasized that numbers remain preliminary: enrollment and leave notifications still can change, and final state formulas and legislative actions remain uncertain.

Ending note: trustees called for clearer, plain‑language outreach so families understand why leveling occurs and what choices the district must make if revenue does not increase.