District 11 updates board on rollout of site-based budgeting, central safeguards retained

Colorado Springs School District No. 11 district staff updated the board at a work session on the district's multi-year rollout of site-based budgeting, a model that shifts more staffing and discretionary spending decisions to individual school leaders while keeping key positions and protections under central control.

The presentation, led by district budget staff member Brandon and supported by central-office teams, outlined how the district established this year as a baseline so every school starts the transition with at least as much staffing as the board's existing formula would have provided. Brandon said the change is intended to increase local autonomy without producing sudden budget shortfalls: "We treated this year as the baseline year," he said, and "every single school in this district has more FTE than what board formula requires."

District staff said the move aims to let principals align staffing and program spending to school priorities and to increase leaders' budget awareness by showing the full cost of positions, including benefits. The district is using the Allaview budgeting tool (now part of PowerSchool) so principals can build positions and program budgets, tag expenses to district priorities and see how staffing choices change a school's available discretionary dollars.

Brandon described how staff presented a staffing allocation and projection to each school the day before a build meeting and then held a collaborative staffing-and-budget meeting attended by the principal, central-office subject-matter representatives (HR, CLDE, GT, special education, VAPA) and budget staff. He said principals could, for example, convert program dollars into FTE or shift fractional FTE to other roles during those meetings. "After I did my 18 teachers, I saw that $1,600,000 went away," he said in demonstration of how quickly personnel costs affect a budget when benefits are included.

Staff provided several concrete examples during the briefing. One school's board-formula allocation would have been 50.3 teacher FTE; the district allocated roughly 55 FTE to that school this year (about 4.7 FTE above the formula). North Middle School's principal, Stephanie, was shown approximately $4,600,000 in discretionary funding (staffing plus programmatic budget) for planning, and Holmes Middle School's total staffing and program budget was described as about $5,300,000 with roughly $1,600,000 remaining as discretionary after locked positions. The district demonstrated adding a one-FTE teacher at an average loaded cost of roughly $97,000 (salary plus benefits) in the Allaview tool.

To avoid abrupt resource losses, the district said it would use a year-to-year projection adjustment rather than resetting schools back to the board formula immediately if enrollment declines. Staff described a planned fall adjustment process to true up funds after October count; Brandon contrasted current January adjustments of about $100'$200 per student with the fall true-up under this model that would reflect near the full per-student average cost (staff estimated several thousand dollars per student). He also said the district intends to set aside one-time funds in the upcoming budget to smooth transitions and help cover obligations that can't be immediately met when enrollments change.

Central-office controls remain significant. Staff listed positions and programs the district will continue to manage centrally, including special education, CLDE/ELL, GT, counselors, custodians and certain VAPA allocations. Brandon said the district is working with principals and a site-based budgeting subgroup to refine the parameters of which positions and account strings schools control and which remain centralized.

Staff described training and supports: written how-to guides with screenshots, in-person modeling during budget-build meetings and Webex follow-ups for principals. Brandon told the board he and central teams have held roughly 48 school meetings so far and expected only a handful remain, and that principals generally have responded positively. "I have not received any negative feedback about the program," he said.

Board members and staff also discussed implementation details still under development: the threshold that will trigger an adjustment when a school's projection differs slightly from actual enrollment, how the district will treat vacancies when enrollment falls, and limits to protect essential services. Brandon said the district's subcommittee is working to define thresholds so the process is not punitive (e.g., not collecting small amounts for one- or two-student variances) but does preserve accountability.

The briefing closed with staff noting next steps: continued school budget meetings, finalizing parameters and checkpoints, the district's budget proposal that will include transition set-asides, and an upcoming board retreat where related policy priorities will be considered. Separately, board members raised a federal guidance letter about civil-rights compliance and possible near-term legal requirements; the board's legal counsel, Diane Mickens, was reported to be reviewing the letter and advising whether any policy action is required on an expedited timetable.

The district presentation illustrated how the site-based budgeting rollout combines greater local control with central safeguards and oversight; staff emphasized that parameters, fall true-ups and centrally held set-asides are intended to limit abrupt negative impacts while giving principals more direct control over staffing and programmatic tradeoffs.