Anoka‑Hennepin outlines Phase 3 budget options including cuts to coaching and central services

Superintendent Corey McIntyre and Chief Financial Officer Michelle Vargas presented the board with a slate of Phase 3 budget options aimed at closing an $8 million projected shortfall in the district’s general fund.

Why it matters: The district is balancing persistent cost pressures — contract settlements, the end of federal COVID relief funds and higher operating costs — against the board’s priorities to protect classroom instruction, literacy supports and student safety. The administration said it had already carried out Phase 1 and Phase 2 reductions totaling about $14.1 million earlier in the budget cycle.

What the plan includes: The administration laid out multiple option packages. A previously favored Option 2 would have included a middle‑school schedule change (7‑to‑6 period day) estimated to save about $3.8 million; many principals supported that option. Because the board signaled limited appetite for the schedule change, staff proposed Option 3 as an alternative. Option 3 bundles several measures designed to avoid altering middle‑school schedules while achieving the same savings:

• Reorganize k‑12 instructional coaching and intervention staff: administration proposes reducing and reallocating coaching and intervention FTEs. The draft shows a 20‑FTE reduction in the elementary coaching allocation as part of a combined k‑12 model. Staff said the change would integrate previously separate engagement‑coach roles and reduce non‑instructional time while seeking to protect core reading intervention teachers funded by ESSER/strategic investments.

• Sunset or partially end some ESSER/strategic investments: the district previously used one‑time federal and strategic funds to add positions; staff proposed scaling back or sunsetting a portion of those roles and reallocating remaining capacity to priority programs.

•Multilingual staffing reductions: a proposed 13‑FTE reduction in multilingual allocations would change the distribution of non‑instructional time and require schedule adjustments to maintain direct instructional service.

•Central‑office reductions and lease consolidation: staff proposed $700,000 of central‑office savings, including moving the enrollment center from a leased family‑mall space into district‑owned office capacity (saving roughly the same amount in maintenance/lease costs) and reconfiguring research/evaluation functions in coordination with a new data dashboard.

•Other site‑level changes: modest administrative intern reductions at the school level, targeted adjustments to high‑school staffing tied to student choice and course selection, and constrained reductions in professional development and supplies.

Board reaction and next steps: Board members voiced divergent perspectives. Several trustees and multiple principals expressed alarm about cuts that would affect instructional coaching or literacy interventions, saying those staff provide essential, direct support for students and teachers. Other members pushed administration for more granular comparisons across elementary, middle and high school levels and for clearer documentation of previous central‑office reductions. The administration said it will continue community outreach through Nov. 17 and return to the board with final recommendations on Dec. 8.

What the district said it would protect: Administration emphasized the board’s stated priorities — protect literacy supports, avoid large class‑size increases, and preserve student safety — and said the Option 3 package seeks to align reductions with those goals while presenting an alternative to the schedule change.

Context: District staff said about two‑thirds of total personnel reductions to date have come from central‑office functions and that 80% of the general fund is for salaries and benefits. CFO Michelle Vargas noted a 1% salary/benefit increase in the budget would equal roughly $5.4 million, larger than a 1% increase in the state funding formula.

Bottom line: The district has presented alternative paths to close the gap. Trustees asked for more detailed impact matrices, especially to compare how proposed cuts would affect intervention and coaching capacity at each school level. Administration will collect community feedback through mid‑November and expects to bring final recommendations to the board on Dec. 8.