District finance leaders presented proposed enhancements to Rochester Public Schools' balanced-budget model at the Dec. 2 board meeting, asking the board to consider policy rules that would guide staffing and site allocations in next year's budget development.

Andy Krogstad, the district's finance director, described several interlocking changes the administration recommends for implementation after further modeling and board action on Dec. 16. Key proposals include bringing discretionary (copying/printing and site-level discretionary) allocations into the balanced-budget model for better visibility; reducing the percent of site-allocated compensatory revenue from 100% to 80% (a change permitted by state law) and placing a portion of that 20% in a district set-aside to boost flexible resources at sites that currently receive little or no Title I funding; and shifting achievement-and-integration site allocations into general-fund allocations with district-level reserved positions to meet plan requirements.

"What we're proposing is that we would remove 20% of that as we are permitted to do by state law, and we would allocate much of that 20% to some of our sites that have limited compensatory dollars and have no title funding," Krogstad said. He estimated the 20% slice represents roughly $2.3 million districtwide and said the administration will return with precise formulas and modeling before any final vote.

A second material change is reclassifying school counselors from fixed staffing to flexible funding (the same category as social workers and other learning supports). Chair Nathan said the change responds to principal feedback that counselors and social workers provide similar learning supports and should be managed by site leaders as part of a flexible package. Krogstad and superintendent Pacquiao said the district remains committed to the referendum-level counselor funding floor (about $5 million) and does not intend this procedural reclassification to reduce overall counseling capacity.

Board members pressed for clearer visuals and school-level examples to show the impact of the proposed shift (some schools may experience modest reductions while others gain flexibility). Finance provided an illustrative example showing a projected net loss for a Title I school on the order of $15,000 under the current draft formulas but said the district would return with refined calculations. The administration emphasized the proposals are intended to direct more flexible resources to schools that serve students in need but fall below high-concentration thresholds used by the state funding formula.

No final action was taken on Dec. 2; the item is scheduled as "prep for action" with final board action and budget votes planned for the Dec. 16 meeting.