Bullhead City board approves ESI staffing amendment, procurement and childcare changes; adopts budget revisions with some abstentions

The Bullhead City School District governing board met March 20 and took a set of operational votes after a lengthy workshop featuring principals’ implementation reports.

Staffing contract amendment: The board approved the third amendment to renew the district’s staffing agreement with ESI for school year 2025–2026. Administration clarified the amendment relates to substitute-teacher staffing services; the motion was moved and seconded and roll call recorded board members responding in the affirmative.

Cooperative purchasing (ETC/Synergy): District staff recommended a five-year cooperative purchasing agreement with ETC (Northern Arizona University affiliate) to provide vendor support and modifications for the Synergy student-information system. Trustees discussed costs; administration identified a recurring ETC support fee shown in the packet as $500 annually (ETC support for customizations) while core Synergy licensing/support runs separately (district staff gave a rough ballpark of around $30,000 for Synergy services). The board approved the ETC cooperative-purchasing agreement.

Booster organization regulations and forms: Promoted by an issue at a campus parent group, district administration presented a new regulation (KJARA) and two exhibitory forms to govern relations with booster organizations and to provide standardized forms for registration and oversight. The board adopted the regulation and both exhibits to provide clearer guardrails for booster fundraising and use of school logos.

Childcare operations: The board approved proposed operational changes for the district childcare center for 2025–26. The superintendent described expanding eligibility (employees’ grandchildren and, when space allows, employees of nearby districts) while keeping employee rates unchanged and maintaining district children as the highest priority. Staff noted the center’s accreditation steps, infant/toddler demand, and operational mechanics of aligning preschool or full-day coverage.

Budget recommendations and revisions: Administration presented budget revisions for the current fiscal year and initial proposals for FY26. A corrected state funding figure (a roughly half‑million-dollar add-back in a recent BSA correction) improved combined reserves and reduced near-term pressure on M&O funding. The superintendent proposed using the Instructional Improvement carryover and current-year allotments (state-directed funds) to provide an immediate one-time $750 stipend to teachers and to fund a substantial portion of proposed year‑3 Instructional Empowerment contract costs, while shifting some music and art positions to Classroom Site Fund coverage and adding a fourth special-education preschool classroom in response to growing need.

The board voted to accept the superintendent’s budget recommendations. During the vote several trustees recorded abstentions while others voted in favor; administrators emphasized that approving the budget framework does not itself finalize a year‑3 contract with Instructional Empowerment and that contract approval would come separately with full contract documentation and cost detail.

What passed and next steps: The board approved the ESI amendment, the ETC cooperative-purchasing agreement, the booster regulation and exhibits, proposed childcare operational changes, and the superintendent’s budget revisions and planning framework. Administration will bring contract documentation and a detailed proposal and cost breakdown for the year‑3 Instructional Empowerment services to a future meeting. The board also requested that staff circulate updated data reports and the corrected trend-line exports referenced during the principals’ presentations.

Votes and procedure notes: Most motions were moved, seconded and adopted by voice or roll-call votes; where the packet records roll-call responses, trustees identified themselves (examples include Melinda Zabrowski, Charlene Diaz, Fred Rushton, Barb Zarczicki and Judy Reed). For the budget motion the record shows some trustees abstained while others voted yes; administration characterized the adoption as a set of planning allocations rather than a contract award.

The meeting ended after agreeing follow-up agenda items (a deeper IE/contract discussion and benchmark-score review) and scheduling a brief special meeting to review insurance proposals before the end-of-month deadline.

Ending: The board adjourned after the final motions and roll-call.