District projects modest per‑pupil increase as community raises alarms over staffing, special education and legal costs

Academy School District 20 finance staff presented preliminary revenue assumptions for fiscal year 2025–26 and said the introduced School Finance Act points to about a $307 per‑student increase — roughly a 2.87% rise over the current midyear budget — while district leaders warned enrollment and funded pupil count are expected to decline.

"What we see so far is an increase of about $307 per student," the district presenter told the board, noting that the introduced legislation remains subject to change before the end of the state legislative session. The presenter said the district projects a headcount decrease of 43 students and a funded pupil count decrease of about 106.5, and that the preliminary figures translate to roughly $6.7 million in additional revenue at the district level — about $5.2 million after charter allocations.

Why it matters: Even with a modest per‑pupil increase, the finance presenter urged caution because enrollment averaging and other legislative changes could reduce projected revenue. The board and staff discussed using conservative assumptions (a two‑year averaging approach) so the district does not overextend recurring expenses such as salaries.

Board process and timeline: The presenter said the proposed budget will be brought to the board on May 8 for consideration and that the legislative session runs through May 8, meaning the final School Finance Act might not be available until very close to district deadlines.

Community response: Two public comment segments drew a steady stream of speakers. Catherine Chukas urged the board to schedule the three statutorily required budget meetings well in advance and to publicize them broadly to ensure community participation. Other commenters raised concerns about special education staffing and case managers leaving midyear, teacher retention and pay, high district legal fees, and board governance decisions that, callers said, had reduced public trust.

Representative remarks: Veronica Baker, a parent, called for listening to exit interviews and strategies to retain special education staff. Teacher and staff member Leah McFann described classroom and pay pressures and said many educators cannot afford to live locally, adding, "I can't afford to live" while listing the additional jobs she takes to make ends meet. Rob Rogers criticized the board's priorities, citing legal costs and deferred maintenance, and asked the board to focus on student needs rather than procedural enforcement on public meeting decorum. Tim Hoffman made several allegations about a board member's conduct; those accusations were aired in public comment and were not resolved during the meeting.

What the board can do next: Board members flagged EL 2.7 (employment compensation and benefit monitoring) and Ends 1.2 (character) as items for further review. The budget timetable and the May 8 proposed budget presentation were confirmed as forthcoming next steps.

Provenance: Topic begins in the presenter’s overview of preliminary revenue assumptions and ends after the board’s questions about averaging and projections. (Topic provenance: SEG 2616–SEG 2780 and public comment SEG 2790–SEG 3231.)