ICCS committee reviews building-level spending and cost-per-student; no budget action taken

Iowa City Community School District staff gave the district’s financial oversight committee an information-only presentation on building-level general fund expenditures and cost-per-student comparisons, and no formal budget decisions were made.

Kurt, who the presentation identifies as having transitioned into dual CFO and COO roles for the district, told the committee the team used the district’s certified annual report as a baseline for the analysis and intentionally excluded a few minor partner-preschool location codes for clarity. He said the slides show that salaries and benefits account for roughly 90% or more of billings at most buildings and that cost-per-student figures were calculated using headcount enrollment, not weighted counts.

The presentation displayed building-level comparisons across high schools, middle schools and elementary schools. Kurt said City High had the highest total expenditures among the three traditional high schools and that expenditures at the high school level generally mirrored enrollment. By contrast, elementary schools showed more variability in cost per student: a number of elementaries were at or near the district’s baseline while some were “significantly higher,” according to the presenter. The slides used a state cost-per-pupil reference that the presenter listed at about $78.26 to provide a comparison point.

Committee members asked whether the differences in cost per student were driven by staffing levels, salary schedules, or student demographics such as special education and English-language-learner populations. Kurt and other staff said those factors can influence building expenditures and that some shared positions appear to be inconsistently coded across buildings; they recommended a coding and allocation cleanup so costs better reflect where staff spend their time.

Several trustees asked for additional data pulls to help interpret the numbers. Requests included staffing-ratio breakdowns (student-to-teacher, student-to-administrator), counts of wraparound and special-services positions by building, and year-over-year comparisons to see trends. Kurt and Superintendent Degner said staff could return with more granular metrics and clarified that the packet was intended as a level set for future conversations rather than a basis for immediate reallocation.

In discussion about state funding, a committee member suggested the district prepare a concise visual for lawmakers showing the gap between inflation and the state cost-per-pupil; staff said they were developing a graphic for the district’s legislative forum and would share draft materials for committee feedback. No motions to change policy, transfer funds, or adopt a budget were made during the meeting.

Procedural actions recorded on the agenda included the voice election of Mitch to chair the meeting, approval of April 9, 2024, minutes by voice vote, and a motion to adjourn; the transcript records the voice outcomes but does not contain a full roll-call vote tally.

The committee directed staff to: provide follow-up data (staffing ratios, breakdowns of special-education and wraparound expenditures, and per-building coding clarifications), update the slide set to reflect omitted schools (Warren was noted as missing on an early slide but appears in later tables), and circulate the legislative visual for comment. Staff said the presentation covered last school year’s data as a baseline and that future reports could include multi-year trend analysis.