Lake Park Audubon board delays vote on up to $1.6M in proposed cuts after community survey

The Lake Park Audubon School Board reviewed a preliminary set of potential budget reductions that administration said could approach $1.6 million and postponed any final vote to allow more time for analysis and stakeholder input.

Superintendent Dr. Burkquist told trustees he learned in November that the district would need substantial reductions and described a timeline and process that included early staff notifications and consultation with the teachers’ union. "When I found out in November that we had to cut $1.5 million, needless to say, I was pretty crushed," he said, framing the discussion around the district’s fiscal reality and the requirement to follow state notice timelines for employees.

Administration presented community survey results (about 372 responses): respondents ranked core academics and student supports as the highest priorities to protect, expressed substantial concern about childcare if the district adopted a 4‑day week, and were mixed on whether they supported a 4‑day schedule. Administration noted that a 4‑day week prototype in a similar district showed savings as high as $300,000 but said the local estimate might be closer to $180,000–$220,000 after accounting for childcare and other local factors.

The superintendent and staff presented potential personnel and program reductions across three buckets: administration/operations (examples: community education, activities director, transportation), elementary staffing (scenario estimated at roughly $484,000 by moving many grades from three sections to two), and secondary staffing (draft savings near $354,000, with attention to certification and course‑coverage constraints). Administrators flagged statutory constraints for some positions (for example, principal and nurse coverage requirements and seniority rules for contract employees) and the risk that trimming services could reduce enrollment if families choose other districts.

After extended discussion, Aaron moved to table budget decisions until the board’s next meeting so staff could refine options, run enrollment scenarios (especially kindergarten/preschool), revisit potential .5‑FTE combinations for electives, and provide documentation for administrative proposals. The board took a roll‑call vote and the motion to postpone carried unanimously among members present.

The board asked administration to return with clarified cost estimates, the detailed list of affected positions and seniority implications, contract and invoice packets (where relevant), and a suggested schedule for community engagement before the next meeting.