Milpitas Unified studies cost-management plan, explores filling vacancies and new revenue streams

The Milpitas Unified School District held a special board study session to review a draft cost-management plan aimed at closing a structural budget gap and preserving classroom staffing.

Superintendent Jordan told the board that prior policy choices and the end of one-time grant funding have exposed ongoing pressures, and that staff project near‑zero assigned general‑fund balances by the third projection year without changes. Jordan noted a prior decision to fund full‑time elementary assistant principals largely explains a significant portion of the structural shortfall and said the district values maintaining that staffing model.

The presentation outlined three parallel strategies: achieve savings, generate revenue and review potential reductions only as last resorts. On the savings side, staff urged routine review of vacant positions to determine whether duties can be redistributed or roles redesigned and cited an example of contract consolidation (switching to Google ReadAlong) that saved roughly $70,000.

Staff flagged benefits and staffing costs as material drivers. The presentation said the district has roughly 1,000 full‑time‑equivalent positions, about 518 employees on Kaiser (which staff said increased ~20% this year) and roughly 121 on UnitedHealthcare; the district’s monthly medical cap was presented as $1,371 per employee. Those benefit pressures contributed to the urgency of the effort.

On revenue, staff proposed increasing facilities‑use fees, letting sites retain a portion of those receipts, renting the new Milpitas High School performing‑arts center to professional managers, charging parking at larger events and selling sponsorship or marquee advertising to local businesses. The chief business officer said facilities‑use receipts typically flow to the building fund to support maintenance, and the board asked staff to study whether some facility revenue could instead support general‑fund needs or return to sites.

A major savings example focused on filling paraprofessional vacancies internally rather than relying on contracting agencies. Staff said creating a paraprofessional pathway through adult education and internships could reduce contracted substitutes and agency costs; they estimated that, if implemented aggressively, that approach could yield roughly $400,000–$415,000 in savings. Director Stonehouse told the board the district currently has "somewhere around 20" paraprofessional vacancies and recalled higher vacancy counts earlier in the year; staff acknowledged the $415,000 figure may reflect contract reductions rather than a direct per‑position calculation.

The board also heard that the district has hired Keenan to study an early‑retirement incentive. Keenan’s preliminary analysis projected that if 23 certificated staff elected the program, the district could save about $730,000 in the first two years; staff cautioned the result depends on actual participation and whether retirements are certificated or classified.

Staff described other potential savings and revenue ideas gathered from association and leadership roundtables, and emphasized that identification does not equal implementation. Jordan underscored that returning elementary assistant principals to a shared, part‑time model would be an "extreme last resort" if savings and revenue proved insufficient.

Public comment: Brett Weber (MUSD/MTA) asked whether the study‑session materials were public and where they would be posted. Staff said the materials and meeting video would be available on the board website with the meeting minutes and invited associations to participate in the collaborative process.

Next steps: staff will form a cost‑management collaborative team that will meet roughly three times before March 1 and will run a thought‑exchange to gather broader input, including from students. The board did not take formal policy action at the study session; it approved the meeting agenda at the start of the session and adjourned at the close.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the open‑session agenda by voice vote (motion carried; no opposed or abstaining votes recorded) and later approved a motion to adjourn (motion carried; no opposed or abstaining votes recorded).