Sioux Falls School District proposes $2.3M in FY27 reductions; board asks staff to model higher pay and class‑size limits

Sioux Falls School District 49‑5 administrators on the work‑session agenda presented a draft FY27 budget that recommends roughly $2.3 million in reductions and $461,000 in identified efficiencies, while urging the board that the budget remains a draft with additional community review.

Dr. mold, who introduced the budget process, said the district removed “a little over $3 million from our ongoing budget” last year and is proposing additional reductions this year to continue a multi‑year plan to avoid a structural deficit. "We did remove a little over $3 million from our ongoing budget," Dr. mold said, noting most reductions have involved vacant positions or reassignments rather than layoffs.

Administration outlined department‑level proposals that include a combined HR/finance clerical vacancy ($31,000), cuts in curriculum purchase services (including shifting a Spanish immersion assessment in‑house), operational and custodial efficiencies, elimination of an extra custodial FTE at some sites, and technology‑related savings tied to a systems conversion. The district also plans to complete an LED lighting conversion it said will reduce peak demand and generate rebates; staff project the LED work will contribute roughly $210,000 annually toward ongoing savings.

Todd provided the financial rollup: the combined tax‑supported general fund revenue is roughly $223 million with about $8.2 million in transfers in, and the district expects to use approximately $1.8–$1.9 million from fund balance in FY27. He also reviewed the levy history and said state property‑tax relief measures will lower the owner‑occupied levy from 713 to about 540, a near‑23% decline in school property tax burden for homeowners as projected in the draft scenario.

Special education revenue and expenditures were highlighted separately. Todd said state recalibration of disability funding categories increases special education revenue by roughly $3 million while driving projected special education expenditures up about $2.4 million; special education remains one of the district’s largest cost centers.

Board members praised the work of the budget committees and repeatedly stressed two priorities: avoid job losses and preserve class size. President Kelly and other board members asked administration to return within a week with concrete options to increase staff pay beyond the draft 1.95% negotiated increase and to model firm elementary class‑size limits (board members discussed a notional cap of 30 as an example). Kelly said the board wanted proposals showing budget impacts and building‑level implications before the next meeting.

Administration said it will bring back modeled options and that the budget process includes two work sessions to allow additional public input. The board did not take formal votes at the session; staff characterized the budget as a living document that could be adjusted before any formal adoption.

What’s next: staff will return with pay‑and‑class‑size scenarios at the next work session scheduled one week after the meeting, and the district will keep the detailed cost‑center packets available online for public review.