Caldwell School District projects $2.1M shortfall as trustees weigh vacancies, benefit changes and supplemental levy

Trustees of the Caldwell School District heard on May 18 that a projected decline in enrollment is expected to reduce general-fund revenue by about $2.1 million and force difficult choices in the coming fiscal year.

District finance staffer Zach Wagner told the board the district’s preliminary fall enrollment projection is 4,722 students, generating about 217.27 support units under the state formula. "So our estimated fall enrollment preliminary is 4,722 students," Wagner said. He said that change translates into a roughly $2.1 million year-over-year decrease in general-fund revenue tied to fewer support units.

Why it matters: the enrollment-driven revenue loss affects state apportionments and staffing allowances tied to support units. Wagner said the state’s staffing formula produces an allowance of roughly 16.3 administrative positions and 221.83 instructional positions for the district’s support-unit count; the district currently staffs about 336 positions, roughly 71.3 positions above the state allowance.

What trustees discussed: Wagner said the district anticipates about 28 instructional positions will become vacant through attrition and not be refilled, which would raise average class sizes modestly — he estimated class-size ratios could increase by about two students (from roughly 19 to 21). To limit costs, trustees also discussed one-time stipends versus permanent step increases and other personnel options.

Health benefits pressure: Cheryl Sanderson, the district benefits lead, told trustees the district’s pooled school-benefit trust delivered a 19.5% increase in health insurance premiums for the district’s plan, which the district estimates will add about $945,000 to the general-fund cost if the plan is left unchanged. Sanderson said the trust’s actuaries set rates based on claims across member districts and that alternative market quotes carried similar or higher increases. She said the district is evaluating options including higher deductibles, benefit adjustments or asking employees to share more of the cost, and cautioned that leaving the pooled trust has risks such as reserve requirements.

Investments, modernization money and capital-sale limits: Wagner explained the district keeps general-fund and modernization monies in the state treasurer’s Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), which he described as a liquid, low-risk vehicle. Trustees asked whether interest from a previously allocated modernization amount could be used for general operations; staff said modernization interest is restricted to maintenance-related purposes and that proceeds from selling a capital asset typically must remain dedicated to facilities or capital improvements unless clarified by statute or legal guidance. The district will verify allowable uses before budgeting any sale proceeds.

Supplemental levy timing: Trustees were reminded the ballot language for a supplemental (operational) levy must be submitted to the county clerk by Aug. 28 to appear on the ballot. Staff emphasized that the supplemental levy has been essential to fund classroom positions and the school-resource-officer program.

Process and next steps: Staff said formal budget adoption is scheduled for June 15. Negotiations with the teachers’ association are beginning this week; the board and district staff named the members of the district negotiation team and said they will meet to consider benefit and salary options informed by the benefit-trust pricing.

Board procedure: At the start of the meeting trustees approved the posted agenda and at the end they moved and approved adjournment by voice vote.

What remains unresolved: The classification and funding mechanism for instructional coaches drew repeated questions. Staff said coaches are reported as instructional staff for FY25-26 and the State Department of Education indicated coaches would be placed and funded as instructional on the career ladder, but trustees noted the statutory language cited in the discussion (referenced in the meeting as "33 10 o 4 b") may not yet reflect a separate funding category for instructional-support positions; the board flagged this as an item that could require legal clarity or the first reporting/funding cycle in Feb. 2027 to resolve.

The board plans to finalize the budget on June 15 and continue negotiations with the teachers’ association.