The Juneau School District presented its FY26 operating budget, approved by the school board March 28, to the Assembly Finance Committee on April 5. The district’s FY26 operating plan totals about $79.3 million and is based on a projected enrollment of 3,919 students — a 3.1% drop from FY25. The district built the budget assuming a $400 increase to the state base student allocation (BSA) and took a conservative approach to statewide funding uncertainty.

A notable technical point: the district said it qualified for a state hold‑harmless provision tied to consolidation and reduced average daily membership; the hold‑harmless treatment will phase down over three years. The district emphasized the hold‑harmless and the district’s consolidation work have allowed it to avoid cutting staff or extracurricular programs and to retain commitments to student activities. The FY26 budget includes steps for bargaining units and a 2.5% initial teacher proposal in the district’s offer to the Juneau Education Association; the district is still negotiating contracts with all three bargaining units.

Key budget choices: 90% of the operating budget goes to personnel costs, the district said, and the FY26 plan reduces the pupil‑teacher ratio in grades 4–6 from 30:1 to 28:1. The district requested the Assembly provide the maximum allowable local contribution under the state foundation formula — $35,004,712 — and also requested $2,115,000 from the city for noninstructional programs that have historically been supported as subventions (community schools, transportation, food service, Learn‑to‑Swim and others). That represent a decrease of about $1.575 million from FY25 levels, the district said, because FY25 included one‑time state funds and vacancy savings that do not recur.

Why it matters: the district said it does not plan cuts to core programs and is prioritizing classroom staff; however, committee members raised questions about the state regulatory environment and a proposed state regulation to change how local contributions are calculated. The district said staff are watching a parallel legislature discussion and that any change in state rules could affect city‑district relationships for funding noninstructional programs.

Ending: the district will provide further detail on department budgets, and board and staff told the committee they will work with the Assembly as the budget process proceeds to answer detailed questions about the noninstructional support list and the timing of expenditures.