[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6200055,"mediaKeyId","3819650-69e05b762188eca7ea926f690fb2144a","parentId",3819650,"title","Lakeland Joint School District board adopts FY‑26 budget after $2 million levy cut; key spending choices deferred","audioSeconds",10005,"startMs",133000,"endMs",10138000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3819650-69e05b762188eca7ea926f690fb2144a&start=133&end=10138","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3819650-69e05b762188eca7ea926f690fb2144a/thumbnail_133000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6200055/Idaho/Lakeland-Joint-School-District-board-adopts-FY26-budget-after-2-million-levy-cut-key-spending-choices-deferred","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200055-9c60e3b9516664ddc79cad8e50f08d9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137349&Signature=norrWdpMqft9uHpdagn1jewAZLrWOQPIBROjDn0rCv1jWM0PogR5vDW3kypgq8wWmWIDOwtT~boc2S2hWsL0bKzlaiVhm5jLrKVKjCloY6sCrFTmfXdYe5pRmBEg8wAodkBwYdihnmGNXF0momSqtm3A3uPXyHSQHxTz1wL8diSN9fZUNy5E4ju-lsjs1fRpqGXk6~JzczUK7Ppd8K6rwIg9sgqoc-VZnHqXcZtLTAFcqBfDcWWuMoAnm8VK~xvxQmtApLrFQKTS0XaU6N3XmPIemEjmE-CITzB7Z7iwGelBJ2OXcM2Ke66X1GXHAUHs6~ym7vVeI9vqGUI5YgCWjg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lakeland School District","date","2025-06-12T20:20:41Z","article","The Lakeland Joint School District 2526 board on Wednesday adopted the district’s fiscal year 2026 budget after a public budget hearing and discussion of staffing, fund transfers and program priorities.

Chief Finance Officer Jessica Grant told the board the general fund — the district’s primary operating budget — reflects lower property tax receipts because roughly $2.0 million of what the district levied is being reported and received as state property‑tax‑relief funds rather than local revenue. Grant said the district expects about $2.0 million in tax‑relief funds this year compared with about $2.3 million last year, though the final amount will not be available from the state until August or early September.

The move to adopt the FY‑26 budget came after trustees questioned specific program requests and staffing assumptions and after Grant outlined potential one‑time sources to cover items that were omitted from the base budget.

Why it matters: The adopted budget responds to an estimated drop of roughly 200 students — a loss Grant said would reduce the district’s support units by about 6.33 — and to state changes in how property‑tax‑relief is reported. That combination forced the district to cut positions and limit one‑time purchases while preserving core services.

Most important facts
- Revenue adjustments: Grant said the district moved some previously local revenue into state revenue lines to reflect property‑tax‑relief reporting; the final state figures will be available in August or September and the district plans to file a standard L2 extension with the state. The FY‑26 budget assumes roughly $2.0 million in property‑tax‑relief funds (prior year roughly $2.3 million).
- Personnel and cuts: The district cut about seven teaching positions through normal attrition (resignation/retirement) and incorporated other staffing changes. Grant estimated the budget reflects more than 130 position changes in total during the planning process and said she expects at least one budget amendment in the fall once enrollment and actual hires are known.
- Proposed but not funded items: The district did not include several items in the adopted base budget because of revenue constraints. Grant listed proposals she planned to present for board consideration at the June 18 meeting (and said she would propose funding sources if the board wished):
• Social‑studies curriculum materials: estimated cost $335,000. Grant described options to cover this as one‑time uses of fund balance, reallocating approximately $46,000 in federal forest funds, using a remaining $146,000 in an approved projects fund, or transferring interest revenue from the new school modernization fund.
• Nursing supplies (AED pads and other items): estimated increase $5,000.
• Library materials: raise supply allocations from $500 to $2,500 per building — roughly $20,000 total.
• Elementary and middle‑school counselor days: requests to reinstate counselors’ pre‑/post‑year days (elementary five days, middle school eight days) were described but not funded in the adopted base.
• Salary step increases for classified, administrative and exempt staff: Grant estimated an ongoing cost of about $235,289 (classified $189,101; administration $23,740; classified directors/exempt $22,004.48). She said she did not recommend funding ongoing salary steps from one‑time fund balance and preferred waiting until September when final salary‑apportionment numbers are set.
- Interfund transfers and special funds: The budget includes a $315,000 interfund transfer of interest earnings from the school modernization fund (Fund 436) into the general fund to help offset facility costs; Grant said state guidance allows interest earnings from the modernization fund to be transferred for facilities expenses.
- School modernization fund and capital work: Grant presented a multi‑year list of projects the district would like to fund with the new school modernization appropriation (House Bill 521 funding). She said the packet shows a detailed plan for buildings, roofs, and code‑driven upgrades and that staff expect to expend most or all of the modernization funds by summer 2027 if projects are bid and scheduled as shown. She noted the district may need to slightly exceed the budgeted authorization because some projects span multiple summers and timing of materials and bids is uncertain.
- Timberlake field house and local facility funds: The local facility fund carries a large externally raised balance tied to the Timberlake High School field house; Grant said the district hopes to put the project to bid this summer and that those funds are tracked with separate project codes.
- Child nutrition and contracted services: Grant reminded the board that the district’s outsourced child‑nutrition contract (Chartwell/Chartwells referenced in the packet) changed program dynamics and that the district may have to supplement the program from the general fund when the child‑nutrition fund balance runs down; she noted contract renewal and procurement are reviewed when the contract term ends.

Discussion, directions and decisions
- Discussion points: Board members asked for detail on the amounts and timing of state property‑tax‑relief funds, consequences of enrollment declines, and whether particular items (for example, clerk‑of‑the‑board cell‑phone stipends and the social‑studies purchase) should be prioritized. Trustees also questioned roof work at Lakeland Middle School and asked staff to provide the district roof‑replacement matrix and the schedule that had been prepared previously.
- Staff directions: Grant said she will bring back specific funding recommendations for the social‑studies purchase and other one‑time items at the next board meeting so the board can decide whether to authorize transfers or use existing reserves. She also said she will reissue final FY‑25 actuals after the fiscal year closes to compare estimates with actual results.
- Formal action: After the hearing the board voted to adopt the FY‑26 budget as presented.

Formal actions extracted from the hearing
- Budget adoption: motion to approve the FY‑26 budget as presented — outcome: approved (motion carries; no roll‑call tally captured in transcript excerpt). Referenced by: board minutes at the conclusion of the public hearing.
- Executive sessions called under Idaho Code 74‑206(1)(b): motions and roll‑call approvals recorded earlier in the meeting to go into executive session; no budget action was taken in executive session.

Clarifying details extracted from the packet and board discussion
- Property tax relief: FY‑25 roughly $2,300,000 received; FY‑26 estimated $2,000,000 (final state figure to be released in August/September). Source: Jessica Grant presentation.
- Interfund transfer: $315,000 from Fund 436 (school modernization interest) proposed to general fund for facility expense offset.
- Proposed social studies curriculum: $335,000 (not in adopted base; will be presented on June 18 for board decision and proposed funding sources).
- Salary step estimate: $235,289 total (classified $189,101; administration $23,740; classified directors/exempt $22,004.48) — ongoing cost; Grant recommended against using fund balance for ongoing salaries.
- Enrollment: April enrollment cited at 4,629; projected FY‑26 enrollment shown in packet at roughly 4,487; board discussion estimated a decline of about 200 students and a support‑unit reduction of ~6.33.

Proper names cited in coverage
- Lakeland Joint School District 2526 (agency)
- Timberlake High School Field House (facility/project)
- Architects West (organization)
- Tremco (vendor cited in roofing assessment)
- Skyward (student/finance system software)

Community relevance and next steps
The board approved the FY‑26 budget but directed staff to return with clearer funding options for one‑time spending requests, including the proposed social‑studies curriculum purchase. Final state property‑tax‑relief numbers due in August or September could require adjustments; Grant warned that staff expect to present a recommended budget amendment in the fall once final enrollment and apportionment numbers are confirmed.

Ending: The board adopted the FY‑26 budget at the hearing and scheduled follow‑up reports and potential amendments once the state releases final tax‑relief and apportionment figures for the year.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","6.11.2025 Special Board Meeting of the LJSD Board of Trustees","oneSentenceSummary","The Lakeland Joint School District 2526 board on Wednesday adopted the district’s fiscal year 2026 budget after a public hearing in which district finance staff described revenue shifts tied to state property‑tax‑relief, an anticipated 200‑student enrollment decline and a list of proposed items that were left out of the base budget.","taxTitle","LAKELAND DISTRICT, School Districts, Idaho","taxId",67848,"location","Idaho","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6200049,"Board approves new certificated salary schedule; negotiated agreement fails and is returned for revision",4155,5283000,9438000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3819650-69e05b762188eca7ea926f690fb2144a&start=5283&end=9438","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3819650-69e05b762188eca7ea926f690fb2144a/thumbnail_5283000.jpg","/articles/6200049/Idaho/Board-approves-new-certificated-salary-schedule-negotiated-agreement-fails-and-is-returned-for-revision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200049-8dd2f7f6846a8e0e18d92ce3b41d16d7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137349&Signature=bXHmmcxgLztnhf2TsTgBYGgGfIJ9aTH~zynsZMB19D3j8APb~awgmY2ASYFjm8hzDFXBpGsd1UKiqmp6UqdX-HwnextXiB2ydfg6vHRmtlzqb0Kex2eKrm2~8Ct-jzkzcO0gPHmX1Q9Qwb5CsB9AoCsHx6U1WjfjHems6gULKmdh5-spDjCFrr9E3CP4fEtFo~Q3GQggluuWU5BwHIdkrJmRaktYWD6CXXPCNQ1MfJt43B9WvrjXgUsYWAxisTxDU9yQoXEB-6VFnoAv5QeKRP9ZI~lI4gFJ9ricgrLI3kMG9qABQRelu3spR0wpM~OLigGRVZqhQ8K51xGMyoF4OA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lakeland Joint School District 2526 board approved new certificated salary schedules intended to implement recent state minimums and to phase in previously paid advanced‑professional (AP) stipends by building them into base pay for eligible staff.

During a lengthy discussion, Chief Finance Officer Jessica Grant explained the mechanics: the district moved its previous cell structure so that the new required state minimum salary became the new cell 1, and the schedule includes a “shadow schedule” that preserves existing stipend‑level pay for certain veteran employees while the district transitions to the new structure. Grant said the approach was designed to meet the state mandate without producing an unsustainable immediate budget increase; she cautioned the approach will take years to fully phase in as higher‑paid veteran employees retire or leave.

Nut graf: The board’s action implements state‑mandated minimums for certificated staff, alters how advanced‑professional stipends are reported (they are being incorporated into base salaries for affected employees), and leaves open larger negotiated‑agreement issues after the board failed to ratify the entire agreement.

What the board did
- Approved certificated salary schedule and related placement provisions. Trustees moved to approve the schedule as presented; the motion passed and staff said they will place returning and incoming certificated employees on the new salary cells in line with the approved placement rules.
- Approved other salary schedules and administrator contracts as presented (exempt and classified schedules were adjusted only where state FLSA thresholds or role changes required it). Some increases required by state law (FLSA/exempt minimums) were implemented on the exempt schedule.
- The negotiated agreement (the contract document between the district and the Lakeland education association) did not pass the board vote. The negotiated agreement was put to a vote and failed on a 3‑2 split (two trustees voted in favor, three opposed). The board discussed next steps — staff advised the board could return to the negotiating table and present a counteroffer in executive session.

Discussion highlights
- State mandate: Grant said the district had to implement new state minimums (the mandated base jumped to about $50,002.52 for certain entry cells) and to align placement with the state career ladder. The district evaluated several schedule options and chose a conservative implementation that embeds prior AP stipends into the base for specific staff in a way that phases out the stipends over time.
- Shadow schedule: The approved schedule includes a mechanism that preserves current stipend‑level pay for staff who meet AP criteria this year; those employees keep their higher placement while the district limits future step growth for others until long‑term alignment occurs. Grant said roughly 120 staff might be affected by the shadow transition pool, but she emphasized not all would immediately move to the “shadow” rung and that retirements will hasten transition.
- Union response: Jason Redram, the local teachers’ association president, and other association members spoke at the meeting, expressing support for recognition of teacher achievement and concern about timing and communication of negotiations. Redram suggested the district work with teachers to help staff meet AP criteria; he also asked that future negotiations be scheduled at times when board members can attend.

Outcome and next steps
- Salary placements and returning certified contracts: HR will issue contracts consistent with the new schedule; where placement depends on evaluation outcomes (for example, career ladder movements), staff said revised contracts may be reissued in August if evaluation results change placement.
- Negotiated agreement revision: Because the negotiated agreement did not pass, the board asked district representatives to convene with legal counsel and the association to develop a counterproposal and also requested better editorial cleanup (clear definitions of whom the agreement governs and a cleaner table of contents). Trustees discussed holding negotiation work sessions at times the full board can participate or ensuring board representation and recordation of negotiation meetings.

Formal actions extracted
- Salary schedule adoption: motion to approve the certificated salary schedule and related placement language — outcome: approved (motion carries). The board then approved issuing returning certificated contracts on the new schedule.
- Negotiated agreement: motion to approve the negotiated agreement — outcome: failed (vote recorded in transcript as 2 in favor, 3 opposed). Board directed negotiators to return with revised language and/or counteroffer.

Clarifying details
- State minimum: Grant cited the new required entry minimum for certificated staff (approximately $50,002.52 for the referenced cell); staff repositioned the district salary cells to comply.
- Shadow pool: Grant estimated roughly 120 staff could be in the cohort that retains stipend‑level pay in the short term; she said the “shadow” protections apply only to staff who meet AP placement conditions this year.

Ending: Trustees asked staff to return next week with the placement language written onto salary‑schedule pages, to ensure the district can issue contracts consistent with board direction, and to plan a defined timeframe for negotiating and cleaning up the agreement language for final board consideration.","Trustees approved restructured certificated salary schedules required by recent state minimums and a new \"shadow\" schedule to phase in advanced‑professional stipends. The board rejected the overall negotiated agreement and asked negotiators to revise language and bring counterproposals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lakeland Joint School District board adopts FY‑26 budget after $2 million levy cut; key spending choices deferred

Board approves new certificated salary schedule; negotiated agreement fails and is returned for revision