McPherson superintendent warns cash reserves will fall unless district finds $1.75 million in savings

Superintendent Shiloh Benson told the USD 418 Board of Education on Oct. 13 that McPherson’s cash reserves are trending downward and will require local action to preserve a healthy operating cushion.

Benson said the district’s main operating revenue flows through the general fund and the local option budget and that those accounts must typically hold 10–15% of operating costs. She said a no-action scenario would reduce reserves toward the low end of the district’s 10‑year history, while an identified savings target of $1,750,000 would hold reserves near the 10% threshold. Benson said a larger savings target of $2.5 million would restore the district to its stronger years from 2021–2024.

The superintendent framed the discussion around declining enrollment and higher special‑education costs. “In a per‑pupil funded state, if the number of pupils goes down, there is a direct correlation to what you can expect in your funding,” Benson said, and she noted that RSP Associates projected a count day of 2,051 while the district’s head count was 2,061. Benson added that fewer than 10 Kansas districts saw enrollment growth this year out of 286 districts statewide, and McPherson is not among them.

Why it matters: Benson told the board that, without savings or structural changes, the district could be forced to use fund 30 (special education reserves) and draw that balance toward zero over the next two years. “That account would be drawn down to 0. That’s clearly not an option and not anything that any of us would be recommending,” she said.

Board members and staff discussed what programmatic and facility‑level options might produce savings. Benson and staff presented a 10‑year cash history showing reserves that at times fell below 10% (2019) and at other times rose to roughly 16–17%. She said the district’s strongest years held $4–$5 million in total cash and that special‑education funding shifts at the state level have increased local obligations.

Benson outlined three planning scenarios for the next two fiscal years: (1) do nothing (projected decline), (2) target $1.75 million in savings (recommended midpoint), and (3) target $2.5 million (more conservative). She told the board the administrative team will bring concrete proposals for efficiencies and savings and that facility discussions — including community feedback that a three‑elementary configuration may be viable — are already under way.

Benson also reviewed operating cost by building and cautioned that some major cost drivers such as transportation and health insurance are not easily allocated to a single school. “You do run into cash‑flow issues,” she said, adding that the district is not currently in a cash‑flow crunch but could be if missteps occur.

On grants and safety funding, Benson said the district received two Safe and Secure Schools grants in recent years, each about $68,000 (roughly $34,000 local match). She said that program received no new funding in the latest legislative session and that the district is checking whether capital outlay language allows the district to earmark capital mills for safety projects.

Board reaction and next steps: Members pressed for more details, including building‑level historical maintenance costs and how facility scenarios would affect operating budgets. Dwayne and Ashley from the facilities team told the board they will refine scenarios and present them at upcoming community sessions. Benson said the district will return with specifics and asked the board to consider the October timeline as an opportunity to plan deliberately ahead of the 2026–27 budget cycle.

Ending: Benson closed by asking the board for input and promising additional data at future meetings as the administrative team refines savings proposals and facility options.