The Jamestown Public School Board opened its public budget hearing on Monday evening, Sept. 15, in the Thompson Community Room, where district leaders reviewed a preliminary 2025–26 budget, explained how House Bill 1176 affects local levies and proposed a tuition-levy increase to recover costs for parent-requested Center for Distance Education courses.

The hearing matters because the bill changes how some levies are capped, the district projects a general-fund shortfall for next year and leaders flagged declining enrollment and the loss of a major grant as drivers of the gap.

Superintendent (title on record) explained the hearing process and emphasized the budget is not being approved at the meeting. “The budget is not set for approval tonight,” the superintendent said, noting final adoption is scheduled for Oct. 6 to allow public input.

District staff told the board that House Bill 1176 introduced two principal changes relevant to local taxpayers: a 3% tax limit that applies to certain levies and a primary-residence tax credit applied at the county auditor level on the total tax statement. “The 3% tax limit refers to some of our levies,” the superintendent said, and the district noted the cap applies to the general fund (including the board discretionary portion), the miscellaneous fund, special reserve and the building fund; tuition, special assessment, sinking and interest-in-judgment levies are not subject to that 3% limit.

Kristy, a district finance staff member, walked the board through the levy worksheet used to compare dollars levied in the previous tax year with the proposed levies. The worksheet showed the district is proposing to levy the same total mills it has in recent years — 102 mills — though some individual levies are lower to comply with the 3% cap. The district said an apples‑to‑apples comparison shows the school portion of tax on a $100,000 residence would remain $459 if the property’s assessed value did not change.

The board heard a staff proposal to raise the high-school tuition levy to recoup costs associated with parent-requested Center for Distance Education courses, which the district called an unfunded state mandate. “Even if we had already offered geometry and a family wants to take an NDCDE course, even though we have four sections of geometry, we would still have to allow for an NDCDE course upon parent request,” the superintendent said. District figures presented attributed roughly $115,000 in NDCDE costs to the prior year and described the tuition-levy increase as intended to recoup that expense.

Kristy summarized the preliminary budget numbers: the district projects a revenue reduction of about $550,000 overall; a $315,000 loss tied to the expiration of the CLSD grant; a change in Title allocations of roughly $110,000; and a projected general-fund deficit of about $1,025,000 in the preliminary budget. Kristy also said the district currently has about 12.25 FTE openings and that budget figures assume full staffing and full revenue collection.

Board members asked for clarification on levy calculations, the distinction between levies governed by the 3% cap and those that are not, and how reassessment would affect taxes. The superintendent and Kristy repeatedly offered to meet individually with members of the public to walk through the levy worksheet and use the district’s property-tax generator tab to model personal tax impacts.

On enrollment and long-term outlook, district staff reiterated concerns about declining enrollment, a smaller incoming kindergarten class, and aging facilities. The superintendent said the finance committee will continue a categorical review of expenditures — prioritizing core services first — and create scenario packages to quantify the effects of additional budget adjustments.

Routine board actions during the meeting included approval of the consent agenda (motion by Jason; second by Dan; verbal roll-call: all aye), approval of the district’s LEA compliance report submission (motion by Aaron; second by Dan; all aye) and approval of a tuition agreement with Montpelier (motion by Jamie; second by Jason; all aye). The public budget hearing produced no public comments, and the superintendent closed the hearing after waiting for attendees to join in person or online.

The board will consider and is scheduled to adopt a final budget at its Oct. 6 meeting; district staff encouraged community members with questions to call central office for a copy of the levy worksheet and a walk-through of how the proposed levies would affect individual properties.

Less-critical details: the district noted historical context showing that, in an apples‑to‑apples comparison, the school portion of taxes on a $100,000 home has declined over the past decades because of statewide changes; staff also explained the primary-residence tax credit is applied to the total tax bill by the county auditor and therefore may not appear as a reduction on the school’s line item.