Tumwater School District officials presented the district’s preliminary 2025‑26 budget at a public hearing and described a basic education funding shortfall, near‑term levy planning and program funding changes that they said have already reduced staffing levels.

Kira Acker, the district’s financial services director, told the board the budget shows a gap between state MSOC (materials, supplies, operating costs) revenue and the district’s projected MSOC spending: “We’re underfunded 4,800,000.0 in our basic ed budget,” she said.

That shortfall is central to the district’s longer‑range planning for levies. Assistant Superintendent Ben Rarick told board members the district must seek voter authorization next February to renew its capital and technology levy because the current authorization ends with calendar year 2026. “So we will need to go to the voters in February 2026 to seek authorization to renew our capital and technology levy,” he said, adding the district is considering timing that would align multiple levy authorizations in later years to reduce how often voters are asked to approve measures.

The presentation and board discussion detailed several budget factors and program decisions:
- Revenues and projections: Staff described a 4‑year projection exercise the state requires (the F‑195 projection), assumptions about flat enrollment with small grade‑level shifts, a provisional 1% decrease in 11th‑ and 12th‑grade enrollments, and a 2% average increase in state funding in the model. Officials said those assumptions and a projected 4% annual expenditure increase drive the long‑range fund balance projections.
- Fund balances and debt: Acker said the district projects a general fund ending balance for 2025‑26 in the range of roughly $4.6 million to $4.8 million depending on year‑end results, and staff described four voted bonds the district is still paying down and routine twice‑yearly debt service payments.
- Transportation and capital needs: Staff reported recent vehicle deliveries and pending bus orders and noted planned use of transportation‑vehicle fund balance for special‑education bus replacements. Facilities staff cited HVAC, electrical, painting and potential solar projects in capital planning.

Program funding and contract decisions were discussed during the hearing and in response to public comments. Two community speakers — Carrie Hoon, a parent, and DJ (identified in the record as president of the Tomahawk Education Association) — urged continued support for school‑based wraparound services. Hoon said, “I just wanna speak out in favor of funding for the Together Community Schools program.” DJ added, “I just wanna support what Carrie was saying about the Together program.”

District leaders said the Together (Tumwater Community Schools) contract is included in the proposed budget with a negotiated reduction. Acker told the board the district and the provider agreed to a 10% reduction in fees that the district will pay, “So it’s a savings of $30,000, and their services will stay the same.” The district said the program’s services will continue but that the district and the provider will also pursue partnerships and fundraising to support long‑term sustainability.

The Grub Fresh (farm/greenhouse) program’s district funding status was described as changed rather than eliminated. Superintendent Bogdan and other staff said the previously funded position tied to that program is not included in the proposed budget in its prior form; staff said the work has been shifted back to a high‑school on‑site greenhouse and that the district will “reengage around ... a long term sustainable program in partnership with others.” (Transcript speakers described the program as “Grub Fresh” and also referenced it in short as “Fresh.”)

Staffing reductions in the proposed budget figure prominently in public discussion. The budget documents reported a reduction of roughly 51 positions; staff gave a breakdown on one slide as 29 certificated and 21 classified positions. When board members asked how many people actually lost jobs versus how many positions were eliminated on paper, district staff described a different outcome. Wendy (district staff member) said the difference between positions and people is important: “The number of positions that were reduced in the budget. But what happened ... the number of actual people that separated from our organization is far, far, far less than that.”

Human resources and other administrators elaborated that many of the position reductions were absorbed through retirements, nonrenewals of one‑year or part‑time contracts, transfers and other attrition, and that some employees moved into different roles. The district said it did nonrenew a small number of part‑time teachers and made several administrative adjustments, but that many affected employees found other positions either within the district or elsewhere.

District leaders emphasized that several budget and cash‑flow steps taken this year (including an interfund loan referenced in the hearing) were intended to allow the district to continue planned capital work; board members confirmed the capital fund remains restricted by state rules and that interfund borrowing will be paid back per the board’s interfund loan process.

The hearing closed after two public commenters and board discussion; no budget adoption vote occurred at the hearing. Board chair Kevin (name given in the record) recessed and later adjourned the work session after the hearing.

Why it matters: The district projects a multi‑million dollar gap between state MSOC funding and local MSOC spending and is planning voter outreach on levies that could alter local tax collections and long‑term capital and operating funding. Program changes and staffing reductions reported in the proposed budget will affect how some services are delivered in the coming year, though district staff said most staffing reductions were achieved through attrition rather than immediate layoffs.

What’s next: District officials said they will continue public engagement and provide linked materials from prior presentations; the board will return in coming months to discuss levy planning, specific capital projects and the final budget before any adoption vote.