Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Planning Fund Balance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Budget committee reviews audit, fund balance and draft objectives for 2026–27 planning

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Waunakee School District budget committee on Sept. 4 reviewed the completed 2024–25 audit and outlined planning priorities for the 2026–27 budget, including rebuilding contingency reserves, revising vacancy and carryover practices and targeting potential paraprofessional savings.

The Waunakee School District budget committee reviewed the completed audit for fiscal 2024–25 and discussed planning priorities for the 2026–27 budget during its Sept. 4 meeting. The audit showed the district closed fund 10 with an ending balance of $0, reflecting a January committee motion to set Fund 10’s ending balance to zero and to allocate expenditures across accounting funds. Finance staff noted that Fund 10’s ending balance represents 10.5 percent of the combined 2025–26 budget for funds 10 and 25, inside the board’s revised policy range of 10–15 percent but slipping as a percentage if the district does not add to the balance in future years. The committee discussed several planning objectives for 2026–27 presented by Dr. Brown and staff. Key items under active consideration included: • Contingency and fund‑balance goals: Staff proposed a multi‑year plan to rebuild contingency, for example by adding roughly $100,000 per year until a target contingency (an illustrative target discussed was $500,000) is reached. The committee emphasized using 2024–25 as the break‑even year and then setting positive targets for 2025–26 and beyond. • Health insurance budgeting: The committee noted the district currently does not budget for midyear insurance changes and discussed establishing a line item (staff suggested an example of $100,000) or increasing contingency to cover in‑year health insurance changes. • Vacancy‑management practice: Dr. Brown recommended administrators present justifications before automatically refilling non‑classroom vacancies (classroom teacher positions exempted by policy), enabling the district to reconfigure positions or delay hiring when prudent. • Paraprofessional staffing: District leaders estimated possible savings of about $180,000 through attrition and reallocation of paraprofessional positions at some buildings; administrators were asked to return building‑level analyses showing whether reductions are feasible without impairing services such as supervision or teacher prep coverage. • Teacher supply allocation: The district intends to reduce the teacher supply allocation from $800 per teacher to $500, while noting building budgets and other discretionary funds remain available for requests above that amount. • Building carryover policy: The district reported total building carryover of about $965,000 for 2024–25. Dr. Brown proposed options to return a portion of building carryover to the district — examples discussed included 10, 20 or 25 percent — to create an added contingency for district‑level priorities while allowing buildings to retain most of their savings. Committee members asked administration to require a short strategic plan from buildings that retain carryover funds so the district can evaluate allocations and avoid a “use it or lose it” culture. Committee members also discussed procurement oversight and transaction review: staff said recent purchase reviews (through the district’s purchasing platform) had prompted questions about redundant services and prompted follow‑up conversations with building leaders. No formal budget adoptions occurred; the committee asked staff to return with specific proposals and data (student count, final property values, state aid estimates) needed for the October‑November levy and budget schedule.