Oregon City budget committee reviews draft 2025-26 spending plan, hears revenue and PERS updates

The Oregon City School District 62 budget committee met to review the district's proposed 2025-26 budget, hear legislative and revenue updates and learn the committee's role and timeline for approving appropriations.

At the meeting Jason, the district finance presenter, told the committee the group is in phase one of budget review and will meet again before a May 27 committee vote and a June 2 public hearing. He said committees decide spending appropriations and recommend a tax rate to the board but do not set district policy, salaries or staffing levels.

The district's revenue assumptions include a state school fund estimate of 11.4 percent (as presented), and the finance team built a one-point six seven percent lower PERS rate into the plan based on recent legislative action and a likely PERS board decision. The presenters said the district expects two state adjustments around May 15 that together could add roughly $1 million to the ending fund balance; they pledged to report the final numbers after the state posts them.

Staff stressed that the draft is a balanced, largely status-quo proposal intended to hold class-size ratios where possible while remaining conservative. The committee was shown how the budget documents map to the single-page affidavit that is published to taxpayers and were reminded that grant (200-series) funds must not finish the year in a deficit and may be covered from the general fund if a grant is not received.

Jason outlined four formal options available to the committee: approve the proposed budget; increase appropriations (if the committee wishes to assume more revenue); decrease appropriations; or move funds between functions (within statutory limits). Staff also explained that the board can reallocate up to 10% of an adopted budget before the committee must be reconvened.

The presenters described carryover assumptions, including the inclusion of an extra $1 million in the beginning fund balance for planning and contingencies. They also flagged several budget risks and monitoring items: use increases in Paid Leave Oregon and unemployment by some shorter-term employees; continuing contract negotiations for classified and certified bargaining units (district included placeholder funding for bargaining under board direction); possible legislative changes that could raise the special-needs high-cost cap; and potential Title grants (Title I/III/II) changes in Congress and at the state.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about fund flows between fund groups, how general fund transfers to debt and capital are reflected in the big-number totals, and about specific line items such as library FTE reclassifications and substitutes moved into grant-funded object lines. Staff pointed committee members to specific pages in the budget book and encouraged questions ahead of the May 27 review meeting.

The committee received instructions for submitting follow-up questions in writing to Jason or Dr. Spitzer before the next meeting. Staff said a finalized affidavit (the single-page summary that goes to the county) will be filled in when the committee and board finish their actions. The district emphasized the committee's responsibility is the expense/appropriation side of the budget; unanticipated revenue sits in ending fund balance until the board directs how to spend it.