Bend‑LaPine budget committee reviews proposed 2025‑26 spending plan amid state funding uncertainty

Cara Marsh Rhodes, chair of the Bend‑LaPine Budget Committee, opened the April 8 meeting and the committee confirmed leadership before turning to the district’s proposed 2025‑26 budget.

Superintendent Dr. Steve Cook told the committee the proposed budget is balanced and meets the district’s policy requirements. “Finally, I am also pleased to confirm that this proposed budget is balanced and adheres to the requirements outlined in Bend‑LaPine Schools Executive Limitation 4.3, Financial Planning and Administration,” Dr. Cook said.

CFO Dan Emerson and Assistant Director of Finance Nick Sheen presented core assumptions behind the proposed plan, emphasizing reliance on the State School Fund (SSF) and several state grants. Emerson said current revenue assumptions include a statewide SSF estimate of $11.6 billion, which would translate to about $229 million for Bend‑LaPine in the first year of the biennium. He noted the Ways and Means Committee has approved $11.4 billion so far, creating an approximately $3 million gap for the district if the lower number holds.

Emerson told the committee the budget team has made targeted reductions in materials and services and shifted some technology purchases from one‑time purchases to leasing to smooth cash flow. Those reductions — including a partial lease approach for iPads and deferred maintenance projects such as a roughly $400,000 carpet replacement at Jewel Elementary School — helped reduce the requested budget by about $3 million to produce the proposed, balanced document.

Presenters repeatedly highlighted a structural mismatch: personnel costs account for roughly 85% of general fund operations and the district’s personnel budget is projected to rise about 9% year over year because of step increases, a moderate cost‑of‑living adjustment and higher PERS liability. By contrast, some state grants feeding personnel costs (for example, the Student Investment Account, SIA) are projected to increase by only 1.7%. “When those increase annually from year to year, those increased personnel costs are in the 9% range,” a district presenter said, noting the district cannot absorb that gap without cuts.

Emerson outlined specific revenue and grant estimates included in the proposed budget: SIA at about $16.6 million, a high‑school success grant near $5 million (a 1% decrease year over year), federal programs and Title funds budgeted roughly flat, and a governor‑proposed early literacy increase of about $900,000 that offsets some pressures. The finance team also estimated that two pending bills — one to raise the cap on high‑cost disability grants and one to expand special‑education weighting — could add roughly $3 million to local revenue if enacted (about $2.5 million from the high‑cost disability grant and about $500,000 from increased SPED weighting).

Asked about contingencies if the SSF stays at the Ways and Means number, Emerson said the district would need to make additional reductions and that operational departments have already cut roughly $2 million and moved other expenditures to later years to avoid personnel reductions this cycle. The district stressed it did not cut positions directly in this proposed budget, though natural reductions tied to declining enrollment were reflected. Presenters said the district’s enrollment has fallen by about 200 students and the overall student count is roughly 16,700–17,000.

The presentation included a multi‑year forecast showing the district’s reserve (ending fund balance) declining in future years under current assumptions. The district said the proposed budget holds an approximate 8% general fund operating reserve to mitigate an expected funding “cliff,” but projected reserves could fall toward an estimated $5 million by fiscal year 2027 while a prudent cash‑flow threshold would be nearer $13 million.

Committee members asked for more granular numbers on Title I and other federal funds and for documentation of the deferred maintenance decisions and the lease‑vs‑buy technology tradeoffs. Finance staff said they will collect submitted questions and circulate responses to the committee and board; the committee set May 6 as the cutoff for written questions and scheduled its next budget committee meeting for May 13, when the committee will consider adopting the budget.

At the start of the meeting the committee also handled its internal organization. Natasha (Tasha) McFarland moved to nominate Cara Marsh Rhodes as chair; Amy Tatum seconded. Marsh Rhodes abstained from voting on her own election; committee members voted to approve the nomination with one abstention. Amy Tatum moved to nominate Natasha McFarland as vice chair, Marcus LeGrand seconded; that motion likewise passed with one abstention. The committee did not take a formal vote on the budget itself at this meeting.

The district’s presenters and board leadership characterized the proposed budget as a deliberate effort to protect staffing amid an uncertain revenue outlook while trimming materials, services and deferred capital work. Finance staff recommended the committee review the circulated follow‑up Q&A before the May meeting so members can evaluate specific tradeoffs ahead of any formal adoption.