Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance report: budget tracking, medical‑benefits limits and next steps on energy performance contract
Summary
Finance staff reported the district budget is generally on track through the third quarter, discussed a $200,000 potential carry requirement and a 70% non‑payroll hold; staff also described limits to savings from shopping health plans and scheduled a working‑group selection for the energy performance firm on April 21.
Finance staff told the board the district’s fiscal year is in sound shape through the third quarter and described steps to preserve a potential $200,000 contribution into the next fiscal year.
Doctor Harrigan opened the finance update and said the packet included a summary through 03/31/2025. "Our approved budget for the 20 20 four-twenty 5 fiscal year is 89,000,000 dollars 542,609," the finance presenter read from the materials; staff also reported $82,109,965 expended and encumbered so far. A staff correction noted the district has completed nine months of the fiscal year.
To protect against an anticipated need to contribute $200,000 to next year’s budget, the district is keeping a 70% hold on non‑payroll expenditures for another month; maintenance and supplies were identified as typical sources to draw from if necessary, and planned spring stipends (for example, spring sports coach stipends) will reduce certain balances.
On medical benefits, staff said the district is self‑insured and that most cost drivers are claims rather than administrative fees. Staff noted that annual processing/management fees are roughly $300,000 and said shopping carriers every year has limited upside for a self‑insured plan; fully insured plans or the state partnership plan would likely be more expensive for the district and employees. Budget‑workshop figures presented earlier showed the state plan would cost roughly $40,000 per family plan compared with the district’s current approximate $30,000 per family (figures cited in discussion), making the state plan less favorable for cost reasons.
On energy performance contracting, the working group has completed interviews with three firms — Ameresco, Johnson Controls and Honeywell — and will meet April 21 to select a firm to perform an investment‑grade audit. Staff said the investment‑grade audit process will produce detailed savings guarantees and that the working group expects results of the next phase in early fall.
Board members asked questions about where budget holdbacks might come from and whether medical benefits shopping could reduce costs; staff responded that stop‑loss and claims administration are reviewed but that claims themselves are the primary cost drivers.
No action was taken at this meeting on the energy contract selection; staff will report back after the April 21 working‑group meeting and following the investment‑grade audit if a firm is selected.
