Everett School Board reviews budget development, flags state funding uncertainty

Everett Public Schools held a special board study session on April 1, 2025, to review the district—s budget development process, legislative risks and a four-year fiscal outlook. The presentation was led by Annie Tress and included updates from the district—s budget team and chief operating officer.

The presentation described the district—s cyclical budget process, noting the district adopts its operating budget in the summer and subsequently adjusts staffing and operations to reflect actual fall enrollment. "This slide illustrates the district's overall budget development process and the cyclical nature of developing the district's budget," said Annie Tress, Budget Development Lead. Tress told the board the district uses an outside enrollment consultant, Les Kendricks, and internal analysis led by Karen Buckman, the district—s director of budget, to set staffing and allocation decisions.

Why it matters: the district is building its 2025-26 budget while the Washington state Legislature finalizes its biennial budget. Staff warned that the range of state projections and proposed revenue changes could materially affect the district's available resources and cash flow timing.

Key legislative issues discussed included proposed changes to special education funding (a higher multiplier in the Senate proposal vs. the House), adjustments to the safety-net distribution that would shift payments to a quarterly schedule, and material/supplies/operating-cost (MSOC) factors in each chamber—s budget proposal. Tress said the Senate proposal would produce a larger increase for Everett than the House proposal: about $2,400,000 annually under the Senate scenario versus about $700,000 under the House scenario. Tress also said a Senate multiplier change under one reconciliation approach could yield roughly $7,200,000 in additional capacity for the district, while safety-net changes could add about $1,500,000 to $1,900,000 depending on final language and reconciliation.

Tress reviewed other state items the district is monitoring: transition-to-kindergarten funding, changes to clean-buildings compliance waivers, expanded transportation funding to cover non-yellow buses and vans, and proposals affecting local levy capacity. On levy capacity, staff said two bills that have been active would, if enacted and implemented as modeled, allow the district to collect more of voter-approved levy capacity; staff estimated that change could represent about $4,000,000 on a calendar-year basis or about $2,000,000 on a fiscal-year basis under one model, with a longer-run modeling scenario the presentation labeled roughly $8,000,000 annually.

Tress presented a baseline fiscal outlook that did not include optimistic legislative outcomes. She said the district projects expenditures will continue to exceed revenues modestly but that the district is ending the current year with a fund balance above its 5% policy target (staff projected above 8%). Medical-cost assumptions and pension-rate changes were described as key drivers of the outlook.

Board members then took part in a brief prioritization exercise. Directors generally prioritized recurring investments to reduce class sizes and increase certificated staffing and identified facility maintenance and maintenance equipment among top one-time uses of additional funds. Several directors emphasized wanting data to support expansion of summer programs and other targeted interventions.

Operational steps and next dates shared by staff: student-associated body budget presentations to the board are scheduled for May 13; the district will post the proposed operating budget on July 10; staff expected a first reading of the operating budget to the board in July and a budget hearing and adoption on "the nineteenth" (presenters used that phrasing when describing the summer timeline). Staff also said the district will convene its fiscal advisory council before and after the legislative session to refine recommendations and engage community and staff stakeholders.

Staff cautioned about timing of federal awards: some federal program allocations (notably Title funding and IDEA) may not be finalized until September, and staff recommended holding decisions until final awards are known when possible. "We are monitoring [federal and state developments] daily," said Karen Buckman, Director of Budget.

Board action: no motions or formal votes were taken at the study session. The meeting was a staff briefing and board discussion intended to shape budget priorities and stakeholder engagement going into the formal budget process.

What—s next: staff will continue monitoring state and federal budgets, convene the fiscal advisory council, gather school and community input, and return to the board with proposed budget recommendations as the district prepares the formal 2025-26 operating budget.