Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget FEFP topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CFO warns late FEFP calculations, scholarship deductions and proration are shrinking Sarasota schools' budget flexibility
Summary
Sarasota County Schools' CFO told the school board the state’s late third FEFP calculation, scholarship payment timing and a proration tied to weighted FTE are producing budget uncertainty that lowered expected revenue by roughly $1.1 million in the third calculation and could require conservative planning for 2025–26.
Sarasota County Schools’ chief financial officer told the school board on April 1 that timing and reconciliation issues with the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), combined with scholarship deductions and a proration, are creating significant uncertainty in the district’s revenue forecast for the 2024–25 and 2025–26 school years.
CFO Bonnie Penner said the state’s third FEFP calculation — which was issued unusually late this year — reported district unweighted enrollment at about 48,383 and traditional public-school enrollment at about 37,180. Penner said the district exceeded its own forecast for weighted full-time-equivalent (FTE) students: the district forecasted roughly 55,101 weighted FTE but the state’s third calculation showed approximately 55,616 weighted FTE.
Despite the higher weighted FTE, Penner said the district saw a net decrease in funding in the third calculation because the state applied a proration (a proportional reduction when funding is insufficient to cover weighted student counts) and a separate deduction line for scholarship payments. Penner described three linked issues: (1) a proration that reduced the district’s FEFP allocation by several million dollars, (2) lower transportation funding tied to reported ridership, and (3) more than 250 students who appeared in district counts but were also listed in the state scholarship payment file as recipients — a timing and matching problem that resulted in nearly $2.4 million in deduction entries.
Penner said the net effect in the third calculation reduced the district’s FEFP revenue by roughly $1.1 million, after accounting for those items. She described the scholarship reconciliation process as opaque: scholarship-authorizing organizations and the state payment file sometimes deduct funds even when students were present in district enrollment during the FTE survey week, and the district does not always see the edits or reconciliations that occur at the state level.
Board members and staff discussed the operational challenges that result when FTE and payment files are not reconciled earlier in the year. Penner and Superintendent Connor urged legislative fixes: they would like a single, year‑round statewide student database or improved reconciliation processes so districts can determine earlier whether scholarship payments should be deducted from local FEFP allocations.
Penner also described staffing and budget process implications: the district holds some instructional positions until fall decision points because cutting in spring and then rehiring creates disruption; however, continued uncertainty about final FTE and funding means the district must be cautious about staffing and pass-through payments to charter schools.
Board members asked for follow-up reports that quantify the staffing cost delta for weighted students and the historical trend in scholarship (empowerment) program enrollments. Penner said the district will provide more detailed analyses and work with the Department of Education and other districts on reconciliation and legislative advocacy.
No formal action or vote occurred during the presentation.
