Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Financials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Janesville committee reviews fiscal-year-to-date financials, highlights major interfund transfers
Summary
CFO McCray presented June fiscal-year-to-date financials showing planned transfers from the general fund to special education and capital funds and a larger-than-budgeted net positive year-end variance; committee discussed placing the report in the board consent packet.
CFO McCray presented the school district's final unaudited June financials and told the Finance, Buildings and Grounds Committee that the district recorded several planned interfund transfers and ended the fiscal year with revenues modestly outpacing expenditures.
McCray said the packet shows a transfer “just over $12,000,000” from Fund 10 to Fund 27 to support special education and a transfer of about $1,160,000 from Fund 10 to Fund 46 for long‑term capital maintenance. He also reported a transfer into Fund 73 of roughly $2,650,000 related to retiree contributions and investment earnings.
The transfers are consistent with the district's budgeting practice of moving resources from the general fund to targeted funds for special education, capital maintenance and retiree liabilities. “We were able to go 2,650,000,” McCray said when describing Fund 73 activity. He also said the district’s revenues and expenses “for the most part, always balance,” and that at year end “our revenues did outpace” expenditures.
McCray reviewed the district-wide totals as well: the committee heard that the district spent about $183,000,000 on revenues of about $181,000,000 in the prior year, and that roughly $130,000,000 of that spending is in Fund 10. The remainder was tied to debt service, capital projects (Fund 46), referendum projects and auxiliary funds such as food service (Fund 49 at about $5,500,000).
Committee members asked for clarification on report formatting and the appearance of “question marks” in a Skyward-generated expenditure comparison; McCray explained the marks arise when the system cannot compare fiscal-year‑to‑date percentages across years. Committee members agreed the June financials should be included in the full board packet for consent approval at an upcoming meeting.
Ending: The committee did not vote on the financials at the meeting but signaled support for placing the June unaudited report in the board consent packet for formal consideration. The committee moved on to facilities and ESSER updates.
