District finance staff briefs board on federal funding pause, risks to special education and next‑year budget strategy

Travis, the district finance director, summarized a January federal funding pause that briefly put several competitive and reimbursable federal grants at risk and explained which federal funding streams the district relies upon.

Travis said Richland received roughly $12.9 million in federal funds for fiscal year 2023–24, covering roughly 5.6% of total district expenditures. He identified special education reimbursements (related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA) as especially important: the district received about $3.2 million in federal special education funds in 2023–24, covering an estimated 9.3% of special‑education costs, and those dollars are considered supplementing state funding rather than supplanting it.

Travis reviewed other federal categories: Title I (about $2.5 million in the period shown), Perkins vocational education funds, E‑Rate reimbursements for connectivity (noted as a relatively small amount for the district), USDA reimbursements and in‑kind commodities for school nutrition, and a competitive Department of Education grant (Project S.E.R.V.E.) that had been paused but was subsequently allowed to move forward. Travis told the board the pause was lifted and districts were told they could resume drawdowns, though he cautioned the Department of Education may continue review of claims.

Board members asked about the risk to USDA school‑meal reimbursements and about proposals at the federal level to change free‑and‑reduced eligibility criteria; Travis and the superintendent said they had not seen a numeric directive yet but were monitoring conversations. Nutrition staff noted USDA reimbursements and commodities accounted for substantial nutrition service support; one figure cited was approximately $425,000 in commodities revenue for 2023–24.

Shelley, the district’s chief operations officer, then led a 2025–26 budget planning discussion. She outlined immediate cost control steps already taken in 2023–24 and further proposed measures for 2025–26, including a temporary pay freeze for the superintendent, an administrative salary alignment study, targeted hiring for essential roles (payroll manager), reductions to nonessential postings, possible increases in class sizes at secondary levels, reducing or pausing some printed materials (monthly wall calendar), tighter procurement practices, renegotiating vendor contracts and pausing high‑cost curriculum adoptions (the district reported final payments were completed for recent adoptions so those installment payments will not appear in next year’s base budget).

Shelley projected that those measures could produce approximately $3.8 million in savings for 2025–26 and that, combined with careful revenue assumptions, the district could move toward a targeted ending fund balance of about 5% of expenditures (the district’s stated 5% target equals roughly $12 million by the end of 2027–28 per the presentation). Shelley stressed continued discipline, the need to pass upcoming levies (noted as critical on Feb. 26) and the uncertainty from the legislature on MSOC (Materials, Supplies and Operating Costs) and special‑education funding.

Board members and the superintendent discussed options if federal or state revenues change midyear and asked staff to prepare school‑level breakdowns if PTAs want to identify gaps for fundraising; staff said they could provide school‑level reports on how potential pauses would affect programs so local groups could assess needs.

No formal budget decisions were adopted at the meeting; the board directed staff to continue refining revenue estimates, maintain discipline on spending and to plan outreach and town halls when revenue outlooks are clearer.