Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Finance Budget Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

School staff propose FY23 budget amendment to cover carryovers, mold remediation and grant-funded spending

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

School finance staff presented a FY23 budget amendment that would add carryover project costs, pay for an emergency middle-school mold remediation and recognize several state and federal grants, with some spending to be covered from fund balance and other items dependent on pending insurance and governing-body approvals.

School finance staff presented a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2023 budget to the local school board, asking the board to include carryover costs from unfinished projects, cover an emergency mold remediation at the middle school and record several recently awarded grants.

The amendment would include previously discussed carryover requests (including a $256,000 carryover in the food services fund), a set of general-fund carryovers related to unfinished projects and the cost of mold remediation at the middle school. “We’re including the carryover items for a million 65,000 and the cost of the mold remediation services…for a total cost of 1 point, almost $1,200,000, out of that projected fund balance,” the presenting staff member said, adding that the amendment would leave “around a $138,000 to transfer to the school stabilization line item going forward.”

Why this matters: the amendment moves previously committed project spending into FY23 so work can be completed and paid. Some of the spending will draw on restricted fund balances (food services), while other items would be covered from the general fund projected balance. Insurance reimbursement for the mold remediation is still under review, and staff said the insurer’s decision is “probably a long shot.”

What was proposed: Staff outlined specific amounts mentioned in the meeting: a $256,000 carryover in the food services fund; roughly $600,000 in required matching funds for a state air-handler grant at the high school; a remaining $240,000 balance on a high-school roofing project; and other heat-pump and punch-list items that staff grouped into carryovers. The presenter said those items “come to a total of a million dollars” in carryovers in one portion of the presentation and later summarized the combined carryovers and the mold remediation cost as “almost $1,200,000.”

New grants and federal funds were listed on the revenue side of the amendment. Staff named a $100,000 award for a CTE nursing program, $27,000 from Gear Up, a $30,000 vaccine clinic grant and additional health workforce grant funds tied to nursing bonuses and scholarships. On federal pandemic-related funding, staff proposed recognizing and spending $293,577 in ESSER 2 funds, roughly $1.2 million in ESSER 3 funds, and approximately $52,000 in ARP/IDEA funds for students with disabilities; staff said those additions total about $2.1 million in expenditures tied to federal and state revenue sources.

On staff bonuses: the presenter said the district expects to receive state funds by early December and intends “for that to come out in December” to provide $1,000 bonuses to all employees (not limited to SOQ positions), subject to receipt of the state funds.

Fund-balance and timing: staff emphasized that some items do not require new revenue because they will be absorbed by existing fund balances (food services), while other items increase general-fund spending and rely on projected revenues. Staff also noted that some revenue numbers are projections and that they prefer to retain “a little cushion” in estimates.

Next steps: the presenter said the amendment and supporting information will be presented to the governing body on Nov. 15 and that staff will return to the board if additional approvals or clarifications are needed. No formal vote on the budget amendment occurred during the meeting.

The meeting record shows board members asked clarifying questions about the insurance claim for the mold remediation, the distribution timing for employee bonuses and whether the amended presentation follows the governing body’s preferred method of reporting budget amendments. Staff replied that the presentation had been developed in consultation with city staff and that it reflected the governing body’s earlier guidance.