Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasurer warns Goshen schools could lose millions under proposed state budget changes
Summary
Treasury staff briefed the board on differences between the governor’s, House and Senate budget proposals and said the Senate version would cut district state funding materially over the next two years, with larger risks from proposed changes to DPIA distribution and inside‑mill rules.
Todd Schenkel, the district finance presenter, told the board the state biennial budget debate has material implications for Goshen Local School District’s next two fiscal years and that the Senate version of the budget shows notable reductions versus the House numbers used in the district’s five‑year forecast.
Sch enkel summarized the budget timetable and what the district used to prepare its five‑year forecast: the governor’s executive budget was released in February, the House amended it in spring and the Senate was preparing its version. Schenkel said the district submitted the forecast in May using House numbers but warned the Senate proposal was less favorable and, if enacted, would reduce state aid: “we're down a half million dollars next year and $1,500,000 in '27,” he said, describing the Senate scenario shown in the meeting slides.
He said one large complicating factor is a proposed change to DPIA (direct certification) distribution after the district’s move to CEP in a prior year: state proposals would shift DPIA funding calculations and reduce the per‑district share for places that previously received full DPIA allocations. Schenkel characterized the change as effectively reallocating DPIA funding across districts and warned it would reduce Goshen’s state revenue in the current budget simulation.
Sch enkel also briefed the board on other legislative proposals with potential local impacts, including changes to the amount of “inside millage” school districts receive (permanent improvement funds) and new rules on allowable carryover/cash‑balance policies that could restrict locally held reserves unless a board adopts a stated reservation for capital use. He and board members said those rules, if enacted, could force districts to spend down reserves or face reductions in local tax revenue capture.
On enrollment‑growth funding, Schenkel noted a House/Senate provision that would provide a modest per‑pupil payment for growth: the slides presented an example figure of roughly $250 per additional student if a district reached a 3% enrollment increase, though he cautioned the final number depends on adopted law. Staff also emphasized that Goshen’s local revenue mix and recent valuation increases interact with state funding formulas in ways that could amplify losses if the state reduces aid.
Why it matters: the district receives about half of its operating revenue from the state; a multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar reduction in state aid over a two‑year window would materially change the district’s five‑year forecast and could require reductions in programing or use of reserves. Schenkel said his five‑year simulation using Senate numbers would lower projected cash balances significantly and that the district is monitoring the fast‑moving legislative process.
Board action: trustees received the treasury report, agreed to continue monitoring legislative developments and encouraged district staff to communicate with legislators and local stakeholders. Staff said they will update the five‑year forecast after a final state budget is enacted.
