Sparta district plans levy and budget moves after $400,000 in federal funds withheld from after‑school WIN program

The Sparta Area School District told the school board on July 21 that federal payments tied to Title II, Title III and Title IV (including the Community Learning Centers portion) have been withheld, leaving roughly $400,000 of expected revenue temporarily unavailable and creating a funding gap for the district’s WIN after‑school program. District staff said they will pursue internal levies and reassignments of existing fund balances before cutting student services or charging families.

District staff described the withheld funds during the budget and program discussion, saying the hold affects a $100,000 grant at Hermann and about $300,000 in Title II–IV supports that pay for coaching, EL supports and “well‑rounded” student programming. Ms. Manske, a district staff presenter, said the Department of Public Instruction told district leaders not to “plan on these funds coming.” The district does not yet know whether the funds will be released.

The district’s WIN after‑school program currently uses a mix of federal grant funding and Fund 80 levy revenue. Administration reported that, for the 2024–25 school year, Fund 80 expenses were $487,000, plus $100,000 covered by the Hermann grant and about $30,000 from summer WIN; total documented WIN‑related spending was about $617,000. Because some grant money is withheld, the district projects it will face roughly a $40,000 shortfall for 2025–26 after accounting for wage increases and the missing grant dollars.

Board members and staff reviewed options staff had developed: 1) charge families a flat fee districtwide (staff estimated about $20 per student per month, yielding roughly $54,000 if applied to 300 students), 2) shift levy authority or fund balance from other Fund 80 uses (for example the Open Gym levy), 3) increase summer‑session fees, or 4) reduce WIN enrollment/staffing. Administration advised against charging only some sites because one of the affected grants cannot be replaced by family fees at that building; staff also reported that federal approval of a districtwide fee is unlikely.

District accountants recommended using existing Fund 80 balances and reassigning levy authority rather than immediately charging families or eliminating one‑to‑one supports. Ms. Houser, the district accountant, said Fund 80 currently holds about $191,000 in available balances (with specific sub‑designations for Open Gym, SRO funds and other items). Administration proposed reducing the Open Gym levy (the board had levied $50,000 annually for Open Gym but spent only $16,000 in 2024–25) and shifting that levy authority to WIN to avoid raising the overall levy.

Board members asked staff to develop a final plan that preserves one‑to‑one supports and existing interventions used in WIN, if possible. At the conclusion of the discussion the board directed administration to prepare a plan that avoids charging families and avoids cutting student supports, to be presented at the next board meeting with specific levy and fund‑balance reallocations.

The district noted there is active litigation and multi‑month timelines at the federal level and that DPI advised districts to plan as though the withheld funds will not arrive in the near term. The board and administration said they will monitor updates and return to the board with a concrete budget solution before families must be notified of program changes.

What happened next: Board direction was procedural — staff will produce a detailed levy/transfer plan and a recommended communication to families and staff at the next meeting.