Board reviews 2025–26 draft budget; members press for clearer fund-balance explanations and special-education cost detail

District finance staff presented the 2025–26 budget summary and multi‑year projections at the board’s June meeting and described year‑to‑year changes across general, capital, debt‑service, ASB and transportation funds.

The presentation highlighted: estimated 2025–26 general‑fund expenditures near $80.6 million, a projected ending general‑fund balance in the 4.5–5% range, lower capital spending after pool-related projects finish, and a $600,000 transportation reserve to fund vehicle purchases. Staff said the district built “capacity” into the budget by budgeting for slightly higher enrollment (38.50 FTE vs. 38.20) and that the budget assumes an additional ~50 students worth of revenue capacity.

Trustees asked multiple technical and policy questions. Key board concerns included: - Reserve calculation clarity: Directors asked whether the denominator for the fund‑balance percentage is 12‑month forward expenditures (a projection) and requested that the budget document include a clear footnote explaining how the district built capacity on both revenue and expenditure sides so the ending balance can increase in a balanced budget format. - Projection vs. actual comparisons: Trustees asked for historical comparisons showing how prior budget projections compared with actual year‑end figures to help assess forecasting accuracy. - Special-education cost drivers: Board members pressed for more detail on the roughly $900,000 increase in contracted services cited by staff, including whether those costs result from resident students requiring out‑of‑district placements and how safety‑net reimbursements apply. Staff said some high‑cost placements are for resident students and noted state safety‑net thresholds and reimbursements may offset part of costs. - Structural and long‑term risks: Trustees discussed state retirement and benefits changes (TERS/SERS rates) and how part‑time staffing, job‑shares and benefit‑eligibility thresholds can increase district costs. They also noted Moody’s recent credit‑rating downgrade (from Aa1 to Aa2) and asked staff to add explanatory notes about Moody’s criteria changes to the budget packet.

Why it matters: The board must adopt a budget and a budget‑resolution reading is scheduled for the next meeting with the budget hearing and adoption planned later in June. Trustees said they want clearer documentation so future boards and the public can track whether staffing and program decisions, enrollment changes and state funding adjustments match earlier projections.

Next steps Staff committed to adding clarifying footnotes to the budget documents explaining enrollment‑capacity assumptions, the mechanics of the reserve calculation, and to providing a historical projection‑to‑actual comparison on fund balances. Trustees suggested a future study session to examine special‑education cost drivers, staffing tradeoffs and long‑term sustainability.