Blaine County School District amends 2024–25 budget after $13.8M state modernization payment; adopts 2025–26 proposed budget

Blaine County School District No. 61 trustees approved an amended fiscal year 2024–25 budget at their June 10 public meeting to record a large state modernization grant, and then approved the district’s proposed 2025–26 budget for public adoption.

The amended 2024–25 budget was presented at a public hearing by Director Poe, who told the board the change was required after the district “received a large amount of money from the state in reference to the modernization funds.” He told trustees the district received about $13,800,000 in those modernization funds and that the amended document reallocated revenues and transfers so the state money and related interest are captured in the correct funds.

The amendment also reflected timing differences tied to a voter-approved levy and a state offset payment. Director Poe said, “We ran a levy for 1,850,000.00. The state offset was 1,650,000.00. So, essentially, we only assess the taxpayers a $194,000.” He explained the budget form requires the levy to be shown in the local tax line and the state offset to be shown in state revenue, which created changes between the adopted and amended pages.

Trustees moved and approved the amended 2024–25 budget and then moved to adopt the 2025–26 proposed budget as presented. During discussion trustees and staff emphasized that a larger-than-usual interest line this year—driven by interest earned on modernization funds and other nonmajor funds temporarily flowing through the general fund—is an anomaly and should not be relied on for ongoing operations.

Board discussion flagged structural concerns for future years. Trustee Turner noted salary and benefits now account for roughly $51,958,000 and “up to 87% of our total revenues,” calling that level unsustainable without further action. Director Poe and other staff warned the district faces operating deficits in future forecast years if current spending assumptions (including potential insurance and energy cost increases) and the use of one-time funds for ongoing expenses are not addressed.

Trustees and staff described options under consideration: consolidating district operations onto the community campus, selling surplus property, and examining program and staffing reductions. Director Poe said centralizing operations “on paper … looks like it saves $50,000 a year” and could produce longer-term savings if paired with property sales for facilities funding. He also called out unfunded needs, such as a vehicle-replacement requirement of about $200,000 per year for the next decade to maintain a safe minibus and district vehicle fleet.

Board members noted calendar and process deadlines if they pursue additional local revenue. Staff reminded the board that paperwork to place a supplemental levy on the November ballot must be filed by Aug. 29 to meet November election timelines; trustees said any levy decisions would need to be considered at upcoming meetings.

Budget actions taken at the meeting included approval of the amended 2024–25 budget and approval of the proposed 2025–26 budget; both motions carried after board discussion.

The district plans to provide monthly budget updates as the 2025–26 planning year continues and to return to the board if additional amendments are needed before final adoption.