The RSU 40/MSAD 40 finance committee reviewed warrants and the district’s April financial statements, discussed a multi-month lag in state billing for billable services, and clarified circumstances under which guardians are reimbursed to transport students to special-purpose private schools.

During the meeting, a district finance presenter said the district had received some revenue but was carrying a negative on a specific reimbursement line and that another approximately $5,052,000 was pending from state billing processes. “I looked at it with Karen and Casey the other day, and there’s about another $5,052,000 pending,” the presenter said, noting a typical one- to two-month lag while the state processes submitted billing data.

Committee members reviewed line-item warrants and questioned several entries, including a roughly $12,000 vehicle-repair billing for bus 4 sent to a local repair vendor; the presenter said an offsetting insurance check would accompany that repair cost. The committee also discussed small vendor codes used for student awards and other miscellaneous charges when W-9 paperwork is impractical.

Committee members asked about fuel procurement for next year and were told the district cannot lock diesel or gasoline prices at this time. The presenter said the district could not lock into diesel or gas pricing under current contracts: “Neither” could be locked in, she said.

On student transportation, committee members asked how many guardians the district reimburses to transport students to special-purpose private schools. A committee discussion identified roughly three guardians who are reimbursed in some circumstances because, in those cases, it was cheaper or more practical than providing consolidated van service. One commenter identified by first name in the record, Naomi, was described as a guardian who regularly complains about bus service and who receives reimbursement for transporting one child to a special-purpose private school in Camden. District staff emphasized that special transportation is determined by the IEP team; a parent request alone does not create eligibility. “To qualify for special transportation, the IOP team has to make that determination. The parent can’t request it or demand it, and they are part of the team, but the team has to determine what that’s required for that student,” a district speaker said.

Committee members also reviewed program budgets and variances: improvement-of-instruction was reported at about 62% remaining for the year, stipends for mentors typically pay out at the end of the year, and food-service revenue lags the program by roughly two months because of billing timing. The presenter said adult-education programs have carried individual fund balances and that current managers have improved performance in recent years.

No formal roll-call votes on warrants were recorded in the transcript excerpted for this meeting; the committee moved through the warrant review and then moved on to financial statements and later action items.

Why it matters: the items discussed affect the district’s near-term cash flow and budget planning (pending state receipts, reimbursements and program variances), and clarification about transportation eligibility explains when the district is obligated to provide or reimburse special-transport services.