Pullman School District projects roughly $1M shortfall as insurance, utilities and enrollment pressures mount

Pullman School District leaders told the board they expect to need roughly $1 million in budget adjustments heading into the 2025–26 fiscal year as rising insurance and utility costs, falling funded full‑time equivalents and changes to state local‑effort assistance squeeze the general fund.

At a board meeting where the district presented its long‑range budget outlook, Superintendent Dr. Robert Maxwell said the district had at one point anticipated identifying “up to 1,300,000 in additional, adjustments,” and that after initial reductions the shortfall now looks closer to $1,000,000. The presentation stressed that the district had been drawing on reserves and must rebuild its fund balance to avoid a state “binding condition.”

The nut graf: why it matters — state funding formulas and local assessed value shifts determine most K‑12 revenue in Washington. The district said those formulas and sudden cost increases are forcing position reductions, reliance on attrition and other cost controls that could affect staff and programs unless the Legislature or federal funding conditions change.

Details the board heard: Business manager Diane (last name not provided) detailed sharp increases in insurance and utilities. She said building insurance climbed about 40% in one year, then another 32%, and that insurers recently notified the district of an additional 9% increase. Diane provided a per‑employee figure for the 2025–26 insurance obligation under current rules: “insurance goes up per FTE, $15,684 per employee,” she said, noting that the district must provide benefits to any employee exceeding 630 hours and that those costs are unfunded by the state.

Diane and Maxwell also reviewed enrollment and funding mechanics. The district distinguishes head count (students enrolled) from funded FTE (full‑time equivalents used for state apportionment); Maxwell explained students in Running Start or half‑time programs count in head count but yield partial FTE funding. The presentation showed a multi‑year decline in FTE and that, while 81 students transferred out in 2024–25 and 78 transferred in, the FTE line remains the budget driver.

Local effort assistance (LEA) changes also reduced expected revenue. Diane said the district received an unexpected assessed‑value increase that reduced the state’s LEA payment; she described a 23.13% jump in assessed valuation that eliminated an expected ~$300,000 payment and left the district with only about $220,000 for part of the year. The district characterized that swing as partly responsible for the current revenue gap.

The presentation listed actions the district is pursuing: reduce positions by attrition where possible (the district reported 11.8 certificated FTE and 5.57 classified FTE reductions already), assess department/building budgets for savings, continue water‑conservation and fleet projects to cut operating costs, partner with local nonprofits for supplies, and advocate in the next legislative session for funding formula changes. Diane said the district’s goal is to restore an 8–10% ending general fund balance over the next four years and to maintain a district policy minimum fund balance of 7.5%.

Board members pressed for clarity on substitutes, special programs and federal funding. Diane noted the state provided $74,916 for certified substitutes in 2023–24 but the district spent approximately $312,000 for certified subs and $81,000 for classified substitutes; she said substitutes and certain federally funded positions are not fully covered by the state formula. On federal funding, district staff said possible reductions or consolidation of Title programs could affect staffing that is currently supported by federal dollars.

Next steps and risks: Maxwell and Diane warned that without additional revenue or legislative relief the district will proceed with further budget adjustments that could include involuntary transfers or eliminations of positions. They encouraged continued public engagement and said detailed budget decisions would return to the board for action.

Ending: The board scheduled continued finance‑committee review and public outreach; district staff asked the public to consult the district budget webpage and upcoming input surveys for details and opportunities to comment.