Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Deming Public Schools budget presentation flags rising unit value, tight recurring costs

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff told the Deming Public Schools board that state funding per unit rose while student membership fell, leaving salaries and benefits consuming most recurring revenue and prompting reliance on one-time funds for capital needs.

A staff member presented the Deming Public Schools proposed budget to the school board, saying state-calculated unit value increased while student membership fell, pushing recurring salary and benefit costs toward the district's operating limit.

The presentation noted a 3.8% increase in unit value alongside a 3.1% decrease in membership and identified salaries and benefits as 79% of projected revenue; the staff member warned the board that reoccurring payroll and benefit costs must be covered only from recurring revenue so the district does not overspend.

The matter mattered to the board because federal and state rules, delayed reimbursements and fixed personnel costs constrain the district's flexibility. The staff member said Title I salaries received a 4% salary increase and that the district is paying 80% of those employees' benefits, which reduces available funds within the grant and increases the operational burden on district dollars.

Board members were given several breakdowns of instructional versus other spending. The staff member said the budget projects roughly 70% of revenue will go directly to students — defined to include teachers, instructional support, nurses and librarians — with the remaining roughly 30% covering facilities, transportation, custodial services and administrative support. Food service was described as funded separately from those figures.

Staff described how state funding formulas create adjusted program units: for example, sixth-grade multipliers increased (the presenter described the sixth-grade factor rising from about 1.045 to 1.3), and separate line items exist for at-risk and English-learner units. The presenter said additional multipliers include special education units, fine-arts credits and national board teacher credits.

The presentation identified a package of one-time expenditures the district plans to fund from cash balances, including security upgrades, a soccer practice field, ADA-compliant bathroom remodeling at Early College and the auditorium, digitizing student records, new band uniforms, and replacement vehicles and a lift truck that has been red-tagged. The staff member said a portion of one-time funds previously approved by the board — described in the presentation as about $8.593 million with roughly $593,000 allocated to specific projects including digitizing records — will be used for those capital and one-time needs.

The staff member cautioned the board that federal reimbursements sometimes arrive months after district payments; the presenter said reimbursements have in the past taken three to six months, so the district must maintain sufficient cash on hand to submit a Request for Reimbursement and cover expenses in the interim.

The presenter referred to recent changes in state law and funding formulas affecting the budget. The staff member cited “House Bill 63” as the basis for the unit-value calculation and also mentioned “House Bill 2” and Title I funding when describing mandated changes that affect federal programs.

The staff member said the district will distribute a detailed budget packet to board members the week before the next regular meeting and asked to release materials by Monday to meet the district's deadlines; the budget is due to a person identified as Ted by May 19, and the presenter said the regular board meeting for approval is scheduled for May 15. No budget adoption vote occurred during this presentation.

The only formal action recorded at the end of the meeting was a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved by those present.