Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Reserves Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wichita staff propose reserve policy setting minimum and maximum unrestricted cash targets
Summary
District financial staff presented draft policy 34‑60 to set an unrestricted reserves floor (about $43.7M) and ceiling (about $92.2M) and recommended the board consider the policy at a future meeting; staff connected the proposal to state aid and property‑tax timing and to Government Finance Officers guidance.
Get email alerts on the Finance Reserves Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the Wichita Board of Education meeting on May 5, district finance staff discussed a proposed board policy to set minimum and maximum targets for unrestricted reserves.
Staff member Addie explained the proposed policy, numbered 34‑60, would set a minimum equal to about one state aid payment and a maximum equal to roughly two months of regular operating expenditures. “The minimum based on the average state aid would have been $43,700,000. The maximum based on two months of operating budget expenditures would be $92,200,000,” Addie told the board.
Nut graf: The draft policy is intended to increase transparency and stability by aligning the district’s cash posture with government‑finance best practices; staff recommended returning the proposed policy to the board for a vote at the next regular meeting.
Why it matters
Addie walked through the district’s cash‑flow timing, showing that state aid and property‑tax receipts are unevenly distributed through the year and that the district must maintain cash between receipt cycles to meet payroll and operating obligations. Addie used a prior fiscal year as an example: “If we look at the 2023–24 school year…if we look at all the unrestricted funds that would qualify as cash, that figure is 71,600,000.0. So we're right in the middle of the policy,” she said.
Board members asked clarifying questions about what circumstances would draw reserves to the minimum threshold and whether the financial oversight committee would have a role reviewing recovery plans. Addie said dipping into reserves would be for unplanned emergencies or current‑year reductions in funding and that any recovery plan would be adopted through the budget process and reported back to the board.
Next steps
Addie recommended the board bring policy 34‑60 back at the next regular meeting for formal approval. No vote was taken at the May 5 meeting.

