Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State budget proposals would change Othello School District funding, board told
Summary
Board members received a staff briefing comparing House and Senate education budgets and heard staff say increases may not keep pace with salary growth; district representatives urged advocacy with legislators.
The Othello School District board was briefed on competing 2024–25 state education budget proposals and how they could change next year's funding for the district.
The update came during the board's legislative report when Director Aaron Gerber and staff member Amy Suarez presented a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate budget proposals and the state's maintenance-level funding.
The presentation summarized the district's baseline for 2024–25 and the maintenance level, which Amy Suarez described as "mostly guaranteed money" that covers salary increases and MSOCs (materials, supplies and operating costs). Suarez said maintenance-level apportionment in the comparison was about "$58,000,000" and that with the maintenance increases it moved to about "$59.6" (as provided in the handout). Suarez told the board that the House proposal showed smaller increases across categories than the Senate proposal and that, in her calculation, "the net increase over maintenance" would be roughly "$570,000" under the House proposal and about "$1.76" (as stated in the presentation) under the Senate proposal. Suarez cautioned that the figures in the slide compare funding assuming the district's student count does not change.
Gerber highlighted that the proposals would not meet the advocacy goals that the Washington state association had been pushing for. He and Suarez both noted that much of any increase is likely to be required to cover mandatory salary increases; Suarez said about 2.5 percentage points of the apportionment increase would be devoted to salary increases, with the remainder covering MSOCs.
Board members asked procedural questions about the legislative process and public access to budget negotiations. One board member said the Legislature had "shut the doors on the public" for some internal negotiations; Suarez replied that the session continues through April 27 and that the district will receive the final numbers when the Legislature completes its work.
The presentation also flagged some categorical highlights: Suarez said bilingual program funding would rise substantially in the proposals and that special education increases are larger in the Senate plan (noting a quoted 19% Senate increase for special education in the slide). A board member urged audience members to contact their legislators about the proposals.
The presenters repeatedly emphasized uncertainty: Suarez said both proposals were "not definite" and that final amounts depend on the Legislature.
Board members agreed to continue advocacy and to monitor final budget outcomes once the Legislature finishes its work.
The board did not take a formal action on the budget at this meeting; the presentation was informational only.
