Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board receives enrollment projections, school allocation standards and draft general fund budget
Summary
The board reviewed and received student enrollment projections, the student‑weighted school allocation standards and a draft general fund budget that forecasts a projected deficit and plans to use fund balance and vacancy savings to soften the gap.
Jefferson County school leaders presented enrollment projections, a student‑weighted allocation model and a high‑level draft general fund budget on Jan. 28; the board received all three items without amendments.
District staff said enrollment projections for the 2025‑26 budget cycle are based on historical data, planning and zoning information, school capacity and a suite of demographic sources. The projections are used to calculate school allocations under JCPS’s student‑weighted formula, which the administration said is now in its fourth year and channels roughly 72.5% of the district’s operating budget directly to schools.
Executive administrator Tom Aberle explained the allocation standards used to differentiate funding: JCPS starts with a base allocation above the state minimum per‑student standard and layers targeted add‑ons tied to a district needs index, multilingual learner status, special‑education needs and Career & Technical Education pathways. High‑need middle and high schools receive additional weighting and improvements to student‑teacher ratios, the presentation said.
Chief Financial Officer Eddie Munn and budget staff presented a draft general fund budget that reflects a projected revenue base and known cost increases. The draft assumes a statewide SEEK (state funding) increase in line with historical averages and a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment for employees already negotiated by contract. Staff said the district is budgeting a projected net shortfall of roughly $91.8 million in the draft; staff proposed covering portions of that shortfall with fund balance and vacancy savings while reducing or ending some grant‑funded or temporary programs added during ESSER funding.
Munn said the district’s draft revenues are approximately $1.5 billion and expenses about $1.6 billion — numbers staff said will be refined in the tentative budget and again before the working budget in September. Board members asked for specifics on what positions or programs would be reduced; staff said detailed lists would be provided with the tentative budget in May and that most cuts are positioned to limit direct classroom impacts.
The board voted to receive the student enrollment projections, the school allocation standards, and the draft general fund budget (motions made and seconded; clerk recorded “Ayes have it”). Trustees also requested follow‑up details on the number and type of positions affected by proposed cuts and a later review of the tentative budget in May.
Why it matters: The student‑weighted allocation standard steers a large share of district funds to schools with higher need; the draft budget lays out fiscal choices and shows how the district plans to manage a projected deficit while sustaining priorities.
