Trustees seek multiple fiscal analyses as Washoe budget outlook stays flat

The Washoe County School District Board of Trustees on Feb. 11 heard a detailed presentation on preparation of the district’s fiscal year 2025–26 budget and voted to direct the superintendent to prepare several targeted analyses to guide upcoming budget decisions.

The discussion, led by Chief Financial Officer Mark Mathers and Budget Director Jeff Bozzo, centered on the district’s dependence on the state. "99% of our general fund revenues come from the state," Mathers told the board, emphasizing that statewide revenue projections and the legislature’s final actions will determine the district’s available funds. Trustees said they want staff to return with practical options before the June budgeting deadlines.

Why this matters: Nevada’s Pupil-Centered Funding Plan and the State Education Fund determine most school district revenues. Mathers and Bozzo told trustees the governor’s recommended budget currently shows only very small statewide increases in per-pupil funding and that sales-tax-driven revenues remain weak. Locally, the district faces falling enrollment, rising retirement costs and the fixed start-up costs of a new high school.

State and revenue outlook - District staff summarized the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan (the State Education Fund’s primary account) and called the statewide revenue picture "incredibly flat." The governor’s recommended budget shows an increase in total funding of about 2.1% in fiscal 2026 and 2.4% in fiscal 2027, but those gains are modest and vary by category. - Mathers noted the adjusted base per-pupil amount on a statewide basis rose only from $9,414 in FY25 to $9,416 in FY26 — "$2 per student." He cautioned that the statewide figure is not the district’s final allocation and that equity adjustments will change local outcomes. - Sales tax underperformance is a primary concern: staff cited a roughly $90 million shortfall in actual sales tax versus earlier projections for FY24, and said sales tax represents about 40% of State Education Fund revenues.

Local impacts presented to the board - Enrollment: Bozzo projected continuing declines driven by lower birth rates and charter-school openings. The district estimated a revenue loss of about $9.9 million in FY26 (based on FY25 per-pupil rates) and an additional $17.9 million in FY27 tied to projected enrollment declines, including the expected opening of a charter school (approx. 790 students). - PERS (Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System): staff described a proposed employer-rate increase that would raise district retirement costs. Using a sample employee, Mathers showed the district’s net cost impact across the workforce would be about $4.6 million for FY26 under current projections; employees would see about a 1.625% reduction in the sample salary because of the rate change. - New school start-up: fixed personnel, utilities and supplies for the Debbie Smith CTE Academy were estimated at roughly $4.5 million in first-year costs. - Federal and nutrition funding: the district reported approximately $37 million in new U.S. Department of Education allocations for FY25 (including Title I and IDEA funding) and about $29 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for school meal programs (Community Eligibility Provision and other nutrition supports). - Special education and weighted funding: staff said state special-education funding remains a fraction of total local costs and districts often must backfill with general-fund dollars. The board heard staff estimates that overlapping student weights (for example, students who are both English learners and gifted) create an estimated unfunded cost of roughly $20 million for the district.

Trustee direction and formal actions The board voted to direct the superintendent to produce several analyses to inform budget choices. Votes at a glance (motions originated and recorded during the Feb. 11 work session):

- Allocation process review — Mover: Beth Smith (board president); Second: Clerk Woodley. Motion: direct the superintendent to prepare a review of the current allocations process (to be presented at the next budget meeting) covering state-mandated and district class-size ratios, the timeline for allocations ahead of the school year, midyear allocations, collaborative-school allocations, how special-education students are counted in both settings, and Count Day; and to initiate analyses of alternate allocation approaches for later board consideration. Outcome: approved, 7–0. (Doctor Diane Nicolette voiced hesitation during discussion but voted in favor.)

- Ending fund-balance analysis — Mover: Vice President Adam Mayberry; Second: Trustee Colleen Westlake. Motion: analyze the fiscal impacts of reducing the district’s unrestricted ending fund balance target from 12% (examples discussed in 1% increments). Outcome: approved, final tally recorded as 6–1. (A recorded dissent occurred; the transcript did not attribute the nay to an individual during the roll call.)

- Student-teacher compensation analysis — Mover: Beth Smith; Second: Colleen Westlake. Motion: initiate a fiscal and administrative analysis of compensating student teachers as a potential recruiting and retention strategy. Outcome: approved, 7–0.

- Aides and instructional assistants analysis — Mover: Trustee Colleen Westlake; Second: Trustee Christine Hall (friendly amendment added). Motion: prepare an analysis (including, but not limited to, compensation, hours allocated and benefits) for all aides and instructional assistants across special education, general education and English-learner programs. Outcome: approved, 7–0.

- High-school walk-zone fiscal analysis — Mover: Dr. Diane Nicolette; Second: (recorded). Motion: prepare a fiscal-impact analysis of reducing high-school walk zones (for example, shortening the walk-zone radius), including potential effects on transportation costs and student access. Outcome: approved, 6–1.

- Blanket direction to report back — Mover: Clerk Woodley; Second: Vice President Adam Mayberry. Motion: direct the superintendent to analyze and report back to the board on the specific budget items and issues discussed during the meeting as part of the FY25–26 budget process. Outcome: approved, 7–0.

Division of discussion vs. decision Board discussion remained distinct from formal direction. Staff presented numeric estimates and constraints (state-driven revenues, sales tax weakness, federal funding uncertainty); trustees debated priorities and asked staff to return with financial scenarios. The motions given above are formal directions to staff to produce analyses; none of the votes adopted specific spending increases or cuts at this meeting.

Notable trustee concerns and context - Several trustees pressed for investments to reduce class sizes and for a contingency approach to address classrooms with acute behavioral or instructional needs; trustees framed possible solutions that could include midyear allocations or a fund for unanticipated needs. - Trustees repeatedly noted the district lacks control over statewide revenue decisions and emphasized the May Economic Forum and the legislature’s final actions as determinative for revenue available to the district. - Doctor Diane Nicolette and others emphasized the long-term risk posed by PERS cost growth and urged deeper study of pension sustainability as a structural budget issue.

What happens next Staff said they will present an overview at the next budget meeting and then return with prioritized analyses and cost estimates in the weeks before the legislature concludes and the May Economic Forum issues final revenue projections. Trustees directed that the analyses be developed in time to inform decisions before the district’s final budget deadline.

Ending note Board members and staff framed the meeting as an "eyes wide open" budget process: several formal analyses were requested rather than concrete budgetary changes. Those reports will be the basis for trustee deliberations as the district awaits final state revenue numbers.