Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USD 418 board accepts proposed student‑fee schedule for consideration; district recommends option 2 for 2025–26
Summary
The McPherson USD 418 board accepted for further action a proposed student‑fee schedule that would standardize a district learning‑resource fee and keep a $20 technology fee; the board will consider final adoption for the 2025–26 school year after follow‑up.
The McPherson USD 418 Board of Education on a motion accepted a proposed student‑fee schedule for the 2025–26 planning cycle and asked staff to continue public communication and refinement before final adoption. The district recommended Option 2 as a balance between minimizing costs for families and preserving funds for future curriculum updates.
Superintendent Shiloh explained the district’s approach and the work behind the proposal, including last year’s waiver of class fees, analysis of revenue needs for curriculum updates and outreach to families. "All of the fees that we're gonna talk about if an individual is on free, that would be 0%." Shiloh said, noting that free students would pay nothing and reduced‑status students would receive a 50% reduction under federal eligibility rules. The district also proposed a middle category labeled “USD 4.18 reduced,” giving a 25% relief (paying 75% of full fees) to families near the eligibility line who complete the income form.
The district presented three pricing scenarios for long‑range cash‑flow planning and recommended Option 2 as an approach that spreads increases and avoids large shortfalls while allowing planned curriculum work to continue. The superintendent and business manager said some fees are intentionally excluded from the general schedule (for example, instrumentation rental remains a separate $25 fee and certain certification test fees would be paid up front by students and reimbursed upon successful completion).
Board members asked several clarifying questions about the timeline for adoption, annual review, how the proposed fees would be communicated and which forms families must complete to receive reduced rates. Board member McCabe asked whether the board would review the schedule annually; Shiloh said it would and compared the planning timeline to the district’s five‑year capital outlay review. Business manager Nikki Garcia was acknowledged in the meeting for preparing the financial work behind the proposal.
The board voted to accept the proposal for further action and directed staff to continue outreach and finalize details for a future approval vote for the 2025–26 school year. The motion to accept was moved and seconded (names not specified in transcript excerpt) and carried on a voice vote.
