West Linn-Wilsonville board hears $15 million budget gap and options to consolidate one primary school

The West Linn-Wilsonville School District board on Monday received a staff presentation showing a draft plan to close a roughly $15 million operating shortfall for 2025–26 and detailed which primary-school consolidations would be possible without exceeding available building capacity.

Superintendent Dr. Ludwig opened the presentation by saying, “I am going to spend my report tonight talking about budget,” and told the board the district is working from the governor’s December proposal of $11,360,000,000 for K–12 in the next biennium while Ways and Means can change that amount.

The draft budget picture matters because enrollment and state funding have declined since the pandemic while some costs have jumped, staff said. The district is about 900 students below its pre‑COVID level and faces higher retirement (PERS) rates, insurance and utilities. Dr. Ludwig told the board the district is “looking next year at a $15,000,000 reduction,” and said a portion of that would be reductions at the district (non‑classroom) level while some would fall to classroom positions if revenue does not improve.

Why the shortfall exists

Staff framed the problem as a combination of falling enrollment and rising costs. Dr. Ludwig and district staff summarized the drivers the board heard repeatedly: an ongoing drop in students statewide (about 35,000 fewer K–12 students in Oregon since fall 2019), lower district enrollment that reduces per‑student state funding, and cost increases that outpace recent biennial funding growth. The presentation also noted changes in grant allocation methodologies and lingering effects from pandemic ESSER reserves that are drawing down.

The superintendent and finance staff flagged three items that materially affect the district’s outlook: the governor’s proposed biennium amount of $11,360,000,000 (a starting point that still requires legislative action), a proposed $127,000,000 early‑literacy allocation, and a steep increase in employer retirement rates that staff estimate will add roughly $6,000,000 of district cost next year.

Options for primary schools

Assistant Superintendent Dr. David Prior walked the board through detailed enrollment, capacity and facility analyses for the three small West Linn primary schools under discussion—Bolton, Cedar Oak and Stafford. Using Flow Analytics enrollment projections and current building capacities, staff presented three high‑level options: keep all schools open, consolidate one primary school in 2025–26, or consolidate two schools across 2025–26 and 2026–27.

Dr. Prior summarized the board’s mathematical options: “The conclusion of this math is that it is possible in 25–26 for the district to consolidate 1 primary school,” but not possible in the same year to consolidate two or all three because remaining building capacity would be insufficient. He also explained that if two were consolidated, the timing would need to be staggered (one in 2025–26 and a second in 2026–27) so that the Frog Pond primary opening in 2026 could provide additional capacity.

Staff gave illustrative enrollment and capacity figures for 2025–26: projected enrollments of about 212 for Bolton, 332 for Cedar Oak and 319 for Stafford, and a building‑by‑building calculation showing available space at neighboring schools that could receive students if one school closed. The district’s spreadsheet also modeled which combinations of closures would exceed available seats and which would not.

Costs, transportation and facility upkeep

Operations director Pat McGuff and other staff detailed ongoing and transitional costs tied to a closure. Staff estimated annual minimal utilities and security costs to keep an unused building on the books (electricity for alarms and heat set to prevent freezing, water meter minimums, periodic inspections). Average annual maintenance historic averages were shown (10‑year averages): roughly $21,000 for Bolton, $34,000 for Cedar Oak and $67,000 for Stafford.

Transportation costs were noted as the clearest new recurring expense if closures created additional busing needs for students who currently walk. Staff explained that a full bus route costs about $84,369 per year and that the district receives approximately 70% state reimbursement; the district’s net cost per new bus would be roughly $25,370. Based on current walking‑boundary counts, staff estimated one additional bus would be required to serve students inside Bolton’s walking boundary and one additional bus for Cedar Oak under a consolidation scenario; Stafford already has full transportation coverage and would not add routes, staff said.

Educational and program impacts

The presentation addressed program logistics, including Chinese dual‑language enrollment at Bolton (currently 44 students across K–2 and served by roughly 2.7 teachers) and said staff might consider program relocation if the district sought to preserve dual‑language offerings while improving enrollment access. District leaders also noted the risk that very small schools sometimes rely on part‑time specialists shared across buildings; as enrollment decreases, specialist time shifts and may reduce parity of services between schools.

Public comment and community response

Speakers during the public comment period expressed strong feeling on both procedural and substantive points. Ryan Ingersoll, speaking for the long‑range planning committee, told the board the committee “is not making a recommendation regarding the consolidation of Westland primary schools” and instead urged the board to consider the task force report, enrollment trends, facility equity and the interaction of the general fund with capital plans.

Parents and community members urged alternative approaches. Amy Friday, a former member of the Small Schools Task Force, asked the board to consider national research on small schools, saying the evidence supports an optimal small‑school size of about 300–400 students and arguing that “the data is clear” that the district’s smaller schools provide educational and social benefits. Others asked that the district pursue boundary adjustments rather than closures, requested an external budget analyst to re‑examine administrative spending, and questioned the timing of planning for both a new school (Frog Pond) and possible consolidations.

Next steps and board direction

District staff asked the board to make consolidation decisions quickly if the board wanted a 2025–26 implementation, citing the short calendar for reassigning students, finalizing bus routes, conducting tours and completing staff assignments before summer. Staff said a consolidation decision in late January would allow time for boundary mapping, transfer windows and transition activities.

Board members debated meeting format and public access. After discussion, the board voted unanimously to convert the Jan. 27 work session into a regular board meeting that can include public comment and allow the board to deliberate and, if prepared, take action at that time.

Votes at a glance

• Consent agenda — Motion to approve the consent agenda (voice vote). Outcome: approved (5–0). Recorded votes: Chair Taylor — Aye; Vice Chair Wyatt — Aye; Director Shoemaker — Aye; Director Sloop — Aye; Director Vidal — Aye.

• Meeting designation — Motion to designate the Jan. 27 meeting as a regular board meeting (to allow public comment and potential action). Outcome: approved (5–0). Recorded votes: Chair Taylor — Aye; Vice Chair Wyatt — Aye; Director Shoemaker — Aye; Director Sloop — Aye; Director Vidal — Aye.

What the board said and what remains unsettled

Board members and the superintendent repeatedly urged advocacy at the state level to protect or increase the governor’s proposed K–12 allocation and to resist further unfunded mandates. Director Shoemaker, Director Sloop and Director Vidal were singled out by staff for ongoing advocacy in Salem around special education funding and other priorities. Several board members said they preferred to reserve most of the Jan. 27 meeting for staff Q&A and deliberation rather than a long public‑comment‑only night.

The district’s analysis did not recommend a single school for closure; it presented mathematical scenarios, trade‑offs and transition costs for the board to consider. The board set Jan. 27 as the next public meeting where members may choose to take a formal vote on consolidation or other budget actions.

Officials’ exact next steps included preparing boundary maps for any consolidation option, producing more detailed transportation routing and cost estimates, and working with employee associations on potential personnel changes should reductions be required.

Ending

The board’s January 27 meeting — now noticed as a regular meeting with a public comment period — is the next formal opportunity to decide whether the district will consolidate one primary school for 2025–26, pursue a different mix of reductions, or wait for additional state budget action. District staff emphasized the draft status of the materials presented Monday and said final numbers could change with legislative action, updated grant allocations and further departmental analysis.