Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ralston Public Schools presents 2025–26 budget with levy cut, state aid dip and planned use of reserves

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Sept. 8 special meeting and public hearing, Ralston Public Schools staff reviewed the proposed 2025–26 budget, outlining a roughly 4-cent reduction in the overall levy, an 11% certified drop in state apportionment and planned draws from cash reserves to limit property-tax impact.

The Ralston Public Schools Board of Education held a special budget hearing Sept. 8 to present the district’s proposed 2025–26 budget and tax request, during which district staff said they aim to reduce the overall levy while managing lower state aid and planned uses of reserves.

District finance staff said the proposed total levy is 1.1542 — a decrease of about four cents — and that the general fund levy sits near $0.92. Officials attributed the modest levy reduction to higher state payments this year and planned short-term draws from the district’s cash balance to temper tax increases for property owners.

Why it matters: The district told the board that certified state apportionment payments that fed the 2024–25 actuals were larger than typical and that the state-certified number for next year is about 11% lower than last year’s actuals. To avoid passing the full reduction to taxpayers, administrators proposed shifting some costs to the district’s cash balance and adjusting special-building and depreciation fund transfers.

Key points presented - State apportionment: Staff said the district received nearly 317% of the anticipated state apportionment in a recent period and that 2025–26 state aid is certified but lower than last year. They warned state numbers, while certified, could be revised if the state faces budget changes. - Levy and reserves: The total levy in the proposed tax request is 1.1542, down roughly four cents from the previous year. That decrease reflects a combination of valuation growth and planned use of cash balance to reduce the property-tax impact. - Use of cash balance: Staff said the district is approaching a statewide limit for fund balance (about 25% of budget for a district their size) and that the proposal includes a modest draw from reserves (an income-from-cash-balance figure the presenters expect to use cautiously rather than as a recurring source). - Bond and building funds: Upcoming bond payments were identified: staff said bond fund payments include roughly $3,800,000 due in December and about $1.7 million due in June. The special building fund will transition from bond proceeds use toward roof and building maintenance over time. - Personnel and operating costs: The certified staff base received a $1,000 increase in the proposed budget; overall staff pay increases range by position, with some hourly roles seeing larger percentage increases. Insurance costs were cited at about a 5.5% increase. Food-service supply costs rose 18% year over year and salary costs in that area rose about 8%. - Depreciation and capital: The district is preserving funds for technology and vehicle refreshes and noted a $500,000 deposit into a depreciation fund approved previously; the special building fund transfer proposed to support roof maintenance was shown as a $250,000 levy component.

Board discussion and public hearing: Presenters invited questions during the hearing. Board members asked for clarification on percentage columns, specifics of state-aid changes, the length of time the district could sustain drawing reserves, and the district’s five-year outlook. Staff said the revenue side is the harder part to project, citing uncertainties in property valuations and state commitments. Attendees were then invited to provide public comment; none offered substantive criticism at the hearing.

Next steps: Staff said the district will outline a final tax request and hold the district tax-request hearing as required by state statute. The formal tax request and any final levies will be considered in the next public meeting where the board is expected to vote.

Ending: Presenters framed the budget as conservative and positioned to protect district services despite an 11% certified decline in state apportionment relative to the prior year’s actual receipts. They recommended continuing voluntary separation options and preserving depreciation funds for recurring capital needs.