Ralston board hears 2025–26 budget overview; district to use reserve and state apportionment rather than increase tax request

The Ralston Public Schools Board of Education heard a presentation on the districtbudget for 2025–26 on Aug. 25, where staff said the proposal relies in part on district reserves and a one-time increase in state apportionment rather than seeking additional property tax from local voters.

Board members were shown a line-item summary and an income sheet during the meeting. District staff told the board the districtreceived a larger-than-expected state apportionment earlier this year and plans to draw a portion of that amount from its cash balance to smooth next yearspending rather than increase the tax request to patrons.

Why it matters: the districtbudget determines staffing, programming and the tax request that appears on the annual taxpayer notice. Changes in local taxable valuation and state aid can materially change what the district can ask from local taxpayers.

Key points presented to the board

- Certified taxable valuation: staff reported Douglas Countyprovided a certified taxable value that was about $30,000,000 lower than the countyestimate the district had used in July. Staff said the lower valuation reduced the districtreal-growth percentage used for levy-setting.

- Use of cash balance and state apportionment: The presentation said the district will use part of the unexpected state apportionment payment and cash-balance funds as a temporary offset so it would not need to increase the tax request for 2025–26. As presented, the proposed levy is "essentially the same" as the current proposal, with staff characterizing it as remaining about "4 cents less on the levy" compared with a prior reference point.

- Insurance and indexing changes: The budget showed several reclassifications, including moving property insurance costs into building line items and newly budgeting some recurring software subscriptions that had previously been covered by grants.

- Bond promise and levy capacity: Staff reminded the board the district had pledged in a prior bond election not to exceed a certain dollar amount in levy (transcript wording: "we would not exceed dollar 35"). Staff said current projections keep the district well under that pledged level; staff noted the district was at about "$1.19" in a past year as a comparison (transcript phrasing preserved).

Board process and next steps

- Public hearings: The board was told Aaron (staff member) will present the required public hearings on the budget and the tax request at the boardmeeting on Sept. 8; those hearings will begin before the boardregular start time (announced start times in the meeting were 5:30 and 5:45 p.m.).

- Staff follow-up: Staff said they will refine the levy sheets and return with the formal levy request for board action at a future meeting.

What board members asked and raised

Board members asked for clarification about the taxable valuation change, cash-balance use and whether the recommended language from policy services should be adopted in other sections (policy questions were handled later in the meeting). A board member acknowledged the many moving pieces staff had managed and praised the budget work.

Ending

District staff presented the budget as a work-in-progress and scheduled the statutory public hearing and formal levy discussion for the Sept. 8 meeting. The board did not take a final vote on the levy at the Aug. 25 meeting, but staff described the broad approach the administration plans to bring back for formal action.