North Bend SD 13 budget committee approves $68.6 million proposed budget, levies permanent tax rate of $4.1626 per $1,000

The North Bend School District 13 budget committee approved a proposed 2025–26 budget of $68,632,056 and unanimously approved a permanent tax levy of $4.1626 per $1,000 of assessed value, then recommended the budget and levy to the district school board for final adoption.

The committee’s presentation and discussion centered on the district’s general fund reserves, staffing assumptions built into the proposed budget and several program- and capital-related line items. Committee members and staff emphasized that the budget is built on current staffing levels to preserve flexibility, not as a guarantee that every budgeted position will be filled.

District staff told the committee the district’s beginning general fund balance is estimated at about $8,000,000. If the district maintains current staffing levels throughout the year, staff projected an ending general fund balance of roughly $4,200,000 at the end of the next fiscal year; that figure equals the board-required minimum the presenters referenced. Staff said the proposed budget therefore uses reserves to retain flexibility but warned that filling every budgeted position without additional revenue would rapidly reduce reserves in subsequent years.

Why it matters: the budget size and levy affect local property taxpayers, staffing and program decisions, and the district’s ability to respond to enrollment changes and unanticipated cost increases (for example, PERS rate increases and higher referee, travel and technology costs). The budget committee approved the appropriation authority and tax rate and forwarded the proposal to the school board, which must act to adopt the final budget and levy.

Key financial, program and policy details

- Budget total and levy: The committee approved the proposed budget in the sum of $68,632,056 and a permanent tax rate of 4.1626 per $1,000 assessed value. The motion passed unanimously.

- Reserves and board policy: Staff said the district’s beginning fund balance is about $8 million and projected a near-term ending general fund balance of roughly $4.2 million if current staffing is maintained. The presenter referenced a board resolution (dating to around Feb. 2011) and board policy that set a district target reserve (described in presentation as 5% of adopted revenues plus an additional 2% placed in the general fund, commonly referenced as a 7% minimum target) and noted how the general fund percentage can appear as 9% because of differences between general fund and all-funds totals. Staff cited recommendations from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) (5%–15%) and state guidance (Oregon school finance recommendations, commonly 3%–8%) when describing the district’s reserve targets.

- Staffing and budgeting approach: District staff repeatedly said the budget is built on current staffing levels to preserve appropriation authority and flexibility but emphasized that budgeted staffing is not a promise to fill all positions. The presenters described a strategy of using natural attrition where possible rather than reductions in force, and noted that the budget retains authority to hire midyear should enrollment increase unexpectedly (for example, an anticipated housing development bringing new students). The committee was told that certificated staff-to-student ratios the district experienced in recent years (presenters cited roughly 22:1 in some contexts) are atypically low and may not be sustainable across multiple years.

- PERS and benefit costs: The presentation noted Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) employer-rate increases (presenters cited an approximate 2.9% increase for certain tiers) and projected increases in payroll-related costs. The budget includes built-in assumptions for a roughly 5% cost-of-living (COLA) adjustment that staff used in forecasting labor costs in negotiations.

- Athletics and extra-duty accounting: The budget shows an apparent rise in athletics full-time-equivalent (FTE) figures driven primarily by a change in accounting to an index method that more accurately reflects extra-duty stipends (for example, band director stipends shown as 0.14 of a FTE in the index). Staff said the change is an accounting shift to match stipends to time and pay scales rather than an across-the-board addition of new positions; a small number of extra-duty activities (for example, an added National Honor Society and OBOB adviser stipend) were added explicitly and are reflected in the budget.

- Grants and program movements: The Oregon seismic grant arrived late enough to be added to the published budget in an update; other grant-funded items (for example, a Wayfinder partnership and associated family engagement events) were discussed. The homeless liaison position (McKinney-Vento related services) was moved into the general fund with a $50,000 line to retain services currently contracted with Coos Bay.

- Technology and software: Technology services were shown with an increase (staff cited roughly $93,000 at object-level technology services) to cover payroll, benefits, hardware and software. Staff described ongoing reviews of instructional and administrative software to eliminate duplication, potential purchases for analytics dashboards and a point-of-sale system for events, and onboarding costs tied to some new software.

- Capital and facilities: The budget includes a facilities/construction planning line that staff said was sized to enable multiple projects (the presentation listed middle school roofing, boiler replacements, HVAC and lighting upgrades and other deferred-maintenance items). Line-item examples included a $1,000,000 figure shown at the facilities acquisition/construction function for multiple potential projects; staff noted the district typically budgets for replacements and reserves and may not carry out every listed project in a single year.

- Special education funding cap: Staff explained the state’s special education “cap” (the budgeted additional funding that applies to a capped share of the special education population) and noted the district’s identified special education share is higher than the historic cap (presenters cited district identification near 15% compared with an 11% cap used in funding formulas). Staff said pending state budget decisions will affect whether the cap changes and whether the district sees additional state funding.

Vote and next steps

The budget committee’s motion to approve the proposed 2025–26 budget and the permanent tax levy passed unanimously. By statute and local procedure the committee’s approval establishes the proposed budget and tax rate to be presented to the full school board; final adoption and any formal changes must occur at a subsequent board meeting.

Speakers and presenters cited in the meeting included district staff and committee members; the document and discussion referenced state and federal funding sources and accounting guidance (see authorities and provenance entries).