Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodland Park School District presents FY26 budget with 10% workforce reduction, pauses major maintenance spending
Summary
At a Board of Education meeting, district finance staff presented a conservative FY26 budget that assumes a 10% workforce reduction, no salary increases, reduced capital outlays and a small projected positive change in fund balance as the district responds to lost local sales-tax revenue and state funding formula changes.
The Woodland Park School District RE-2 Board of Education reviewed a proposed FY26 general-fund budget that assumes a roughly 10% reduction in workforce, no salary increases next year and sharply reduced capital and maintenance spending.
Courtney (finance staff) told the board the district’s per-pupil funding estimate from the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) is about $12,000 and that the state’s four‑year average pupil count used for funding is 1,775.7 students. Courtney reported total program funding of about $21.9 million. She said total local revenue was coming in above $13 million and the state share figure shown in the packet was about $8.5 million (figures presented by staff were taken from the CDE funding publication cited in the board packet).
The district’s expenditure assumptions include a workforce reduction across the organization expected to reduce salary and benefits costs by more than $1 million. The proposed budget does not include an across‑the‑board pay increase. Courtney said deferred maintenance and other capital outlays were largely excluded from the operations budget; fund 43 (capital/maintenance fund) was reduced in the proposal to $250,000 for the coming year.
Budget staff described the district’s approach as conservative: they presented a projected positive change in fund balance of $22,055 and a projected year‑end fund balance of about $8.29 million. Staff said an amended budget in January will revisit line items once actuals for the first half of the year are available.
Board members and staff discussed several specific budget implications: - Facility repairs: Jason (facilities staff) provided estimates and staff said some repair requests in the information packet were based on his estimates or best professional judgment. Courtney said major projects were not included in the operating budget because the district lacks the available local funds; staff said they are pursuing grants and other external funding but noted most grant programs (including the BEST program referenced by staff) require substantial local matches (about 50%). - Staffing placeholders: the budget includes placeholders for a full‑year CFO and a grants position. Staff said they expect to hire a CFO before July 1 in the event finalists accept offers; the grants position is anticipated to begin July 1 but was not yet posted or filled. - Transportation: board members asked about routing and neighborhood bus service; staff said routing for next year had not yet been set and that they would raise routing concerns with the transportation contractor when work begins. - Payroll/system migration and vendor issues: staff acknowledged payroll/pay‑stub access and certain reimbursements were delayed for some employees during migration to a new accounting/payroll system. The district’s vendor for payroll and related services was identified in the meeting as K12 (vendor name used in the presentation). Courtney said staff were handling late payments on a case‑by‑case basis and that district staff can provide pay‑stub copies on request while the data migration is completed. - Legal expenses and audit follow‑up: speakers raised past attorney fees and audit deficiencies (discussed in public comment and separate audit agenda items); staff said they are reviewing those numbers and will provide a breakdown of legal expenses and what is controllable versus litigation or other required expenses.
Why it matters: staff framed the FY26 proposal as a conservative plan that attempts to preserve instruction and extracurricular activities while responding to reduced local revenue and changes in the state school finance formula. The reductions and placeholders mean the board will revisit allocations in an amended budget once mid‑year actuals are available.
Staff said the board will perform a formal budget revision (amended budget) in January and that the CFO search and further grant activity may affect allocations during the fiscal year.
Speakers quoted or cited in this article are drawn from the meeting transcript; quotes are summarized and attributed to their roles as recorded in the meeting.
