Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Forecast topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasurer says five‑year forecast points to deficit by 2029; board debates EdChoice lawsuit and possible levy
Summary
The treasurer updated the May five‑year forecast, noting timing‑related property tax shortfalls this year and a projected negative ending cash balance by 2029; board members discussed EdChoice voucher impacts, potential litigation and the timing of a levy.
Treasurer (Mr. Hill) presented the board’s May five‑year forecast Tuesday, saying timing of county property tax collections produced a shortfall this fiscal year and that the district faces a projected declining cash balance through fiscal 2029.
Mr. Hill said general property taxes make up about 73% of district revenue and that the late mailing of county tax bills pushed collections behind schedule; as a result, he reported the district collected $49,997,005.25 in general property taxes for the current year, slightly below prior expectations. He told the board he is projecting a modest increase in property tax receipts for fiscal 2026 if collection percentages hold.
The forecast summary Mr. Hill presented projects expenditures and revenue over five years and anticipates the district’s ending cash balance falling from roughly $17.2 million at the end of fiscal 2026 to an estimated negative $24.9 million at the end of fiscal 2029 if no additional revenue is added. For that reason, Mr. Hill said, the administration is proposing a levy question for the November ballot. “This is why we are looking at putting a levy on the ballot,” he said.
Board members also discussed the state‑level EdChoice voucher expansion. The presentation included a chart showing the district’s previously qualifying EdChoice students rose from 14 to 478 under an expanded program scenario; board members said that expansion represents a material drain on district funds. The board debated whether to join ongoing litigation challenging aspects of EdChoice and other biennial budget provisions. Several board members said they favored showing solidarity with other districts at the state level; others questioned the cost of litigation and the district’s ability to control outcomes.
Board members raised concerns about a proposed 30% cap on carryover balances in the biennium budget, saying it would penalize fiscally prudent districts with healthy reserves. Members urged public education advocates and residents to be informed about proposed state budget changes.
Mr. Hill said the forecast’s projected deficit timeframe is contingent on state budget outcomes and that the board will consider a formal adoption of the May forecast at its next meeting.
