Poudre School District presents preliminary 2025-26 budget with $10.3 million to allocate amid state and federal uncertainty

Poudre School District Chief Finance Officer Dave Montoya told the Board of Education on April 22 that the district’s preliminary general fund revenue for fiscal 2025–26 is $434,351,987, leaving roughly $10.3 million available to address contract negotiations, district priorities and potential federal funding changes.

The presentation focused on revenue drivers and known expenditure pressures. "The per-pupil rate we are using for planning is $11,160.06, based on current School Finance Act runs," Montoya said. The district is budgeting with a funded pupil count of 28,613.9 and a projected total program (state formula) of about $319.3 million.

The nut graf: the budget outlook shows modest state-driven revenue growth but significant uncertainty from federal and program-level changes. Montoya and Budget Director Brian Gustafson advised the board that state policy changes and charter-school enrollment projections will materially affect available funds.

Montoya highlighted several risks and adjustments. The district incorporated a change in Ascent (concurrent enrollment) funding that reduced its per-pupil projection, a shift Montoya estimated would lower both revenue and related expenditures by roughly $700,000. He also told the board he expects roughly $2.7 million in charter flow-through increases because some district charters project higher enrollments, including one expanding to add a middle school next year.

Board members and staff noted additional cost pressures. Montoya said health benefits are penciled to rise about 5% (roughly $1.6 million), utilities and insurance will increase (utilities about $500,000) and the district is reserving roughly $1.3 million as the local non‑federal share for early childhood/Head Start programming. He also warned that potential federal cuts — notably to Title I and Title III and uncertainty around Head Start — could create more budgeting pressure in coming years.

"Right now that $10.3 million is what we're working with," Gustafson said, describing it as the gap between preliminary revenue and known commitments. Montoya outlined next steps: finalize contract negotiations, determine critical needs, and present a proposed budget May 27 with planned adoption June 10. He reminded the board of statutory deadlines: a proposed budget must be delivered by May 31 and adoption completed by June 30, with a statutory option to revise by January 30 of the following year.

Board members asked how quickly state numbers will firm up. Montoya said the state long bill had been passed late the previous night and that final CDE fiscal runs should be available in early May; those runs will allow the district to tighten projections. Several trustees urged continued transparency with the public as staff and the board make tradeoffs.

Why it matters: roughly three-quarters of district general fund revenue comes from the state formula. Changes to per-pupil funding methods, charter enrollments that flow through district revenue, and federal program shifts can materially change how much money schools receive and how the board must prioritize spending.

Ending: Montoya and staff urged the board to weigh negotiations outcomes, district priorities and emerging legislative changes in the coming month and return on May 27 with a proposed budget for further public review and board action.