Oak Grove R‑VI board approves 2024‑25 budget revision as leaders warn of payroll shortfall

The Oak Grove R‑VI Board of Education on a unanimous voice vote approved the district's 2024‑25 budget revision No. 2 after staff presented adjustments that reflect added grant revenue, bond proceeds and rising expenses.

District officials told the board the overall budget across all funds showed a positive variance of about $1.3 million, but that fund 1 and fund 2 (the general operating funds that pay salaries and daily operations) remain in a deficit. Staff said the bond proceeds — roughly $17 million noted in the revision — are restricted to capital projects and cannot be used to cover payroll or operating costs. Based on the revision, staff projected year‑end reserves in fund 1 and 2 at about 8.6 percent and said that, without further action, the district might not be able to meet payroll in December.

Why it matters: fund 1 and 2 pay virtually all employee salaries and represent roughly 70 percent of district expenditures. Officials said the timing of state and local revenue — the district's largest state payment does not arrive until October and some local receipts are concentrated later in the year — forces the district to carry larger cash balances to cover summer and early‑fall payroll.

Key budget adjustments and context - Revenue increases included adjustments to Jackson County distributions, several new or late grant awards (including early childhood and ARC/title funds) and about $230,000 in high‑needs payments. Special education carryover and tuition adjustments also were entered. - Expense adjustments reflected higher property insurance costs, additional substitute and summer payroll carryover, spring proctor and safety coordinator staffing and bond principal and interest entries tied to capital projects. - Staff emphasized the distinction between all‑funds presentation (which shows bond receipts and expenditures) and a no‑bond view of operating funds, and provided a no‑bond tab to the board to clarify operating impacts.

Board direction and next steps After approving the revision, the board spent the bulk of the meeting discussing options to address the structural gap in operating funds. Superintendent (name not specified in the meeting record) outlined several near‑term actions staff will present at the May work session and the May 21 board meeting, including: - Identifying approximately $1.0 million to $1.1 million in budget reductions through unfilled vacancies, program consolidations and operational changes so the district can provide a modest base increase (the district estimated $900 to the salary base would cost roughly $158,000). - Considering a one‑mile student pickup/bus radius that staff estimated would save about $126,673 in transportation costs in the coming school year. - Exploring whether to place a levy transfer measure on the August ballot. The superintendent recommended a transfer‑only measure (no tax‑increase ballot language) as the quickest means to generate operating revenue within the current fiscal year, but also outlined a 95‑cent transfer scenario that would yield materially more revenue while significantly reducing future bonding capacity.

Board members asked staff for specific, line‑by‑line scenarios for cuts and for comparative class‑size data from similarly sized districts; staff pledged to return to the board in May with modeled options, anticipated savings by line item and sample ballot language for multiple scenarios. The board scheduled a public work session for 5:30 p.m. May 7 to review ballot language, financial projections and cut scenarios ahead of the May 21 regular meeting.

Votes and formal action The board approved the 2024‑25 budget revision No. 2 by voice vote; the meeting record reflects a motion, a second and an "all in favor" response. The meeting record does not contain a roll‑call tally with individual member votes.

Ending Board members and staff said they will return with a prioritized list of proposed cuts, school‑by‑school implications and draft ballot language so the board can decide whether to seek voter approval in August and, if so, at what level.