North Platte Public Schools previews preliminary 2025–26 budget, highlights state-aid, valuation and reserve considerations

The North Platte Public Schools Board of Education heard a detailed presentation on the district’s preliminary 2025–26 budget during a work session focused on state aid, property valuations and cash reserves.

The presentation, led by staff member Kevin Stewart, emphasized that “the budget is only a tool to help the district accomplish its strategic plan,” and walked the board through TEOSA (the state aid formula), enrollment trends, special education reimbursements, poverty allowances and projected property‑tax supported funds.

Why it matters: Board members were warned that shifting property valuations and how the state applies TEOSA can materially change the district’s state aid and local tax burden. Staff urged the board to weigh using building‑fund receipts from recent property sales and tentative valuation estimates to grow the district’s cash reserve instead of increasing taxes.

Stewart and other administrators explained the TEOSA drivers the board must watch. Staff reported the district has lost about $1.4 million in state aid over roughly five years tied largely to valuation changes and local effort rates. Stewart also described how TEOSA separates needs and resources and noted that increases in the district’s poverty allowance (which staff said has grown from roughly 35% when he started to about 60% today) factor into the “needs” side of the formula and can raise state aid eligibility.

The board was given examples of how reimbursements affect the formula. Stewart and Dr. Rhodes explained that special education reimbursement timing and allowances are treated on the revenue/resource side of the formula; staff said the district is currently being credited at an 80% reimbursement level for special education in the state documents, though the exact final reimbursement amount for the fiscal year was described as “not yet final” because reimbursements extend through June/July.

Staff reviewed other budget assumptions and pressures: adoption cycles for curriculum (typically seven years), increasing costs for digital curriculum “platform” access and consumable materials, rising insurance and workers’ compensation costs, and the district’s strategy on transfers to depreciation and employee benefit funds. Stewart noted textbook replacement now often means annual digital subscriptions and consumables rather than printed books, a change that has increased those line items.

On revenues and reserves, staff showed the board preliminary numbers that would leave total property‑tax supported funds at about $66.0 million in the draft scenario and said the general‑fund levy was tentatively unchanged at $0.92 (generating roughly $587,000 more in the model presented). Staff cautioned the board these are preliminary figures and depend on county valuations, which staff said the county will issue preliminarily in mid‑June and certify by Aug. 20.

Administrators emphasized the mechanics and timing of public hearings required under state rules. Stewart reminded the board that a budget hearing is required regardless of whether the district uses a 5% increase allowance; if the district seeks authority beyond certain thresholds it could trigger a joint public hearing involving other taxing entities.

Board discussion centered on protecting and growing the district’s cash reserve. Mr. Simpson and Dr. Rhodes urged consideration of routing one‑time receipts — including proceeds from the recently discussed Osgood property sale — to the special building (depreciation) fund and, where appropriate, shifting some building‑fund property‑tax authority to the general fund to strengthen reserves without raising levies. Simpson said staff had already trimmed roughly $350,000 from non‑salary line items and removed several placeholder positions to reflect current enrollment and staffing certainty.

Administrators and several board members said they prefer building reserves to relying on short‑term borrowing; staff noted the district currently projects reserves near $4.0–4.6 million and reiterated a longer‑term goal near 25% of operating expenditures (approximately $8–9 million under current projections). Board members asked for options — for example, “A/B/C” budget scenarios showing more or less reliance on reserves or added positions — once preliminary valuations arrive.

Procedural/action note: The work session concluded with a motion to adjourn that passed on roll call. The board scheduled further budget discussion for the June Committee of the Whole, noting the board will finalize decisions after receiving preliminary county valuations and insurance rate estimates.

Sources and attributions in this article are limited to speakers in the meeting record and to staff documents presented at the session.