Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McFarland business manager warns of budget pressure from declining resident enrollment and post‑referendum outlook
Summary
Business manager Jeff Mahoney presented the district—9s multi‑year budget projection, flagging declining resident enrollment, open‑enrollment uncertainty, referendum timing and health/insurance costs as principal fiscal risks.
Jeff Mahoney, the district—9s business manager, told the McFarland School District board that declining resident enrollment and variability in open enrollment are the principal near‑term fiscal pressures facing the district.
Mahoney reviewed multi‑year projections and noted the district is in the second of three years of a referendum that provides up to $1,750,000 in revenue cap authority. He said estimated state adjustments under the upcoming biennial budget process (including a referenced $325‑per‑pupil adjustment that he estimated would translate to roughly a 2.7% revenue increase for the district) combine with the referendum to affect the district—9s ability to balance future budgets.
Mahoney reported resident enrollment has continued to decline; the district experienced a $309,000 loss in the revenue cap tied to residential enrollment declines for 2023–24 and 2024–25, and the state—9s declining enrollment exemption partially mitigated that loss for one year. He said open‑enrollment applications were low relative to capacity at the time of the report: 96 available K–5 slots existed and roughly 25% of those slots had received applications to date. Mahoney emphasized that families may list multiple districts on open‑enrollment applications and that commitment deadlines extend into the summer.
On staffing, Mahoney said the district had three professional staff departures on the horizon (retirements and a family‑reason resignation) and did not anticipate the need for layoffs for the coming year based on current projections.
Health insurance and benefits remain a major budget pressure, Mahoney said. He reported the district—9s medical loss ratio had improved in the most recent quarter, moving closer to break‑even after recent years of higher claims; Mahoney said the district is soliciting bids and has a subcommittee reviewing benefit options. Transportation and property/casualty insurance costs were also identified as areas under review for potential savings.
Board members asked about the likelihood of increases to special‑education funding at the state level; Mahoney said advocacy has been extensive and an increase in the state reimbursement rate could materially affect the district (he estimated a doubling of reimbursement would equate to roughly $2,000,000 in additional funds for the district), but he cautioned the district will continue to wait for legislative outcomes from the state Joint Finance Committee before making firm budget changes.
Mahoney outlined next steps: continued monitoring of resident and open enrollment, building‑level reporting on projected enrollments, completion of the district salary study and ongoing benefit procurements. He noted the district will need to plan for the post‑referendum period when the current referendum authority lapses in 2026–27.
