Dallas SD 2 reviews finances, projects $44 million in annual resources and $3 million projected ending balance

Tammy, the district’s business-office presenter, outlined the school district’s monthly financial-monitoring materials and told the Dallas SD 2 board the district’s annual revenue projection is $44,000,000 and that an early projection for the ending fund balance was roughly $3,000,000, or 7.22% of the budget. “When I ran the actual straight numbers, it was $3,000,000, which is a 7.22%,” Tammy said.

Tammy walked the board through the components of the monthly report — year-to-date figures, anticipated adjustments, an annual forecast column and a variance to the adopted budget — and described color coding the district uses to flag reserve levels: green above 8%, yellow between 5% and 8% and red below 5%. She reported the district’s cash/LDIP balances were $26,481,668 as of July.

The presentation flagged several revenue pressures the district is watching: declining enrollment, the expiration of federal ESSER funds that many districts used to support staff and programs, and continuing gaps between state funding and the Quality Education Model targets. Tammy told the board she does not have current cash-flow concerns but stressed that those conditions require regular monitoring. She also described the use of external auditors and consultants for complex accounting matters and the importance of transparent reporting to state agencies.

Board members asked for clarifications about specific funds and liabilities. When asked about last year’s unemployment insurance exposure, Tammy said the district estimated it totaled about $350,000 and that a monthly payroll charge is being used to keep that fund solvent. She also said many routine purchases and position encumbrances do not show until the September payroll cycle and that the July report therefore undercounts some expected expenses.

Tammy noted the capital projects fund report that the Citizens Oversight Committee receives and said staff are working to improve public-facing financial information on the district website and to point trustees to ODE tools for comparisons with similar districts.

The presentation concluded with a recommendation for active board engagement: review the monthly reports, ask questions when figures are unclear, and consider committee-level dives (audit/finance) to probe issues rather than relying solely on consent-agenda receipt of documents. The board took no formal budget action at the meeting; members directed staff to continue monthly reporting and committee review as needed.