Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the District Budget Pers Special Ed topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parkrose CFO: governor’s proposal a start, but PERS and special‑education costs remain a major gap

Parkrose SD 3 Board of Education · December 16, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

CFO Shirley Lewis briefed the board on the governor’s proposed education figures (presented as '11.4') and warned rising PERS actuarial costs, special‑education caseload increases and limits on capital funding tied to bond status will leave the district with budget pressures.

CFO Shirley Lewis reviewed the governor’s proposed education numbers and the components that drive the district’s fiscal outlook, cautioning that several items in the proposal do not fully cover the district’s rising costs.

Lewis said the governor’s presentation showed an 11.4 figure for the education budget as presented to districts and described two primary adjustments behind the number: an increase for current service level and actuarial PERS updates. She warned that PERS-related payroll increases will continue for multiple years and that the district faces roughly a $1 million increase in payroll costs from those factors.

The CFO outlined other elements in the governor’s proposal: an early‑literacy investment, a one‑time summer grant split across two years, some capital and broadband initiatives that primarily benefit districts with bonds, and modest increases to measures like Measure 98. She noted that capital and bond subsidies typically flow to districts that have passed capital bonds, so Parkrose’s district would not receive the same level of capital subsidies as bond districts.

Special education dominated the discussion: Lewis and board members reviewed the district’s rising special‑education costs (current counts discussed in the presentation) and framed high‑cost disability reimbursement as yielding a larger fiscal return to the district than a modest cap increase. "So when I look at it at a financial gain, the high cost disability gives us more money," Lewis said, explaining state parameters and how changes could affect district revenue.

Board members discussed advocacy priorities (raising the cap and expanding high‑cost disability funding), the need for clear storytelling to legislators and preparing a one‑pager for legislative meetings. No formal budget decisions or allocations were made at the meeting; staff will return with refined estimates and legislative‑advocacy materials.