At the Rapid City Area Schools Board of Education meeting, board member Mr. Sassy led a multi-part budget briefing that framed the district's near-term revenue outlook around property valuation, capital outlay rules and a concerning state budget posture.

"Overall valuation of district property increased 5.62% from pay '25," Mr. Sassy said, adding the district's total valuation is "just over $14.5 billion" and that owner‑occupied residential property makes up about 61.2% of that total. He said the district's five‑year valuation increase is 58.4% and cautioned that classification levy changes can blunt revenue gains at the local level.

The presentation explained capital outlay revenue now uses a "general rule" formula that allows growth plus 3% year‑over‑year but remains subject to an overarching $3 per $1,000 valuation cap. "Our max capital outlay request for pay '26 is $32,600,000," Mr. Sassy said, characterizing that as a 4.7% increase driven by a 1.7% reported growth factor. He warned a widening gap between total valuation increases and new‑construction growth restricts how much capital outlay revenue districts can actually collect.

In discussion that followed, board members pressed for clarity on how state classification levies are set and who benefits from levy reductions. Mr. Sassy described the Department of Revenue's role in recommending levy adjustments and said the current levy decreases produced a near‑flat general fund local effort even as valuations rose. He noted that special education local effort (SPED) more directly reflects valuation movement and showed a different pattern (a roughly 3.77% SPED local effort increase was cited).

The board also discussed the governor's budget recommendation calling for a 0% increase in state aid. Mr. Sassy and other members said inflation and higher personnel costs make a zero‑growth recommendation difficult for districts to absorb. "There is not a school district in this state...that has faced a 0 percent inflation over the last year," Mr. Sassy said, urging the need to demonstrate the district's cost pressures to state legislators.

What happens next: the board signaled it will follow up in future meetings with a deeper dive into state aid modeling, levy history, and likely legislative outreach. The presentations were positioned as preparatory to January–February budget work and potential state lobbying on capital outlay and state aid issues.