Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ESD consultant flags $1.7M revenue shortfall, recommends staffing and budget corrections for Prosser School District
Summary
An ESD 123 consultant told the Prosser School District board its year‑end books show roughly $1.7 million less revenue than budgeted, a $2 million discrepancy tied to the budget vs. the F‑203 apportionment report, and program variances that drive a negative unassigned fund balance; administration said staffing and budget adjustments will be pursued for 2025–26.
Andrew “Drew” Rob, a fiscal consultant from Educational Service District 123, told the Prosser School District board that the district finished the year with materially different results than were budgeted and that several program areas and accounting items need correction.
Drew said the district recognized about $1.7 million less in revenue than projected and that a roughly $2.0 million discrepancy appears to stem from a difference between the F‑203 enrollment/apportionment report and the budget the board adopted. "The budgeted number was a lot higher. It was almost $2,000,000 higher in one category," he said. He also identified a roughly $300,000 reduction in levy equalization tied to changes in assessed value.
The ESD consultant detailed program variances on the expenditure side: food service finished about $819,000 over the budgeted amount, transitional bilingual programming was about $188,000 over, dropout re‑engagement about $150,000, and transitional kindergarten about $110,000. He said payroll and certificated salaries were substantially higher than budgeted and that payroll accounts for 82.24% of district expenditures, up from a budgeted 78.55%.
Drew highlighted specific balance‑sheet concerns: warrants outstanding listed on the district report did not reconcile with the county treasurer’s records, and one accounts‑payable item of about $467,000 remained unposted and unpaid with unclear cause. He said the unassigned portion of the general fund was negative—an indicator that the district is operating with thin (or no) unrestricted reserves and that, without corrections, financial distress could follow.
Board members and administrators asked technical and procedural questions about reconciliation, carryover treatment of grant dollars, and whether unit‑level reports should be run monthly. A board member observed that some program overspends reflect carryover funding that was not shown in the budget; Drew and other staff confirmed that carryover entries and reporting processes need improvement.
The superintendent and administration said they plan a series of corrective steps: request an updated outstanding warrants list from the county treasurer, run monthly transaction and program recaps, and prepare budget adjustments for 2025–26 that more accurately reflect expected apportionment and program carryovers. "We're going to have to start hitting it heavy on 26–27 from a staffing perspective," an administrator said, noting staffing choices will be the main lever for longer‑term savings.
What happens next: the district will receive a monthly report prepared by the ESD consultant, and staff said they will bring recommended budget adjustments to the board so the 2025–26 budget reflects the corrected apportionment and program funding picture.
