Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Preliminary 2026–27 budget: district projects enrollment drop, models conservative revenue and expense assumptions
Summary
Finance staff presented a preliminary budget showing a projected resident enrollment decline of 137 FTE, conservative estimates for state reimbursements and a $1M+ gap to close; the plan uses conservative revenue assumptions and flags salaries and capital as primary levers.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District finance staff presented a preliminary budget model and assumptions to the board on Jan. 14, describing enrollment shifts, revenue assumptions and expense drivers that frame the 2026–27 planning process.
Mr. Keromey said the model projects a resident population decline of 137 students (FTE), which reduces the three‑year rolling average used in revenue‑limit calculations. Administration is modeling an increase in open‑enrollment revenue based on the state budget add‑on and assumes a revenue‑limit increase of roughly $300–$325 per resident student. The district is budgeting a conservative 3% special‑education (SPED) reimbursement increase but noted state funding had not yet reached the 45% target cited in the budget process; staff budgeted off a lower estimate given current trends.
Keromey outlined additional assumptions: a conservative reduction in interest earnings relative to recent years, a 10% health‑premium increase estimate (with the district initially absorbing the full premium in the model), salary movement in the range of 2.63–3.13% for various employee groups and a projected preliminary red of roughly $1,048,000 in the model as presented. He reported the district’s unassigned general‑fund balance was healthy at about $25.6 million (approximately 38% of expenditures), providing cash flow and a buffer.
Trustees asked where cuts would come if the district could not close the gap; Keromey said the largest levers would be salaries/benefits and capital improvements and that administration would continue to refine assumptions as further state and health‑plan data arrive. The board discussed modeling approaches (conservative revenues, conservative expenses) and the timeline for review and refinement before final adoption.

