Citizen Portal

District reports December financials: $101.3M ending fund balance, state transfer to Fund 14 cited

Montgomery Public Schools Board of Education · February 11, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

Chief School Financial Officer presented December 2025 financial statements showing an ending fund balance of $101.3 million and a $14.9 million year‑over‑year decrease attributed to a state‑recommended direct deposit of 6 mills into Fund 14; staff flagged enrollment‑driven staffing projections and the end of ESSER funds as budget considerations.

The district’s finance officer presented the December 2025 financial statements to the Montgomery Public Schools board on Feb. 10, highlighting a reported ending general fund balance of $101,300,000 and explaining a year‑over‑year decrease tied to a change in how the district accounted for a 6‑mill allocation.

Miss Watkins told trustees the $14.9 million decline compared with last year reflected a state recommendation to deposit 6 mills directly into Fund 14 rather than routing them through the general fund and transferring later. She described the timing of local revenue collections as a driver of apparent year‑to‑year differences and noted payroll and benefits tracking in line with budget expectations.

Watkins also said the district no longer has ESSER funds available, which had reduced expenditures in prior years, and that the governor had recommended an increase in PHIP costs that would affect future years. The presentation included a preliminary FY27 enrollment projection that the district estimates could cost the loss of roughly 14.1 teaching units; staff said they are preparing for FY27 budget planning and monitoring state revenue trends.

Board members asked questions about project reprioritization, vendor management fees and whether the construction project list had been revised after inflationary bid increases; finance and facilities staff described project reprioritization, fee adjustments and that projects remain on the construction‑in‑progress list until the board votes to remove them.