Perrydale SD 21 budget committee reviews 2025–26 draft, prioritizes literacy and PE staffing amid funding uncertainty

Perrydale SD 21 budget committee members reviewed the district’s proposed 2025–26 budget, with an emphasis on preserving current service levels while adding targeted staff and completing planned facilities work.

“Members of the budget committee, students, families, staff and community members — as we begin the budgeting process for the 2025–26 school year, we remain committed to being responsible stewards of the funds,” a committee presenter said, summarizing the priorities that guided the draft proposal.

Why it matters: Committee members said the district aims to avoid the staffing cuts that other nearby districts have faced once one-time federal COVID-era dollars expired. The draft budget aims to maintain class sizes and current programs while funding modest growth where sustainable.

Key details: Business manager Cindy presented the budget book and explained major revenue and expenditure categories, including the state school fund (tied to average daily membership, or ADM), local revenues, and one-time grants. The budget currently assumes an ADM of about 318 for 2025–26 and budgets conservatively for recruitment and benefits costs.

Staffing proposals include adding a 0.5 FTE early literacy specialist tied to an early literacy grant and funding an additional PE position to restore daily physical-education minutes for K–8. Cindy said the literacy position was budgeted as a 0.5 FTE because that is the grant-sustained amount, and the district is planning options to pair literacy work with library responsibilities if that proves efficient.

On curriculum and program choices, the committee discussed using science-of-reading–aligned materials and a licensed literacy specialist for targeted interventions. “We chose the more expensive amount for budgeting purposes,” the presenter said, explaining the district is budgeting conservatively even if lower-cost options are later selected by the school board.

Funding risks and federal titles: Committee members asked about federal Title funding and how some funds route through the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) versus directly from the federal government. Cindy said roughly $42,000 is routed through ODE and another approximately $42,000 through rural-education federal funds; she warned state–federal compliance discussions could affect routing and timing and that any legislative solution to shortfalls would require state-level action.

Capital projects: The committee reviewed a prioritized facilities list that will use interfund transfers and carryover to fund kitchen upgrades this summer (about $25,050 plus an additional $25,000 for cabinets), equipment such as a commercial scrubber, and deferred office remodels. The presentation noted that some vehicle purchases (school bus/minibus) were subtracted from the current year’s carryover.

Process and next steps: Cindy asked members to submit questions by May 5 so staff could gather answers before the next budget meeting and said she would post revised estimates if the state’s May forecast changed.

What’s unresolved: The district is moving forward with the staffing and facilities proposals but emphasized that grant-funded positions depend on ongoing funding; the committee reiterated a long-standing philosophy that when a position is created with temporary grant dollars, the position may be reduced or discontinued if funding ends.

The budget committee did not adopt the final budget at this meeting; the presentation and Q&A will inform the next steps in the budget cycle.