Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Klamath County SD budget committee hears FY-to-date finances, one-time ESSER spending and fund-balance tradeoffs
Summary
District finance staff told budget committee members the district remains within its fund-balance policy after using one-time ESSER and general-fund resources for capital projects; administrators warned the board that one-time project spending has reduced available fund balance ahead of contract negotiations and a June 30 budget filing.
District business staff told the Klamath County School District budget committee on Thursday that the district’s finances remain within policy but that one-time ESSER and general-fund spending has drawn down reserves. The district reported $83.7 million in actual revenues and $63.5 million in expenditures through March 31, with a projected ending fund balance in the $5.4–$5.5 million range (about 4.85% of the budget), close to the district policy floor of 4%.
The Director of Business Services (S3) walked the committee through reconciled numbers and said the district began the year with a roughly $22 million fund balance and has reclassified many projects into construction reserve accounts. “So where we think we end up is 5.4, almost 5.5 million, which is at that 4.85% of our overall budget, which means that we are within policy,” S3 said.
The committee heard that the district used ESSER funds and internal fund balances to advance time-sensitive projects that could not be completed before ESSER deadlines. S2 described a specific reallocation: money originally budgeted in the general fund for an alternative school was paid with ESSER because the expense was allowable, and the district moved funds to complete the Chiliquin gym. S2 said the board was informed and Department of Education approvals were obtained.
Administrators flagged a supplemental budget change of about $1.3 million driven by several factors: filling four positions that were not rolled into the prior-year budget, unexpected software cost increases, contracted professional services to cover unexpected resignations and incentives (housing stipends and mileage) to fill hard-to-staff rural positions. S3 said those items contributed to the instructional-side increase and larger support-service transfers.
The committee discussed interfund transfers. S3 said Food Services is carrying a negative balance that required a transfer; an IDEA grant audit also produced a larger-than-expected professional-development liability (S3 estimated roughly $500,000). The director said the district intended to preserve replacement-cycle reserve accounts (technology, construction) rather than leave those dollars in a single fund balance number.
On the transportation side, administrators told the committee they ordered 18 buses and planned to use a DEQ grant to offset costs. Because DEQ had not released funds on the schedule expected, the district fully funded the purchase and expects to seek reimbursement later; S3 warned the district will not recover a federal tariff of about $2,500 per bus.
The committee received a timeline for the budget process: the district will present a budget message and the recommended document at the public meeting Thursday at 5 p.m.; the superintendent must still file a preliminary budget by June 30 even as negotiations and state and federal funding uncertainty continue.
What’s next: committee members were asked to send questions before Thursday’s public presentation so the district can provide consistent answers during the formal review.
