Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pendleton County board approves finances and flags federal funding uncertainty
Summary
The board approved the January treasurer's report, payment of about $497,000 in monthly bills and a $258,500 budget transfer, and staff warned that Secure Rural Schools forest payments remain uncertain in Congress, creating a potential gap for FY25.
The Pendleton County Schools Board of Education approved routine financial business on Feb. 4, including the treasurer’s report for January, payment of the month’s bills and a multi-line budget transfer, while staff flagged a possible federal revenue shortfall that could affect next year’s budget.
At the meeting, staff reported receipts for January of about $906,000, beginning fund balances of roughly $2.7 million and disbursements of about $1.06 million, resulting in a reported cash position in the mid-$2.5 million range. The board approved the treasurer’s report by voice vote. Board members then approved payment of the January bills, which were presented at about $497,000.90.
Business staff also outlined Budget Transfer No. 307, a reallocation of personnel and operating line items presented as approximately $258,500 to cover long-term substitute costs, repairs and telephone/internet service adjustments. The board approved the transfer by voice vote.
During the financial update, staff cautioned that Secure Rural Schools (forest land) payments remain uncertain at the federal level. The district budgeted roughly $70,000 for FY25 from that program, but staff said the House had not acted on legislation the Senate passed and that the funding therefore remained in limbo. The board was urged to monitor congressional action because a lapse or formula change could reduce expected revenue.
The treasurer and other staff reviewed recurring costs such as subscriptions (Apogee communications and website services) and the Edmentum virtual-school program, which serves about 20 county students and is billed on a per-class basis. Board members asked for clarification about per-student versus per-class pricing and fund coding (fund 11 for regular county/state funding; fund 61 for grant-funded accounts).
No further action was taken on long-term federal uncertainties; staff said they would continue to track congressional developments and report back. The board set routine oversight items for follow-up at future meetings.
