Treasurer warns House Bill 54‑53 could reshape school funding; board approves $634,210.11 in bills
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The district’s finance lead outlined a $634,210.11 bills package, highlighted an E‑Rate technology purchase and warned that House Bill 54‑53’s proposed $6,100 per‑student block grant could produce winners and losers among counties and potentially reduce Pendleton’s funding by about $1 million under some calculations.
The Pendleton County Board of Education on Tuesday approved payment of bills totaling $634,210.11 and heard a detailed financial briefing in which district finance staff described recent expenditures, reimbursement mechanisms and potential state funding changes.
The treasurer (finance staff) told the board the district purchased approximately $30,000 in internal networking equipment (routers, switches and hubs) under the E‑Rate program and is responsible for a $7,500 county match. The board also heard that Edmentum virtual‑school services cost roughly $24,590 this fiscal year, and that winter electric bills produced unexpectedly high monthly payments (about $40,000 for checks written in February for January–February service).
On state legislation, finance staff briefed the board on "House Bill 54‑53" (referred to in the meeting as 54 53), saying the latest substitute as presented would move to a flat per‑student block grant of $6,100 in future years with a lower floor (1,200) in some calculations. The presenter warned this approach would create winners and losers across counties depending on local tax shares and preliminary local calculations suggested Pendleton County could see a reduction on the order of about $1,000,000 annually under one interpretation of the substitute language.
"If you're multiplying that by 1,200 versus 1,400, then, yes, preliminarily, we would lose about $1,000,000 dollars a year based on that calculation," the finance presenter stated. The presenter also noted proposed supplemental funding for higher‑need special education (tier 2 and tier 3 students) but said funding amounts for the supplemental pool were not specified in the substitute language discussed in the meeting.
Board members discussed oversight and possible legal challenges, with one member observing that the state Supreme Court precedent could be relevant to claims about deprivation of equitable education. Finance staff said several counties would be "winners" under the proposed formula and others "losers," and emphasized uncertainty until final legislative text and appropriation amounts are known.
The bills and financial items were approved by voice vote; the transcript shows motion and second for payment of $634,210.11 and recorded ayes with no roll‑call tallies.