Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District finance update: education fund projected surplus; referendum revenue timing noted
Summary
The director of business services reported a projected roughly $600,000 positive balance in the education fund through March and explained June referendum settlement revenue (about $3.2 million) is largely reserved for future years, leaving an operating surplus of roughly $2.2 million after adjustment.
Director of business services Mr. James presented the district’s quarterly financial report on April 20, outlining revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year (July 2025–June 2026) and explaining how timing of referendum receipts affects reported balances.
Mr. James drew attention to the education fund documents in board packets and said the fund is projected to run about $600,000 "to the good" through March, with approximately 85% of that fund devoted to salaries and benefits. On the combined operating spreadsheets he noted roughly $5.4 million across funds but explained that roughly $3.2 million of June settlement revenue is tied to future years and should be set aside: "If you then take that 3.2 off of the 5.4, you know, we're a little bit over $2,000,000 to the good," he said.
He walked board members through revenue drivers (average daily membership counts and fall/February counts used in state funding formulas), the operations fund (transportation, technology, facilities), and the operating referendum and rainy-day balances. Mr. James said the district aims to keep cash balances modest and use excess funds for classroom needs rather than building large reserves.
Board members asked for clarification on delinquent textbook rental receipts and the page locations of key numbers in the packet; Mr. James explained those delinquent receipts can reflect long‑running, minimal payments from prior years and are not actively pursued in collections.
No motions to change budget allocations were made at the meeting; the report was informational and prompted routine board questions about line-item details and timing of tax settlements.
