Wetzel County schools propose $60.2 million FY27 budget, warn zero state aid leaves district reliant on excess levy

The presenter for Wetzel County Schools laid out a proposed $60.2 million Fiscal Year 2027 budget at a special board meeting April 29, saying the district receives no unrestricted state aid under the current state funding formula and must rely heavily on local property tax revenue and an expiring excess levy.

The presenter said the district’s total revenues and expenditures are each budgeted at $60.2 million and that salaries and benefits account for about $44.6 million, roughly 74% of the budget. “The excess levy is very important and vital to the success of the children of Wetzel County Schools,” the presenter said, calling the levy a necessary supplement to maintain staffing and services.

Why it matters: under the state step allocation described to the board, Wetzel County’s high local share (driven in part by recent oil-and-gas assessed-value swings) reduces the step‑10 state aid allocation to zero, meaning the county must locally fund positions and services that other districts may receive state support for. The presenter told the board the district experienced an estimated $31 million net decrease in assessed-value‑driven revenue in the last major swing and projects a $5.5 million rebound into FY27 as drilling and pipeline activity resumes.

What’s in the proposal: the presenter said the proposed budget preserves recent local pay supplements and covers state-mandated raises from House Bill 4765 — a $1,560 professional raise and an $870 service personnel raise that Wetzel must fund locally because unrestricted state aid is not available. The budget includes funding lines and proposals to: purchase laptops and continue a one-to-one device program; fund instructional materials ($900,000); spend $6 million on capital improvements (HVAC, roofs and other facility needs); continue an annual school resource officer and school safety package ($500,000); support student nutrition with about $900,000 to fund free breakfast, lunch and after-school suppers; buy buses and replace maintenance vehicles; and increase public library support.

Child nutrition and C program: the presenter said the district participates in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) so all students receive free breakfast and lunch; despite CEP, the county must budget a projected sponsor contribution of about $1.856 million to cover program costs. The presenter told the board that eliminating either the excess levy or regular local revenue would create a large shortfall: “You can’t fund $44.6 million [in salaries] with $23.8 million,” the presenter said, referring to a hypothetical absence of levy revenue.

Staffing and formula effects: the presenter displayed staff-to-student comparisons showing the district above the state average for professionals and service personnel per 1,000 students and said that difference represents nearly $22.4 million in locally funded salaries and related costs in the FY27 snapshot. Enrollment has declined over decades (from about 4,600 in 1983 to roughly 2,000 in the most recent snapshot), the presenter said, a primary reason state aid tied to headcount has diminished.

Next steps and procedural note: the proposed budget was presented as balanced and will be placed on the board’s May 13 agenda as the proposed budget for formal consideration and submission to the state, unless members request changes before the agenda deadline. No formal adoption occurred at the April 29 session.

Board process and public impact: presenters and board members discussed capital planning (use of Fund 51 for a future new school), options to phase bids for construction, and financing alternatives such as lease‑to‑own for equipment; the presenter cautioned districts against overextending on such financing. The presenter also reviewed contingency reserves (totaling roughly $3.1 million) and said the board retains authority to adjust allocations when the board revisits the budget in September after final carryover amounts are known.

A procedural motion to adjourn the information session was made and seconded; the board voted by voice on that motion at the close of the meeting.