Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget tool gives board 'infinite scenarios'; committee tentatively leans to 3.9% levy to preserve fund balance after flood costs
Summary
Finance staff demonstrated an interactive three-year budget-projection tool using audited 2024–25 data. Committee members debated levy options (3.18%–4.18%); several members tentatively recommended a 3.9% starting number for Tuesday's board vote, balancing taxpayer relief against preserving reserves after the Kay Heights flood.
Finance staff demonstrated an interactive budget-projection tool to the Facilities & Finance Committee on April 9 that uses the 2024–25 audited fund balance as a baseline and lets users vary assumptions (budget growth, state aid, tax levy percent, under-spending) to see three-year trajectories for fund balance and reserves.
"This gives you the financial figures and these will change as you change the variables," the Finance presenter said, noting the tool allows members and the public to experiment with low, medium and high scenarios as well as custom inputs.
Discussion centered on the tax-levy percent the district should present to the full board at next week's vote. Committee members recapped previous options shown at an earlier meeting (a low/medium/high set) and wrestled with the trade-off between keeping the levy near the 4.18% cap — which preserves fund balance — and offering taxpayer relief this year by going lower. Some members argued for presenting a conservative option; others favored a middle ground.
Committee members discussed the financial effect of a lower levy on fund balance and on future tax-cap calculations. Facilities and finance staff and board members noted a newly discovered expense (the Kay Heights flood) is likely to push the district beyond its $500,000 insurance cap and that staff are still developing an estimate for total cost. That uncertainty led several members to recommend a starting figure that preserves fund balance: one committee member said, "I'm recommending we do 39," meaning 3.9 percent; another suggested 3.18 as the middle-of-three scenario.
Staff committed to provide follow-up materials before the board meeting: the interactive calculator posted in board docs, per-thousand taxpayer impact figures, historical levy and cap data, and updated cost estimates for Kay Heights from consultants. The committee agreed the number presented on Tuesday can be amended on the floor; no final levy vote occurred during this work session.
Next steps listed by staff included posting the budget tool and budget book to board docs, producing a per-thousand household impact calculation, and returning to the committee with a refined recommendation once the Kay Heights estimates are available.
