Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board told state planning allotments cut $1.5 million; position audit shows 15.5-position impact
Summary
At a Craven County Board of Education work session, finance staff told trustees planning allotments tied to ADM will reduce state funding about $1.5 million (roughly a 2% cut), creating an equivalent loss of about 15.5 positions and prompting follow-up budget-scenario work before the district submits its county request.
At a Craven County Board of Education work session, district finance leaders told trustees that state planning allotments for the next budget year will leave the district with about $1.5 million less in state-directed funding, driven largely by the planning average daily membership (ADM) used for allotments.
"Our planning is based on 11,644," said Miss Daly, the district chief financial officer, explaining the state-provided ADM behind the planning allotments and the difference between that figure and local headcount. She noted the district’s per-ADM funding has dropped by about $17 to $6,938 and that the allotments translate into a net reduction of about 15.5 positions.
Why it matters: the planning ADM used by the state differs from the district’s current enrollment counts (trustees cited roughly 12,630 students), which can leave schools staffing more students than state funding supports. Miss Daly warned the planning allotments are a floor if the state operates on a continuing resolution and that other state decisions (for example, moves to increase the teacher salary schedule) are not reflected in the current planning allotments.
The audit view: finance presented a comprehensive position audit that used February payroll assignments and excluded vacancies so the board could focus on filled positions and where the district is incurring overages (salaries paid from local funds that the state’s allotments would otherwise cover). The audit identified multiple schools where staffing exceeds the state-funded allotment (so-called state overages), including elementary and high-school examples the team walked trustees through.
On fund balance, Miss Daly said the district projects spending $2,731,535 from fund balance next year — a smaller draw than an earlier budgeted figure of $5,280,996 — resulting from captured position adjustments, vacancies and lower-than-expected benefit payouts. "We are projecting... to spend 2,731,535," she told the board.
Trustees pressed for clarity about timing and measurement. Board members asked that future charts include both the state planning ADM and the district’s current student counts so the board can see where head-count and funding diverge through the year. Administrators explained why mid-year staffing changes are difficult to reconcile with fixed state allotments: PMR reporting windows and the state’s first-20-day funding anchor limit mid-year funding adjustments.
Next steps: district staff said they will compile the board’s written priorities from an in-session worksheet and return with scenarios ahead of the April budget presentation and the May county request. The board set a follow-up budget work session on March 24 for a deeper prioritization exercise, with an additional session tentatively available April 7 if needed.
Formal actions: the board voted unanimously to add a personnel report to the agenda and then unanimously adopted the agenda as amended; later the board moved into closed session under statute for attorney-client and personnel matters.
What was not decided: no formal budget adoption occurred at the work session. Staff will return with scenario options and more granular school-level reconciliations before the board approves a budget request to the county commissioners.
