Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment And Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sultan School District staff present enrollment projections and budget method as athletics and utilities show gaps
Summary
District staff demonstrated a 10-year cohort-survival model for 2026–27 enrollment projections, explained budgeting at 98% of projected FTE to avoid overcounting, and flagged athletics and utilities line-item shortfalls plus the district cost of a startup event center.
At the March 9 Sultan School District board meeting, a staff member identified as Mitch described the district’s approach to projecting enrollment for the 2026–27 budget year, saying the district used OSPI’s Education Data System and a 10-year cohort‑survival calculation to estimate future class sizes.
Mitch said the district averaged year‑to‑year cohort survival (kindergarten to first grade, first to second, etc.) and then multiplied that percentage forward. "These numbers are out on OSPI's website," he said, adding that the model is run back to 2016–17 so the district has a 10‑year series to average. He told trustees the district budgets to 98% of projected FTE “because it’s easier to add than to subtract.”
The staff presentation showed current counts and explained duplication issues when CTE or other programs are included in the overall FTE. Staff cited a current headcount of about 1,944 and an overall FTE near 1,966; they warned that budgeting must exclude duplicated CTE counts to avoid overstating staffing needs.
The discussion moved from methodology to specific line items. On athletics, staff said the prior year’s actual spending was $894,000 while the budget had been $734,000; current year‑to‑date athletics spending is about $432,000 while the budgeted amount listed was $626,000. "We spent X and then we budgeted less than what we spent before for no reason whatsoever," Mitch said, describing inconsistent historic budgeting and the district’s plan to sit down with program leads to set realistic projections.
Utilities also showed inconsistencies in past budgets. Using a high‑school garbage account as an example, staff said the actual cost had been $24,000 versus a budget of $19,000, with current‑year spending at $13,000 and a budgeted figure of $18,000. Staff attributed some of the confusion to prior coding systems and said the district is converting accounts to NCES codes to improve consistency and track local versus state/federal dollars.
Staff also said it has begun tracking utilities for the district’s startup event center; the district’s agreement provides $1 per month in rent but requires the district to pay utilities, so staff will compare utility costs against usage and free‑use provisions.
Board members asked clarifying questions about the projections and specific line items. Staff said they would continue reviewing historical spending, meet with department heads, and refine the budget assumptions before bringing budget documents back to the board.
The public meeting then moved on to a separate bond‑planning presentation.
