South Whidbey previews 2024–25 budget as enrollment, state formula changes squeeze staffing funds

Paul Field, the district budget presenter, opened the board workshop with an overview of the South Whidbey School District’s preliminary fiscal year 2024–25 budget (F‑195), describing it as a working document the board will adopt after a public hearing July 24 and final submission Aug. 1. “This budget is a working document…we’re a long ways into the process but there’s still time to change it before it is adopted on our next meeting,” Field said.

Field and other administrative staff framed the district’s revenue outlook around five major funds — general, capital projects, debt service, Associated Student Body (ASB) and transportation vehicle funds — and emphasized limits created by recent state changes. Staff cited an increase in health‑insurance costs and the implicit price deflator but warned that other state formula adjustments have blunted apparent gains: regionalization fell from about 24% to 18% and districts’ experience factors have been reduced, shrinking per‑staff revenue.

“The prototypical funding model…is not necessarily benefiting South Whidbey,” Field said, explaining that staffing allocations are driven by student enrollment and multiplied by state per‑staff funding amounts. Staff illustrated how those factors together produced only modest increases in certificated‑staff funding even when the state’s IPD rose.

Administrators outlined the district’s revenue mix and the role of local levies: local property tax (enrichment levy) and other locally generated funds supplement state apportionment and federal categorical funds. Field said the district anticipates collecting about $3.559 million in the 2024–25 enrichment levy to pay for items the state does not fund — “everything that the state and the federal funding doesn't pay for,” including extracurriculars and many materials.

On special education funding, staff explained the layered system: base apportionment provides about $10,000 per student plus roughly $8,000–$9,000 more for identified special‑education students, while a federal safety‑net program can reimburse extraordinary costs above roughly $34,000 per pupil if the district applies and qualifies. The district expects the state’s raise of the special‑education allocation (from 15% to 16%) to reduce its unfunded share, but staff noted they would confirm exact percentages.

Field walked the board through three state accounting lenses (program, object, activity), showing that regular instruction and special education are the district’s largest expenditures and that personnel costs dominate the budget. He described targeted reductions (for instance, streamlining building administration roles) and reinvestments to meet student needs, and presented four‑year projections that depend on enrollment assumptions and possible future bond sales to preserve financial stability.

The next formal steps: a public hearing July 24 and the district’s expected F‑195 adoption Aug. 1. Administration said the budget remains adjustable during review and recommended that community members submit questions ahead of the hearing so staff can prepare responses.