Rainier SD 13 budget committee warns of falling state funding, PERS ‘cliff’ and planned staff reductions

Rainier School District 13’s budget committee on April 20, 2026 reviewed a draft 2026–27 budget that anticipates a drop in state school fund revenue tied to continued declines in student enrollment and flagged a forthcoming increase in retirement-related employer costs known as the PERS "cliff." Superintendent Chad presented the message and said the district has decided to implement a reduction in force to align staffing with available resources while trying to preserve core instructional programs.

Business Manager Bryce Bumgardner told the committee the district’s estimated state school fund for 2026–27 is about $6.8–$6.9 million and that the district’s ADMW (average daily membership weighted) figures are trending lower, with recent fall actuals near 748–750 students. "State school fund is actually not equally funding schools," Bumgardner said, arguing the state’s method of weighting and census data can undercount local need.

Bumgardner and other presenters emphasized the district’s exposure to rising PERS employer contribution rates. They said a PERS side account created from a 2005 bond has been providing a collar that reduced rates; that benefit will phase out as the bond and side account expire (bond retirement is scheduled in 2028). Staff said the loss of the collar could move the district’s employer contribution from roughly 18% toward about 28%, creating a substantial budget pressure. Committee members discussed an illustrative example offered by staff: on a $7 million payroll, a 10-percentage-point increase could add roughly $700,000 in employer contributions.

To mitigate the risk, staff proposed and budgeted a series of transfers and reserves. The packet shows about $200,000 being set aside for a PERS reserve, $100,000 to capital improvements, $250,000 to co-curricular athletics, roughly $36,000 to outdoor school and about $55,000 toward the district’s QZAB bond. Bumgardner corrected earlier packet figures and reported a projected ending general fund balance of about 8.9% for 2026–27, within the district’s board-established 8–12% range.

Other budget details discussed included a projected general-fund mix with limited federal support, local revenues ‘‘just over $1 million,’’ and payroll accounting for roughly 72% of expenses. Staff described SIA funding projected near $827,000, largely targeted to CTE programs and related FTE. The committee also discussed the mechanics of using the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) for short-term savings and the limits of one-time dollars, noting the district previously used ESSER/one-time funds that cannot sustain permanent hires.

Committee members asked about program-specific and schedule-driven savings such as a four-day school week; staff said such changes may reduce transportation and utility costs but are unlikely to yield large payroll savings because of contract and staffing realities. Members also discussed capital planning and a potential November bond; staff said the district is currently qualified for an OCI matching grant of $6.1 million if a bond passes and the district follows the state process.

No formal vote on the budget occurred at the meeting. The committee set the next budget committee meeting for May 11 at 5:00 p.m. and asked members to submit questions to the district office by Thursday, April 30 at 4:00 p.m.