North Wasco County SD 21 budget committee elects leadership, reviews proposed 2024–25 budget
May 07, 2024 | North Wasco County SD 21, School Districts, Oregon
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The North Wasco County SD 21 budget committee on May 6 elected Jared Johnston chair and Anthony Pereira vice chair, then spent more than two hours reviewing the district udget proposed for fiscal year 2024
nd'025.
Superintendent Carolyn Bernal presented the budget message, calling the proposal "a culmination of months behind-the-scenes work" and saying the plan is intended to meet legal filing requirements with the county assessor, the Oregon Department of Revenue and the Oregon Department of Education. Bernal noted revenue projections included in the package show "a 3.2% increase in available general fund revenues," with prior general fund revenue listed as $39,700,000 and projected 2024
nd'5 revenue of $40,600,000.
Randy Anderson of the district fiscal office led a line-by-line review of the documents and cautioned the committee the packet is largely an estimate. "This is 260 pages of estimates. It's my best estimate," Anderson said, and urged members to flag small coding errors and classification issues for correction before the packet goes to the full school board.
The proposed budget preserves existing programs such as Innovations Academy and the Therapeutic Learning Center and includes a $2,000,000 seismic retrofit for the Chenoweth Elementary cafeteria and gym. Anderson said some rising costs are explained by grant carryovers ending; pandemic-era ESSER funds that previously covered staff and programs are phasing out and some positions will not be refilled to keep spending within projected revenues.
Committee members repeatedly pressed the fiscal office for clearer historical comparisons and line-item crosswalks. Several members said items that show zeros in prior years and suddenly large amounts this year (or vice versa) fuel public confusion. Anderson agreed to provide highlighted pages and memos that identify where costs were previously funded (for example, ESSER or federal grants) and where they are now charged to the general fund.
Specific operational issues discussed included a noticeable decline in elementary vice-principal FTEs; Anderson said several elementary vice-principal positions are not funded in the draft and that the reductions are being handled primarily through attrition rather than layoffs. Members also asked about a large increase in district-wide occupational/physical therapy costs (from roughly $72,000 to about $359,000 in a roll-up), and Anderson said that change may reflect reclassification from grant funds (IDEA or other sources) or increased contracting for billable services.
Transportation spending rose substantially; Anderson explained much of that reflects contract work the district now performs for Sherman County, which adds roughly $900,000 to the transportation line and largely offsets the additional cost.
The committee discussed debt service and cash management; Anderson said the district plans to use a short-term tax anticipation note for cash flow (a six-month borrowing arrangement), not new long-term bonded debt. Members also asked about an increase in liability insurance and possible mitigation steps such as cybersecurity upgrades and training; Anderson said the district procures coverage through the school boards association pool and has increased deductibles while pursuing risk-mitigation measures.
Committee members asked staff to identify a threshold for which budget variances require an explanatory footnote or memo. The group discussed several approaches (flat-dollar and percentage thresholds) and directed staff to propose a threshold and return with a list of variances for the next meeting, scheduled for Tuesday.
No formal adoption of the budget occurred at this meeting; committee members approved the nominations for chair and vice chair by voice/hand vote and will continue review and follow-up work ahead of any final action by the school board.
What happens next: staff will return with clarified FTE histories, fund reclassification notes for large deltas, and proposed thresholds to flag material changes between years. The committee will reconvene next Tuesday to continue the review process.
nd'025.
Superintendent Carolyn Bernal presented the budget message, calling the proposal "a culmination of months behind-the-scenes work" and saying the plan is intended to meet legal filing requirements with the county assessor, the Oregon Department of Revenue and the Oregon Department of Education. Bernal noted revenue projections included in the package show "a 3.2% increase in available general fund revenues," with prior general fund revenue listed as $39,700,000 and projected 2024
nd'5 revenue of $40,600,000.
Randy Anderson of the district fiscal office led a line-by-line review of the documents and cautioned the committee the packet is largely an estimate. "This is 260 pages of estimates. It's my best estimate," Anderson said, and urged members to flag small coding errors and classification issues for correction before the packet goes to the full school board.
The proposed budget preserves existing programs such as Innovations Academy and the Therapeutic Learning Center and includes a $2,000,000 seismic retrofit for the Chenoweth Elementary cafeteria and gym. Anderson said some rising costs are explained by grant carryovers ending; pandemic-era ESSER funds that previously covered staff and programs are phasing out and some positions will not be refilled to keep spending within projected revenues.
Committee members repeatedly pressed the fiscal office for clearer historical comparisons and line-item crosswalks. Several members said items that show zeros in prior years and suddenly large amounts this year (or vice versa) fuel public confusion. Anderson agreed to provide highlighted pages and memos that identify where costs were previously funded (for example, ESSER or federal grants) and where they are now charged to the general fund.
Specific operational issues discussed included a noticeable decline in elementary vice-principal FTEs; Anderson said several elementary vice-principal positions are not funded in the draft and that the reductions are being handled primarily through attrition rather than layoffs. Members also asked about a large increase in district-wide occupational/physical therapy costs (from roughly $72,000 to about $359,000 in a roll-up), and Anderson said that change may reflect reclassification from grant funds (IDEA or other sources) or increased contracting for billable services.
Transportation spending rose substantially; Anderson explained much of that reflects contract work the district now performs for Sherman County, which adds roughly $900,000 to the transportation line and largely offsets the additional cost.
The committee discussed debt service and cash management; Anderson said the district plans to use a short-term tax anticipation note for cash flow (a six-month borrowing arrangement), not new long-term bonded debt. Members also asked about an increase in liability insurance and possible mitigation steps such as cybersecurity upgrades and training; Anderson said the district procures coverage through the school boards association pool and has increased deductibles while pursuing risk-mitigation measures.
Committee members asked staff to identify a threshold for which budget variances require an explanatory footnote or memo. The group discussed several approaches (flat-dollar and percentage thresholds) and directed staff to propose a threshold and return with a list of variances for the next meeting, scheduled for Tuesday.
No formal adoption of the budget occurred at this meeting; committee members approved the nominations for chair and vice chair by voice/hand vote and will continue review and follow-up work ahead of any final action by the school board.
What happens next: staff will return with clarified FTE histories, fund reclassification notes for large deltas, and proposed thresholds to flag material changes between years. The committee will reconvene next Tuesday to continue the review process.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
