Budget committee holds training on district budget process, schedules May 22 meeting

Alan Niderfirth, a member of the school board who served as acting chair for the meeting, opened the budget-committee training and turned the session over to Samantha Sheldon, who led a step‑by‑step presentation on how the district prepares its annual budget. "I get the distinct honor of starting things off tonight," Niderfirth said at the outset.

Sheldon told members the budget is "a written report that shows our comprehensive financial plan for 1 fiscal year," stressing that the document is an estimate subject to change as state allocations and contract negotiations evolve. "I'm just reading slides because I'm really nervous," she said, asking attendees to interrupt with questions.

The presentation walked members through the legal framework and practical mechanics the committee will review. Sheldon said the process is "driven by our local budget law," and described the sequence the district follows: propose a budget, hold committee review (and public comment), move the proposal to the full board for adoption, and, if necessary, make post‑adoption adjustments with board approval. She noted the board must adopt the final budget by July 1.

Sheldon also explained the district's coding system (fund → function → object → area → subarea) and pointed members to the PBAM (budgeting and accounting manual) links that will be provided. She highlighted common codes by example: fund 100 for the general fund; object 100 for salaries and 200 for payroll‑related costs; 3,000‑series for state resources and 4,000‑series for federal dollars such as ESSER, Title and IDEA.

On the committee's authority, Sheldon stressed limits: committee members can ask questions and recommend changes but cannot set salaries, add or delete programs, adopt policies or give staff direct instructions — those powers rest with the board. She described post‑adoption reallocation rules and said the district has a contingency reserve (about $200,000) that cannot be spent without board approval.

Attendees discussed timing and uncertainties that affect the budget, including the state's biennial funding cycle and labor contract negotiations. Sheldon said the district generally uses the state's first school‑fund estimate as a working figure because updates seldom come in lower, though final legislative action can arrive late in the cycle and change amounts.

Committee members agreed to meet Wednesday, May 22, at 5:30 p.m. to review the proposed budget; a backup meeting was posted for May 29 if needed. The board secretary was assigned to send the meeting notice and packet in advance so members can review two years of prior actuals, the current adopted year and the proposed next year along with FTE details.

The session concluded with thanks to presenters and a short break. The committee will reconvene at the posted May 22 meeting to hear the superintendent's budget message, receive public comment and consider whether to approve the proposal for board adoption.