10 Questions For Evaluating Budget Proposals When They Are Released

When those proposals are released, the public discussion will probably move quickly toward individual programs, positions, and schools. That is understandable. Each proposal will affect students, employees, and families differently.

South Washington County Schools is developing a budget adjustment expected to affect the 2027–28 school year. District leaders have identified a target of approximately $13 million, with specific recommendations expected later this year.

But evaluating the plan requires more than asking whether we like or dislike each reduction. We also need to understand whether the proposals solve the financial problem, how the effects are distributed, and what tradeoffs the district considered.

Here are the questions I plan to ask:

1. How Much of the Adjustment Is Recurring?

The district’s financial challenge is structural. Ongoing expenses are projected to exceed ongoing revenue.

That means the plan must distinguish between:

• Recurring savings that continue each year
• One-time savings that help only temporarily
• Revenue increases
• Cost transfers between funds
• Use of existing fund balance

A vacant position left unfilled, for example, may produce recurring savings if the position is permanently eliminated. Delaying a purchase may reduce spending for one year but does not necessarily lower the district’s future cost structure.

Both types of adjustments can have a place in a financial plan. They should not be presented as if they accomplish the same thing.

For every major proposal, the district should show the first-year effect and the ongoing annual effect separately.

2. Does the Plan Actually Close the Projected Gap?

The preliminary 2026–27 budget projects an approximately $8 million General Fund deficit. The district has announced an adjustment target of approximately $13 million.

That difference needs to be explained clearly.

The current deficit is also not the only number that matters. A budget adjustment takes time to develop and implement, while compensation, benefits, transportation, utilities, and other costs continue to change. Enrollment may also continue to decline.

The district should publish an updated multiyear forecast before the School Board votes. That forecast should show:

• The projected General Fund balance with no adjustment
• The projected balance after the proposed adjustment
• The assumptions used for enrollment, compensation, inflation, and state revenue
• Any remaining annual deficit after the plan is implemented
• Whether additional adjustments are expected in later years

A $13 million package could still leave a future deficit if the underlying gap is growing faster than the adjustment. Families and employees should be able to see what the proposal solves and what it does not.

3. How Will the Plan Affect Students?

A dollar of savings does not describe the educational impact.

If a proposal changes staffing, the district should estimate how it will affect:

• Class sizes
• Course availability
• Student support
• Special education services
• Intervention programs
• School schedules
• Transportation
• Activities and athletics
• Access across schools and grade levels

For staffing proposals, the district should connect the financial recommendation to its likely operational result. Families can use the district’s official Classroom Size Dashboard to review current enrollment and class sizes by school and grade, but the district should also publish its own projections for the proposed plan.

Districtwide averages are not enough. A change that appears modest across the entire system may have a much larger effect at a particular school or grade level.

4. Are the Effects Distributed Fairly?

The district has discussed assigning adjustment targets based partly on each program’s share of General Fund spending. That may be a useful starting point, but equal percentages do not necessarily produce equal consequences.

Programs differ in several important ways:

• Some costs are required by law or contract.
• Some programs receive restricted revenue.
• Some expenses change with enrollment more easily than others.
• Some departments may already operate with limited capacity.
• Some services affect nearly every student.
• Some reductions could cause the district to lose revenue or shift costs elsewhere.

The district should explain why each target is appropriate for that area, not only how the percentage was calculated.

Fairness should be evaluated by effect, not just arithmetic.

5. Were Alternatives Evaluated Across Programs?

A good adjustment process should not examine every department in isolation.

For example, a reduction in one program may increase costs somewhere else. Cutting a service supported by restricted funds may produce little or no General Fund relief. Eliminating an offering may also affect enrollment if it gives families another reason to choose a different school system.

The district should identify the alternatives it considered and explain why the recommended option was selected.

For each major proposal, useful information would include:

• Other options considered
• Estimated savings from each option
• Educational and operational effects
• Implementation risks
• Effects on enrollment or revenue
• Costs that may shift to another program or fund

The goal is not to demand that every possible alternative receive a lengthy report. It is to show that the district compared meaningful choices before arriving at its recommendation.

6. Are Fund Restrictions Being Explained Correctly?

The district maintains multiple funds, each with a different purpose. A healthy balance in one fund does not mean that money can automatically be used to solve a General Fund deficit.

Construction funds, nutrition services, community education programs, and other restricted activities must be evaluated within the laws and accounting rules that govern them.

This matters in both directions.

A restricted fund balance should not be presented as unrestricted money available for classroom operations. At the same time, a reduction in a restricted program should not be counted as General Fund savings unless it actually reduces a General Fund expense or increases a permitted reimbursement.

The public should be able to trace each claimed saving to the fund that benefits.

7. Does the Plan Consider Enrollment Effects?

Enrollment is both an educational issue and a financial issue.

When enrollment declines, the district loses revenue. But its costs do not decline automatically at the same rate. Buildings, bus routes, course schedules, and minimum staffing levels create costs that may remain even when fewer students are enrolled.

Some adjustments could also influence future enrollment. Families may consider class size, school stability, electives, extracurricular opportunities, transportation, and specialized programming when deciding where to enroll.

That does not mean every program must be preserved. It means enrollment effects belong in the analysis.

For proposals likely to influence family decisions, the district should estimate whether the savings could be reduced by additional enrollment losses.

8. Are One-Time Implementation Costs Included?

Some changes cost money before they produce savings.

Possible examples include:

• Severance or contract obligations
• Moving expenses
• Building modifications
• Transportation changes
• Technology or curriculum transitions
• Unemployment costs
• Temporary staffing needed during implementation

The district should report both the gross savings and the net savings after implementation costs.

It should also explain when the savings begin. A proposal described as saving $2 million annually may save much less during its first year if it cannot be implemented immediately.

9. Does the Plan Protect an Adequate General Fund Balance?

Fund balance provides the district with financial stability. It helps manage uneven cash flow, unexpected expenses, revenue uncertainty, and emergencies.

Under School Board Policy 701.2, the district’s General Fund balance benchmark is 16.6 percent of expenditures. The preliminary 2026–27 budget projects a total General Fund balance of approximately $48.2 million, or 13.14 percent of expenditures.

That projected balance is already below the policy benchmark.

Using fund balance can provide time to make thoughtful changes, but it does not eliminate a recurring deficit. The final plan should show whether the General Fund balance is expected to stabilize, recover, or continue declining after the adjustments take effect.

10. How Will the District Measure the Results?

Approval should not be the end of the process.

The School Board and public should receive regular updates showing:

• Savings actually achieved
• Changes in enrollment
• Staffing changes
• Class-size effects
• Program participation
• Fund-balance trends
• Significant differences from the original assumptions

If a proposal does not produce the expected savings, the district should explain why. If the educational effects are greater than anticipated, the Board should have an opportunity to reconsider the approach.

Accountability requires comparing the promised result with what actually happened.