Setting the Record Straight: Boundary County School
District’s Financial Update
By Boundary County School District
A recent news article suggested that a “financial windfall” would allow the Boundary County School District (BCSD) to simply give teachers “a little something extra.” We want to clarify what’s actually happening with the district’s finances and ensure our community has the facts.
Not a “Windfall,” but Careful Planning
The reality is that the school district has a responsibility to be wise stewards of taxpayer
dollars, which requires careful planning and legal obligations. One of those obligations is setting a budget. BCSD must set its annual budget by early June of each year to submit it to the state on time. This process is based on estimates with the most current information available.
Where Did the Funding Come From?
The money did not just appear from the State of Idaho —it was earned through increased student enrollment and attendance. This funding is directly tied to two key areas:
1. Support Units: The district originally budgeted for 69 support units in June 2024 (a way the state calculates funding based on students and programs). However, our actual units at the end of the 2024-2025 school year were 3.3 more than expected.
2. Attendance (ADA): School districts are funded based on Average Daily Attendance
(ADA), which is the percentage of students who show up to school each day. Our ADA
increased from 91% to 92%.
How did we improve attendance?
This small but significant change happened because:
● We opened the Boundary County Online School (BCOS), which allows students another way to stay enrolled and count toward our ADA.
● We placed a strong emphasis on students being in school to learn, making attendance a priority across the district.
Partnering with the Education Association
The district has a long-standing negotiated agreement with the Boundary County Education Association (BCEA) that must be renegotiated each year. This agreement is important because it guides how these types of funds are handled.
It states:
“If the District receives unanticipated revenue as a result of an increase in the unit
factor, an increase in the total number of units, or other state revenue not reflected in the adopted budget, the Board will hear recommendations from the BCEA on where the revenue will be disbursed.”
This means that the funds for increased support units and ADA must be discussed, and input received from BCEA before the district can make a decision. Our commitment is to all employees, not just teachers. We value the work of every district employee and all will receive funds.
Prudence and Financial Commitment
The district’s goal is to be prudent with taxpayer money. That’s why these potential funds were not negotiated directly into permanent salary schedules. If money is placed into a salary schedule, it becomes a permanent financial commitment that the district must continue to pay every year, regardless of future state funding.
Instead, the funds going back to employees are for salaries and benefits received from the state that were not originally budgeted. This is a one-time disbursement for services
provided, not a permanent raise. The district is preparing for a potential reduction in funds from the state; therefore, we saved the remaining funds from the support units and increased ADA for future years. We want to ensure the district remains financially healthy for years to come.
The Boundary County School District released an article to “set the record straight” on their receipt and use of almost one million dollars of taxpayer funding that they didn’t plan for and had been labeled in an earlier presentation and article as a “windfall.” Their position is this is not a windfall but the result of their careful planning; those are their words, “careful planning.”
When they ask the question, “Where did the money come from” and then answer themselves, they say, “…actual attendance was more than expected.” A significant portion of the funding the District receives from taxpayer funds is based on estimated average daily attendance. And in this case the District had higher attendance than they planned for, thus receiving extra funding from the taxpayers. They didn’t carefully plan for this money, they were presently surprised when attendance was 1 percent higher than they planned for and then attributed that 1% not to students in the brick & mortar schools but kids staying home and completing their education via online tools. This is only careful planning in that with a district with a decade long stable student population, they underestimated their attendance projection and thus are receiving more taxpayer money than they planned for. So, let’s revisit the definition of windfall, “a large and unexpected gain or benefit, most commonly referring to a sudden influx of money.” Not careful planning, but an unexpected gain. For the last 10 years the student population of the District has remained relatively stable but the District budget has increased 35 percent. The District’s number of non-teaching staff has increased 32 percent over the same period. The District isn’t “carefully planning” anything; their budget is running away just like other Districts across the nation.
The District also explained how they are bound by a contract to consider the input from the Boundary County Education Association (BCEA). No disagreement there, but the BCEA is a labor unit that only represents the classified teaching staff or roughly 46 percent of the 150-160 employees of the district. The BCEA has NEVER advocated for a reduction in taxpayer funds given to the district and have advocated for increasing levies on top of regular funds since the unions’ inception. The BCEA is only interested in increasing the cost of education and will advocate for spot bonuses for classified teaching staff before they advocate for extracurricular student activities or facility investment. The BCEA does not speak for the taxpayer, nor do they take precedent over the taxpayers. Their role in discussing District revenue is to provide “recommendations” only.
The District closes their article with stating their goal is to be “prudent with taxpayer money.” Patting themselves on their back they stated their BCEA recommended classified teaching staff bonuses are one-time payments and not permanent raises. They immediately follow this with the FACT that District is preparing for potential reductions in funds from the state, and that is why they are saving the remaining amount of the funds for the future. They should have saved all of the funds for the future. They should have used all of the funds at reducing the need for future levies. They should have considered the input of the taxpayers IN ADDITON to the BCEA.
The District’s article does not demonstrate “careful planning, “prudent use of taxpayer money” or an appreciation for their taxpayer community. This was an easy ethical choice, save the money for future requirements and reduce the burden on taxpayers; instead they “made it rain” for the BCEA. In the next vote, remember the District’s levies should have been offset by this funding but it wasn’t.