La Jolla ISD projects multimillion-dollar shortfall as enrollment falls; district outlines staffing, curriculum and budget timeline

At a March 12 La Jolla Independent School District Board of Trustees meeting, district staff said the district faces a sizable budgeting gap driven by long‑term enrollment declines, rising costs and uncertainty in pending state legislation.

Mirjette Crespo, a district staff member who presented the update, said, “La Jolla Independent School District must reconcile critical realities with difficult choices.” She told the board the district has lost thousands of students over the last decade and is projecting a reduction of about 900 students next year, a decline that lowers state funding tied to average daily attendance.

Crespo laid out the financial picture and what is known and unknown. She said the district had lost “around more than 5,000 students in 10 years, almost 8,000 students in 10 years,” and projected an additional 900‑student decline for the coming year. Crespo said the district’s revenue model—based largely on attendance—means those enrollment losses translate directly into lower funding. She also said payroll accounts for roughly 79% of the district’s budget and that inflation has increased maintenance and operations costs by about 36% over the last decade.

Crespo outlined state legislation under consideration that could change revenue and requirements. She named House Bill 2, which would change per‑pupil allocations (the bill’s current language would raise the per‑pupil amount from 6,160 to 6,380), and said its conditions may require a portion of new funds to be used for teacher compensation. She also referenced a Senate proposal to raise the homestead exemption and other measures including a school safety allotment adjustment under Senate Bill 260. Crespo repeatedly cautioned that the legislative session—scheduled to adjourn June 2—created uncertainty the district could not fully resolve until bills were finalized.

Human Capital and Talent Development Chief Jamie Miller described the staffing review the district is conducting. Miller said the hiring/staffing process will follow TASB guidance and be informed by an academic return‑on‑investment (ROI) review that asks whether a position or program improves measurable student outcomes. Miller noted the district has previously identified large position excesses in past years and that the current staffing work is intended to be equitable and data driven. “We will not be placing, you know, tons of students in a classroom to ensure that we are fiscally responsible. No,” Miller said, emphasizing that staffing ratios and instructional quality are central considerations.

Officials presented dollar figures and scenarios. Crespo described roughly $10.4 million in estimated revenue loss tied to enrollment, and noted approximately $5 million tied to temporary disaster tax pennies that will not recur—figures she showed as part of a larger estimated gap the presentation labeled at about $21.4 million before savings. She said an internal, “preliminary estimated” revenue scenario—using current per‑pupil rates and tax collection assumptions—produced a working projection of roughly a minus $8 million gap under current assumptions, which district staff are using as a planning frame.

Crespo described the district’s four budgeting priorities—invest in student achievement, balance the budget, increase staff pay, and adopt high‑quality instructional materials—and said campus budgets will be released in late March so principals can align staffing allocations with campus needs. The board was told the district will continue ROI conversations, finalize department budget hearings, and adopt a formal board fund‑balance policy. Staff said they expect to present a final budget for board adoption in June 2025 and to act on the tax rate in September 2025.

The presentation also covered operational steps: tightened position control, attrition savings, and a review of program effectiveness to decide what to continue, expand or end. The district said decisions will weigh duration and documented outcomes for positions and initiatives and include the loaded cost of positions (salary plus supplies and training).

The superintendent and staff answered board questions and reiterated that many decisions remain contingent on state legislative outcomes. The board did not take formal budget votes at the meeting; staff called the session an update and a public step in a multi‑month process leading to formal adoption.