Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quarterly finance report: property‑tax and Prop C receipts ahead of budget; one‑time ESSER boost noted
Summary
Chief finance staff presented a mid‑year review showing property taxes and Prop C revenue currently ahead of the budgeted projection and a one‑time ESSER federal infusion; staff said improved revenue trends could reduce the projected deficit.
Kirk Sampson, a district finance staff member, presented the district’s quarterly financial and investment report covering the first half of the fiscal year and cited several revenue and expense trends.
On revenue, Sampson said the district is “in good shape” on local receipts and property‑tax collections. He reported the local revenue line is roughly $3.4 million to the good compared with his mid‑year budget projection; about $1.5 million of that improvement is attributable specifically to property tax collections. Sampson said early January and December collections have been strong and he projected property‑tax results could be roughly $3 million to the good by year end for that line, subject to final collections.
Prop C (state tax revenue passed through to districts) is also ahead of the district’s budget, about $1.3 million to the good so far. Sampson noted student‑activity accounts are in positive balance (roughly $600,000–$700,000) but are separate funds for extracurricular spending. He also noted the district received a one‑time ESSER federal allocation of roughly $3 million during the year; that money boosts this year’s revenue figures but will not recur in future budgets.
On expenses, salaries and benefits (the largest budget category) were close to projection and purchase‑service and supplies lines were in expected ranges, with supplies showing a favorable variance of about $4 million in the first half of the year. Sampson said those expense variances, combined with stronger local revenue, could reduce the district’s projected $6.3 million deficit by a material amount if trends hold but cautioned that one‑time federal ESSER funds will not be available next year.
Board members asked about collection‑rate assumptions, the impact of any future federal rescission, and how state funding formulas could affect future budgets. Sampson and board members discussed the uncertainty of state and federal decisions and how those would affect future budget planning. The session included no formal fiscal votes.
