Mountain View Whisman working group finalizes introductory budget presentation, flags three-year reserve risk

A working group preparing an introductory budget presentation for Mountain View Whisman agreed Tuesday to tighten slides, add a three-year projection and a target-reserve line, and use animated reveals so the public can absorb one financial metric at a time.

The team emphasized one headline message for the public: revenues are projected to rise more slowly than expenses, and if no changes are made reserves are expected to fall over a multiyear horizon. Speaker 2 summarized that takeaway: "we are taking in less revenue than we're spending moving forward." Speaker 1 added a specific projection, saying the model shows "our reserve will only be at 9%" by the end of the forecast if the district does nothing.

Why it matters: presenters said the slides must be readable and truthful about the difference between current single-year deficits and longer-term structural decline. The group decided to treat a single-year operating shortfall as a caution but to show a red flag for a multiyear decline, with an asterisk clarifying the outcome is contingent on future actions.

Key decisions and edits

- Charts and totals: The group agreed to keep two complementary visuals: a student-facing spending breakdown and a total-expenditures bar chart. To avoid misleading readers, members asked that the left-hand chart be revised so the four bars (including a new non-student-facing category) add up to the full district total noted in the deck.

- Financial-health slide: Slide 6 will serve as the presentation pivot, labeled as the district's financial "report card" showing reserves, operating surplus, assessed-value growth and facilities funding, reordered to reflect relative programmatic importance.

- Three-year projection and reserve target: Presenters will extend revenue-vs-expenses and reserve charts through the next three years (participants referenced 2025–2028 ranges) and add a visible target-reserve band so audiences can see the projected inflection point.

- Presentation design: Rather than add five separate slides, the team chose to animate a single slide with masking to reveal metrics one by one; Speaker 1 volunteered to prepare the masking edits and Speaker 2 offered to produce editable source charts.

- Supplemental materials and appendix: The deck will include or link to an appendix (a view-only PDF or online appendix) that defines terms used in the main slides (for example, how "student-facing" and "non-student-facing" expenditures are defined).

- Assignments and approvals: Team members were assigned responsibilities for data (Nadia), wording/graphics (Mark), and slide layout (Rebecca c referenced). The draft will be routed for stakeholder review; Jeff and Shelley were named as approvers/editors to review look and public readability.

- Public forum scheduling: The group discussed holding the public presentation in late January or February. Specific dates mentioned included mid-to-late January board weeks and placeholders described as a "back meeting" for final prep and a separate public meeting; the team agreed to aim for completion of content before the holiday break so approvals can be sought in early January.

What was not decided: No formal board action or vote occurred in the meeting. The group did not set a definitive public meeting date nor adopt a final numeric target for reserves; those items remain to be finalized during follow-up work and approvals.

Next steps: Team members will update the deck (including the three-year projections and the new non-student-facing bar), prepare the masked animation, circulate the draft for stakeholder review and seek Jeff's approval in early January. The working group also scheduled a final prep/back meeting before the public event.