District projects roughly $13 million deficit; board approves first interim report and plans $5 million in reductions

District staff presented the La Mesa‑Spring Valley School District’s first interim budget for fiscal year 2025–26 on Dec. 16, saying the district can certify a positive status only if planned reductions are embedded in its multiyear projection.

Tina, a district staff member who delivered the presentation, told the board the district projects a current‑year deficit of about $13,000,000 and has built a multiyear plan that includes roughly $5,000,000 in reductions for 2026–27 (with a smaller additional ongoing reduction projected for 2027–28). “We are certifying positive, but we’re only able to certify positive because we have some planned budget reductions embedded into that multiyear projection,” Tina said.

Tina and staff attributed the shortfall to several factors: rising special‑education costs, the sunsetting of roughly $6,000,000 in federal one‑time funding the district had expected, higher health and welfare benefit costs, increased insurance premiums and declining attendance that reduces state revenue under California’s attendance‑based funding model. Staff said special‑education costs have grown dramatically; since 2019 district special‑ed expenditures increased by about $20,000,000, and federal IDEA funding covers only a fraction of local special‑education costs.

Board members questioned alternatives and the consequences of certifying a different status. Tina warned that certifying a negative status would trigger state receivership, a fiscal adviser and loss of local control. “If we certify negative, we’re basically saying we cannot pay our bills and we cannot pay for any of our operating expenses,” she said.

Trustees pressed staff on which positions and programs might be affected. Tina said the district is continuing to use restricted funds where allowable, levered vacancies where possible, and is targeting a mix of steps — moving qualifying positions into restricted funds, freezing certain vacancies and reducing department budgets by roughly 10 percent — to reach the $5,000,000 target. She said the final, specific staffing reduction proposals would come back to the board as formal action in February after HR and site staffing work.

The board approved the first interim report and incorporated budget revisions by voice vote. The district will submit the interim certification and the multiyear projection to the county office as required and return with additional detail in the second interim report in March and in staffing action in February if reductions are needed.

Public commenters urged the board to protect classroom instruction and be transparent with families about possible changes. Jamie Jenkins, a parent, asked trustees to “keep cuts as far away from students as possible” and to hold parent listening sessions before making sweeping changes.

Next steps: the district will finalize enrollment projections over the winter, monitor the governor’s January budget, and return to the board with updated multiyear projections and any formal personnel reduction proposals in February.