Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oakrove trustees told to find multi‑year cuts as district cites $8M structural deficit
Summary
District finance staff told the board the district faces an $8M gap driven by declining enrollment and ongoing costs; staff outlined one‑time state funding that reduces this year’s shortfall and said the county requires a plan to eliminate deficit spending by 2027–28.
Superintendent Chitz and Associate Superintendent Evans told the Oakrove School District Board of Trustees on Oct. 16 that the district faces a structural deficit that will require multi‑year reductions.
Associate Superintendent Evans said the district’s ending fund balance is about $35 million, of which roughly $24 million is legally restricted. “Of that $35 million ending fund balance this year about $24 million of it was restricted and 10 million of it basically was unrestricted,” Evans said. He explained the district must maintain a 3 percent required reserve (about $4.5 million) and that truly available one‑time funds are limited.
Evans and other staff outlined new state action that modestly improved the near‑term picture: an approximate $2.5 million one‑time state grant and a targeted TK ratio add‑on of about $400,000. Staff emphasized those dollars are one‑time and cannot solve ongoing deficit pressures. “They’re one‑time monies…we won’t see them again,” Evans said.
The presenters described current projections showing roughly $144 million in revenue versus about $152 million in expenditures, leaving an approximate $8 million shortfall over the near term. To satisfy the Santa Clara County Office of Education, staff said the district must show a concrete plan to reduce structural deficit spending by fiscal year 2027–28. To start that process the district has convened a budget advisory committee and plans to present proposed reductions at the November and December board meetings. Staff said initial planning targets are $3 million in reductions for 2026–27 (which will be counted into multi‑year savings) and an additional $2 million for 2027–28.
Board members repeatedly asked how salary increases under negotiation would affect the plan. Evans gave a rough districtwide estimate: a 1 percent pay increase equals about $1.0 million; a 6 percent districtwide raise would be roughly $6 million ongoing and would “burn up the reserves that much faster,” he cautioned.
The board and staff agreed to return with scenarios that model a range of compensation outcomes alongside the proposed reductions. The county’s condition that reductions be specific and implemented — not only potential future revenues — guided the timeline and the requirement for a formal plan at first interim.
Ending: The board directed staff to return in November with a more detailed reduction and revenue plan so trustees can vote on an adopted plan as required by the county’s conditional approval of the budget.
