Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District projects multi-year shortfall as board adopts 2024–25 budget with $6 million of planned reductions
Summary
District staff told the La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board the 2024–25 budget faces a multi-year shortfall driven by declining ADA/enrollment, lower state tax revenues and rising special-education costs; the board adopted the 2024–25 budget and included a $6 million reduction in its multi-year projection to meet county reserve expectations.
District staff presented the La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board with a sobering budget outlook on June 25, saying state revenue declines and rising costs leave the district with a multi-year deficit and a set of planned reductions.
The board adopted the 2024–25 district budget after staff outlined the statewide context for the proposal. A staff presenter said the governor's May Revision preserved the Prop 98 minimum guarantee but that lower-than-expected personal income and capital gains tax receipts reduced projected revenues that flow to schools. "We're really just trying to play catch up in terms of the revenues that we were anticipating," the budget presenter said, describing a lag in tax receipts that reshaped the May Revision.
Why it matters: the district projects a substantial deficit in the first year of the projection and said it has built a $6 million reduction into the multi-year projection so it can show the county a positive three-year outlook. The presenter said the blue bar for the 2024–25 year shows roughly a $16 million projected deficit and that the district must identify $6 million in reductions to meet a 3% reserve target in year three.
Staff emphasized attendance as a primary lever for revenue. The presenter noted that state funding flows through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and is tied to Average Daily Attendance (ADA): "if we were able to get all of our kids that are enrolled into our schools every single day we would be fully funded according to the formula," the presenter said. The district reported pre-pandemic attendance around 95% and current attendance at about 92.5%; staff said they are projecting a target of roughly 94% with planned outreach to families.
Planned steps and constraints: staff outlined both cost pressures and one-time funding expirations that complicate budgeting. Special-education costs have increased markedly, the presenter said, accounting for a large share of expenditure growth; staff estimated the district receives about 30% of the total cost for special education. The presenter also listed rising employer contribution rates and health-and-welfare cost assumptions as additional year-over-year expense drivers.
Attendance and targeted interventions: in response to board questions, staff said the district is pursuing a mix of interventions to improve ADA, including a PowerSchool attendance module for data visualization and outreach, targeted attendance postcards and social-media messaging, and a part-time Title I-supported administrator focused on chronic absenteeism at the middle school. Staff also said the district plans to partner with a vendor that has a track record of improving ADA.
Next steps: staff told the board that specific decisions about reductions will be developed between now and the first interim report in December; the county office requires a more detailed description of the $6 million reductions at that time. Staff also said they would involve labor partners when planning any reductions that affect staffing. The superintendent closed the meeting by reiterating the severity of statewide fiscal pressures and by urging continued work on attendance and program prioritization.
The board approved the budget as presented and included the $6 million reduction in the district's multi-year projection; staff will return with more detailed reduction plans and an updated first interim report in December.
