Budget committee recommends $58.4 million 2026–27 budget and sets permanent tax rate

The budget committee of the North San Diego School District voted to recommend a proposed 2026–27 budget and to set the district’s permanent tax rate after a detailed presentation on rising pension and special‑education costs.

Mackenzie Strawn, a committee member who moved the motion, said the committee should approve the draft budget to keep staffing intact; members approved the recommendation by voice vote. The committee also approved a permanent tax rate of $4.3973 per $1,000 of assessed value (estimated to generate roughly $8,253,000) and a debt‑service levy of $2,400,000 to support general‑obligation bonds. The committee’s recommendation will go to the school board for formal adoption.

Superintendent Lee Loving opened the presentation, tying staff proposals to the district’s Results 2030 strategic plan and listing core priorities including early literacy, increased access to counselors, and CTE programs. Loving said the district needed to reduce about $1,180,000 from the general fund to account for enrollment uncertainty, increased employer PERS contributions and decreased grant revenue, but emphasized the staff goal of protecting classroom positions: “We figured out a way to make it work without really anybody losing their job,” Loving said.

Rhonda Allen, the district’s director of business and fiscal services, walked the committee through assumptions used in the draft budget: a projected ADMR (average daily membership) of 2,015 and an ADMW (weighted average) of about 2,423.79; state funding assumptions tied to the biennial school fund calculation; and local property‑tax estimates using a 95–97% collection rate. Allen summarized significant cost drivers including staffing (more than 70% of general‑fund spending), benefits and rising insurance and transportation costs.

Allen flagged PERS as the largest near‑term fiscal pressure: she and the superintendent said employer PERS rates are projected to rise to about 22% in 2027 and, because of overlapping debt service on a side account, the effective cost could spike to roughly 37% during parts of 2027–28. Allen said the district has set aside reserves specifically to help absorb that increase.

The proposed budget uses a mix of reserves and limited program adjustments to preserve classroom staffing while reducing administrative and noninstructional costs. Committee members asked questions about the 7% board reserve policy, how it was established, and whether trend analyses of enrollment should inform future reserve targets.

The committee approved the budget recommendation and tax motions by voice vote; there was no recorded roll‑call tally in the transcript. The school board will review the committee’s recommendation and act at an upcoming board meeting.