Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K12 Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board warned of FY27 shortfall as state raises and county decision diverge
Summary
Budget staff told the board that state-mandated raises (averaging 8% for certified staff) and the county manager's 2.5% recommendation create a projected $1.3 million shortfall for FY27; two county amendment options (4.5% and 5.5%) would materially reduce that gap but not eliminate federal/state uncertainties.
Budget staff presented a detailed fiscal outlook and told the board that a combination of state‑mandated salary increases and county funding choices will determine whether the district can balance FY27 without major cuts.
"We know right now that it is a $713,000 shortfall" under earlier assumptions, a presenter said, but after accounting for an 8% average increase for certified staff and other assumptions the district now projects a $1.3 million shortfall under the county manager's recommended 2.5% funding. The presenter later summarized a worst‑case example: "If we continued operating as we are right now ... we would actually be short $6.8 million," which would deplete fund balance within a year.
Budget staff summarized the district's FY26 position (6,915 funded students; total student billing base including charters 7,925; county-approved local funding of $46.6 million and a per‑pupil local figure of $5,877). They said projected FY26 spending would leave roughly $2.44 million to fund balance before one‑time legislated bonuses are applied, but that the FY27 implementation of state raises will require drawing $1.3 million of that fund balance to balance the budget if county funding remains at 2.5%.
Two county amendment scenarios are under consideration: an amendment to increase local education funding to 4.5% (leaving a district shortfall of roughly $300k–$350k) and a 5.5% amendment funded by a 1¢ tax increase (which staff said would produce about a $100k surplus). Board members and staff discussed options to close gaps — continuing allotment adjustments through attrition, renegotiating contracts, eliminating consultants, and, if necessary, reductions in programming or school closures as last‑resort options.
Board members emphasized the district should continue advocating with the county and asked staff to prepare scenarios in the event the county funds at 2.5%, 4.5% or 5.5%. Several members supported sending a board letter and having representatives speak at the county public hearing to press for higher local funding and support for the expansion request.
No personnel actions, program cuts or school closures were approved at this meeting; staff said they will return with scenarios and recommendations depending on the final county and state budgets.
