Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Mesa-Spring Valley board reviews adopted 2026–27 budget, projects $7.6 million deficit and multi‑year reductions
Summary
At its June 9 meeting the La Mesa‑Spring Valley School Board reviewed the adopted 2026–27 budget amid a stronger state May revise, a 2.87% COLA plus an additional 1.44% augmentation, and district projections showing a $7.6 million budgeted deficit and a required $4 million reduction spread over two years to meet a year‑three reserve requirement.
The La Mesa‑Spring Valley School Board on June 9 reviewed and adopted budget assumptions for 2026–27 after staff said the governor’s May revise improved district revenue projections but left unresolved pressures.
Tina, the district budget presenter, told the board the state’s calculated cost‑of‑living adjustment is 2.87% and that the May revise includes an additional 1.44% augmentation tied to paid pregnancy disability leave. Tina said the May revise is “better than what we were anticipating,” but warned the district still faces structural pressure from declining enrollment and rising special‑education costs. “We are projecting 10,396 students enrolled and funding for about 9,700 based on attendance assumptions,” Tina said.
The presenter said the district expects to report an estimated 2025–26 deficit spend of about $12.44 million and that the 2026–27 budget reduces that to roughly $7.6 million. She said the district must show a 3% reserve in year three of its multi‑year projection and has included a $4 million reduction over two years (presented as $2 million in 2027–28 and a further $2 million in 2028–29) to meet that requirement. Tina added the figure could be lower once the district receives finalized special‑education allocations from the Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA).
Tina also flagged planning assumptions: health and welfare benefits were modeled at a 10% increase in the near term; PERS and STRS employer rates have modest projected changes; and several one‑time state block grants (literacy coaches, learning recovery, student support) are not included as ongoing revenue. She described the special‑education expense increase this year as approximately $2.2 million.
Board members asked about the quantification of attendance‑recovery efforts and whether particular one‑time grants could be used for personnel. Tina said staff track attendance‑recovery separately and would provide numbers to the board later; she explained that many grants are one‑time allocations with defined spend‑by dates, while special‑education augmentations may be ongoing once the state finalizes amounts.
Next steps: the state must adopt its budget by June 15; the district will update its first interim report after final state allocations are confirmed. The budget presentation concluded with an acknowledgment that the district’s multi‑year projection remains a work in progress and will be revised as new state numbers and SELPA allocations arrive.
