Board approves district audit after heated debate over special‑education costs and surplus

The Lodi Board of Education voted to approve the district audit (items FB1–FB8) at its Jan. 21 meeting after an extended discussion that included questions about special‑education tuition, large budget adjustments and the timing of the audit’s delivery. A board member moved to table the audit for further answers, but the motion did not prevent a roll‑call approval of the auditor’s analysis to satisfy state compliance requirements.

Board members raised several substantive concerns during the audit review. One trustee highlighted a Long Range Facilities Plan line that estimated $72,000,000 in capital project costs and said the district showed roughly $2.34 million in budgetary adjustments returned to the general fund for the tuition line, asking whether that reflected planned out‑of‑district placements. The superintendent and finance staff explained that some tuitions had been budgeted and later reallocated when programs were brought back in‑district, and that out‑of‑district tuition per student can range widely depending on services required. "The lowest tuition for an out‑of‑district special ed student, I want to say, is around $55,000 a year," an administrator said, adding that complex placements can exceed $100,000.

The timing and accessibility of audit materials also drew criticism. A trustee said the audit had arrived on the Friday before a holiday weekend and argued that board members did not have adequate time to obtain answers; "I have too many unanswered questions to approve it," the trustee said when proposing to table the item. The board president and administration responded that approving the auditor’s analysis is a state compliance requirement and that J‑schedules in the audit are informational exhibits that may be unaudited.

After debate the clerk called the roll. The board approved the audit items; two members recorded exceptions on FB6 and FB8. Administration said members may continue to ask follow‑up questions and that further detail (for example, a breakdown of what was included in the "Purchase Professional Educated Services" line and the staffing counts in the J‑schedules) would be provided after the meeting.

The vote allowed the district to remain in compliance with state reporting deadlines. Board members also discussed creating a separate facilities committee to address the long‑range facilities plan, but withdrew that motion to allow members to see the architect’s presentation before acting.