Chief Financial Officer Chris Smith presented the district’s July budget update at the July 20 work study, summarizing revenue assumptions, expenditure projections and near‑term deadlines for tax‑rate notices.
Smith said the presentation uses conservative revenue assumptions pending certified property values and interest‑rate outcomes. He reported an amended general fund of $374,000,000, total revenues of roughly $1,135,000,000 and total expenditures of about $1,160,000,000 under the draft amendments. The proposal includes a 1% ongoing salary increase plus a 1% lump sum to be delivered in December for returning employees; together the two 1% amounts equal roughly $16 million in compensation commitments ($8M ongoing + $8M lump sum).
On fund balance, Smith said the district would still project an ending fund balance near $350 million — roughly 34% of expenses — which he argued provides a three‑month cash cushion sought by rating agencies and helps avoid ad hoc cuts during emergencies. He also described a recent $160 million bond refunding that is expected to produce about $12.4 million in interest savings over time and noted an ongoing schedule to publish appraisal and tax‑rate information in mid‑August with adoption of rates slated for the board’s September meeting.
Board members asked about food service fund assumptions, whether local revenue in that fund reflects breakfast/lunch price increases, and examples of the campus staff roles included in non‑teacher position counts (answers: yes for food service pricing; examples include emergent bilingual specialists and special‑education aides). Administration said additional budget amendments for the 1% lump sum will be posted next month to be transparent about the distribution. No formal vote was taken at the work study; the board will act on budget adoption at the scheduled public hearings and meetings described by staff.
Next steps: staff to publish required tax‑rate notices in August, return in August/September with formal budget and tax‑rate adoption items, and post the 1% lump‑sum amendment as discussed.