Will these relocations eliminate the budget deficit?

It’s unclear and we doubt it. The district’s multi-year budget scenarios focus solely on the timing of school closures, neglecting several critical factors. The district has not provided a comprehensive analysis, including actual relocation costs, potential enrollment loss, or revenue opportunities from future housing developments. Many fear that families will leave the school district or that state funding from attendance will drop further.

Additionally, the budget does not account for the planned addition of 1,892 new housing units in Pacifica or consider the potential decrease in support for the Measure EE parcel tax among seniors who distrust the school board’s financial management. These omissions could lead to significant enrollment losses and negatively impact the district’s financial stability and the quality of education.

What’s the deal with this King report I keep hearing about?

The King report – also known as the Demographer’s report by King Consulting, from fall 2024, is the primary study the district has been using to base its decisions. It examines recent enrollment declines and projects future decreases but does not recommend closing or relocating any schools. Instead, it advises that the school districts continue monitoring the situation. The district also uses a table listing the past five years as a baseline to determine which schools should be closed. Critics argue that the report underestimates key factors, such as the costs and capacity challenges associated with relocating Ocean Shore students, fails to account for the state-mandated expansion of the Transitional Kindergarten (TK) program, and includes only a fraction of future housing developments. 

Moreover, a separate report by King Consulting from the spring 2024 included more comprehensive housing projections, which the district used to justify increasing developer fees. Many contend that the district should have incorporated additional studies and more complete data. Significant considerations – such as potential enrollment losses from families leaving due to the uncertainties and upheaval following the board decision and other revenue opportunities – were omitted. These deficiencies raise serious questions about whether the report truly justifies the drastic measure of closing schools.

Is the Pacifica School District budget deficit really that bad?

The answer to questions about the district’s financial situation depends mainly on who you ask and which version of the Pacifica School Board’s reports you reference. As of this writing, the deficit is stated at $3.4 million, but this number has fluctuated across different publications. The lack of consistency is concerning.

In December 2024, the district stated it was in a “positive” financial position for the next three years. However, by January 2025, the narrative abruptly shifted to dire financial shortfalls requiring urgent school closures. Independent analysts have raised questions about discrepancies. When financial figures keep changing without adequate explanation, it breeds confusion and erodes trust in the district’s financial management abilities.

Key concerns flagged by independent analysts include:

  1. Calculation Errors: A $200,000 overstatement of the deficit for the next two years skews the reserve percentage – a critical metric used to justify the rushed vote.
  2. Unexplained Budget Increases: Between the December 2024 first interim budget report (which certified the district as financially positive) and the preliminary second interim report in January 2025, projected expenses jumped by $1.2 million annually. No justification has been provided for this significant change.
  3. Implementation Costs: The district’s scenario projections focus only on cost savings from reducing staff without acknowledging the additional costs associated with implementing the closures. How will all OSS and Vallemar’s 6-8 students be relocated without incurring extra expenses?
  4. Potential Enrollment Loss: Due to the uncertainty surrounding these changes, there’s a significant risk of decreased enrollment. Pacifica currently attracts out-of-district students, but the proposed closures may discourage transfers. For instance, a 10% drop in enrollment across the district would result in a $1.7 million revenue loss over three years. It’s unclear whether the district has accounted for this potential shortfall.

These unanswered questions underscore the need for greater transparency and comprehensive financial analysis before making such impactful decisions.

Skip to content