School district budget cuts get closer look by Richmond council
RICHMOND — The city council expressed concern over the health of West Contra Costa Unified School District and is looking for a possible partnership amid a budget crisis that is impacting the district.
Dr. Kim Moses, interim superintendent of West Contra Costa Unified School District, fielded questions related to the district’s budget and looming layoffs from the Richmond City Council during a March 25 meeting.
Last week’s presentation came a few weeks after the council heard from representatives with United Teachers of Richmond, the union representing nearly 1,700 West Contra Costa Unified School District employees.
The council’s aim is to better understand the contentious budget debate for a district that is responsible for educating about 10,600 Richmond children, between one-third and one-half of the district’s total enrollment.
Faced with a state or county takeover due to its financial woes, the district needs to cut $32.7 million from its budget between 2024 and 2027. An initial $19.7 million was already cut ahead of the current school year with the remaining roughly $13 million being cut in the next two budget cycles.
To achieve those cuts and abide by a fiscal solvency plan entered into with the Contra Costa County Office of Education, the district has argued staffing cuts are necessary.
District Board of Education members agreed to remove 169 staff positions from the budget during a meeting in February, and pink slips warning some staff members they may lose their job have already been sent out, though Moses noted official layoff notices won’t go out until May 14.
Most employees will likely find different positions within the district rather than being laid off, Moses said. The actual number of released staff will be close to about three teachers, she added.
“I understand that uncertainty is uncomfortable and there’s concern on the part of labor and on the part of our staff members,” Moses said. “What we try to do as a district is reiterate that we value our staff, we want to retain our staff but we just need some time to evaluate what’s happening with these positions and their funding sources.”
The teachers union, during its presentation to the council, accused the district of creating an artificial crisis by overestimating expenses and underestimating revenue. They also assert the district saves at a rate greater than required by the state instead of spending those dollars on immediate needs.
Councilmember Sue Wilson shared those concerns during the March 25 council meeting and cited an email sent to her from Contra Costa Superintendent of Schools Lynn Mackey which also acknowledged the district’s budgeting pattern.
“I still have the concern that your projections are so conservative that it’s creating an artificial sense of urgency that isn’t there,” Wilson said.
Responding to Wilson’s comment, Moses said the restricted side of the district’s budget is strong given a continued flow of grants, but much of that money cannot be spent on staffing, which is largely supported by the weaker unrestricted side of the budget.
Accurate budget estimates are also challenging because the district can’t be sure which grants it will or won’t receive, she said, pointing to $17 million in restricted grants that were recently awarded to the district that contributed to a substantial amount of unprojected revenue.
“We don’t have all of the information initially. We have to project,” Moses said. “This narrative that we’re over-projecting and padding the budget, it simply isn’t true.”
David Hart, interim associate superintendent of Business Services, addressed those accusations during the March 26 board of education meeting when presenting a Second Interim Report on the actual revenues and expenses from July 1, 2024, to Jan. 31, 2025.
That report noted that combined general fund revenue increased by about $4.8 million, mostly due to reimbursements from Medi-cal. Meanwhile, expenditures also increased by about $7.2 million partly due to salary, benefits and contract adjustments, instructional costs and legal expenses.
Hart noted estimates become less accurate as forecasts look further out, which is why the state requires districts to adopt initial budgets, two interim reports and updates when the next budget cycle begins.
“The numbers we provide are the best available data we have at this point in time. It is also the case that the further out we go, the more confident I am that whatever I forecast, those numbers will prove to be inaccurate, if one wants to take that view,” Hart said. “The point is the numbers will change.”
A number of factors have contributed to the district’s budget issues, Moses and Hart both acknowledged.
A “focus of paramount concern,” as Hart put it, is declining enrollment.
Student enrollment has dipped by about 9.5%, or 2,671 students, since 2019, Moses noted in her presentation to the council. Relatedly, average daily attendance was also a key issue in her presentation given that the figure has declined by more than 3,000 since 2019, potentially costing the district more than $35 million.
Richmond students account for about 56.3% of all chronically absent students in the district, meaning they miss 10 days or more of school per year. Increasing the district’s average daily attendance rate from 92.2% to 95% could raise an additional $7.7 million, she’s argued.
As the district push continues to grapple with its issues, council members said they wanted to be part of the solution, including partnering on work-force housing projects, investing in transportation improvements and restarting regular meetings between district and city representatives.
“I’m very excited and looking forward to the collaboration,” Councilmember Soheila Bana said.