Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Marino Unified previews 2025–26 budget; board told state May revise reduces Proposition 98 and district faces new trash and transportation costs
Summary
Superintendent staff presented the proposed 2025–26 district budget at the June 10 meeting. Presenters described statewide revenue declines in the May revise, conservative ADA projections, planned use of bond proceeds to retire COPs, and new local costs for trash and transportation after city contributions end.
The San Marino Unified School District Board heard a presentation June 10 on the proposed 2025–26 district budget from Dr. Stephen Choi, director of business services. Choi described the statewide budget context, local revenue and expenditure assumptions, and several planned follow‑up actions the district will bring to the board before adoption on June 24.
Choi said the governor’s May revise reduced projected state revenues and cut about $4 billion from the Proposition 98 guarantee that funds K–12 education statewide. He told the board the statutory cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) is 2.3% and is fully funded across the Local Control Funding Formula, but the transitional kindergarten (TK) add‑on was reduced in the May revise from $6,204 to $5,545 per ADA.
On local assumptions, the district is using a conservative ADA (average daily attendance) projection of 2,965.74 despite enrollment growth in 2024–25. Choi said federal revenues are expected to fall as one‑time pandemic relief ends and that local revenue projections are conservative because donations are not recognized until realized; he cited a Schools Foundation revenue projection of $1,700,000 for 2025–26.
Choi also laid out several items the administration will bring back as action items: recommend that $1.5 million currently committed for future certificates of participation (COP) payments be uncommitted and transferred to a committed balance for future fiscal stabilization, and move $2.0 million from the district’s cash flow reserve into a cash flow fund to manage anticipated state cash deferrals.
The presentation prompted discussion about specific cost pressures. Choi said the district will lose two city contributions: trash service coverage after November (the district is covered only through November under the current arrangement) and an ongoing city reimbursement for transportation of approximately $150,000 per year. Both items are included in the 2025–26 expenditure projections. Board members asked why projected books, supplies and equipment line items were reduced substantially from 2024–25 estimated actuals; Choi said those 2025–26 figures are conservative projections and that expenditures may rise in interim reports as known costs, donations or cyclical purchases (such as textbook adoptions or HVAC work) materialize.
On technology and facilities, Choi said Chromebook replacement is budgeted as equipment with an expected useful life of roughly three to four years, and that the district is exploring AI‑related infrastructure through a new AI committee. He noted assigned balances exist under board goals and program/innovation funds that could support AI work but that specific proposals would be returned to the board for approval.
Choi said the district plans to recommend adoption of the 2025–26 budget at the June 24 meeting and will submit the final budget to the Los Angeles County Office of Education by July 1. He called the proposed budget an information item at the June 10 meeting and said the district will provide interim budget reports in December and March.
