The Pacific Grove Unified School District held a public hearing May 15 on the adopted 2025–26 budget after Assistant Superintendent Jordan presented the district’s multiyear projections and key assumptions.

Jordan told the board the district projects a combined revenue total of roughly $47.0 million for 2025–26 against projected combined expenditures of about $48.0 million, producing a projected combined operational deficit of approximately $1.04 million and an unrestricted reserve projected at 6.9% for 2025–26. He said PGUSD remains a basic‑aid district, with about 81% of revenue coming from county and district property taxes, and that long‑term constraints (step‑and‑column salary growth, pension costs, and shrinking federal/state categorical funds) have created a structural deficit. “After covering rising expenses there’s very little left, if anything, for ongoing salary increases,” Jordan told the board.

Key budget details presented:
• Enrollment projection of 1,701 (down 37 from 2024–25); the district cited county birth‑rate trends affecting the 4–6 age group.
• Property tax growth projected at about 5% for 2025–26; the presentation noted Prop. 13 and local assessed‑value patterns limit upside in many neighborhoods.
• A projected unrestricted general‑fund deficit of about $1.04 million; multiyear projections showed reserves dropping toward the statutory minimum if cost and revenue trends persist.
• The district plans to issue a tax revenue anticipation note (TRAN) to bridge cash‑flow timing because basic‑aid districts do not receive equal monthly apportionments.
• The budget includes negotiated 2% salary increases for bargaining units; Jordan thanked employee groups for foregoing a larger 2024–25 settlement and said the 2025–26 projection reflects modest increases.

Jordan outlined cost‑control measures incorporated into the adopted budget, including targeted reductions to materials and supplies, alignment of staffing to enrollment, a reclassification of some mental‑health therapist costs into special education codes, and one‑time uses of funding for specific positions. He also warned that unrestricted transfers to restricted programs (special education, ELOP, Title funds) are a growing pressure on the general fund.

The board heard about 12 public commenters during the 20‑minute hearing on the budget and a later 20‑minute public comment period. Commenters included parents, staff and students asking the board to protect classroom positions, to maintain TK implementation, and to avoid placing disproportionate burdens on particular schools. Parent petitions and speakers urged the board to restore elementary teacher FTEs and to prioritize classroom funding over administrative and management increases. Several speakers encouraged the board to pursue non‑student‑facing budget savings (professional services, travel) and to explore revenue options (developer fees, lease rate adjustments and, in the long term, parcel taxes).

Board members asked clarifying questions about CalSTRS/PERS rates, the impact of Prop. 19 assessed‑value rules, the district’s child‑care (BASRP) subsidy and the plan to phase out one‑time funds supporting ongoing personnel in later years. Jordan said staff will return with interim reports and that trustees had asked him to produce further analyses and to pursue potential options for deeper structural changes.

The board did not take final action on the budget during the hearing (it was a public hearing required as part of the budget adoption timeline); the district will adopt a final resolution at its June meeting and provide revised numbers at the October and interim reports.