Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Azusa Unified board narrows facilities package; staff cites $8.8–9M shortfall and $4M in nonrefundable deposits

Azusa Unified School District Board of Education · December 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Dec. 9 study session the Azusa Unified School District board reviewed an updated facilities worksheet, heard options for launching new projects, and gave staff direction to begin work on a prioritized package (roughly $16.5 million) while monitoring surplus-property sale proceeds and returning monthly updates.

Azusa, Calif. — The Azusa Unified School District Board of Education spent the bulk of its Dec. 9 study session reviewing a revised facilities worksheet and negotiating which capital projects to advance now and which to defer until surplus-property sale proceeds arrive.

Superintendent Jose Ortega and facilities staff said the district faces a projected shortfall of about $8.8–$9.0 million tied to previously board‑authorized modernization projects (notably Paramount, Dalton and Lee) and reported the district currently holds about $4,000,000 in nonrefundable deposits from several surplus-property purchase-and-sale agreements. Staff presented a range of board-direction options, from pausing new projects altogether to using the $4 million deposits immediately or committing a larger amount in anticipation of future closings.

Board members debated several scenarios. Some members urged a conservative approach tied to confirmed cash on hand; others pushed for a larger, more proactive allocation to avoid further inflation-driven cost increases once projects go to bid. "These projects, we are $8,000,000 plus in the whole," a staff presenter said during the worksheet review; later staff corrected that to closer to $8.9M. Board members discussed an illustrative allocation of $16.5 million as an achievable initial package and also considered figures ranging from $4 million to $40 million before settling on a working package to prioritize.

Staff listed anticipated sale amounts and timing for four surplus properties that the board is relying on for longer-term funding: Sierra (recently amended to about $26,750,000), Powell (about $31,200,000), Mountain View (about $23,500,000 but still in due diligence) and Ellington (amounts discussed in packet). Staff gave expected closing windows: Sierra in mid‑2026, Powell in 2027, Mountain View possibly in 2027, and Ellington later in 2026–2027 depending on due diligence and city entitlements.

Using a facilitated exercise, each board member privately allocated a hypothetical $16.5 million across the worksheet’s gray (not-yet-authorized) items, then paired with another member to negotiate a joint list. The group coalesced around projects that included the Azusa High courtyard renovation, selected kitchen/plumbing upgrades, limited locker‑room upgrades at Azusa High and Gladstone Middle School, and partial underground utility work (water/sewer/storm-drain) prioritized for Azusa High and Gladstone Middle — while deferring several larger-ticket items such as a community conference center and pool projects.

Staff characterized the partial underground replacements as targeted (not full-campus) work to address aging piping and missing or damaged roof gutters and downspouts that cause campus flooding in heavy rain. Staff emphasized that routine construction for added restrooms or facilities would include required plumbing work for those additions and would not depend on full underground replacement.

The board gave direction — not a binding appropriation vote — to proceed with an initial tranche of projects from the negotiated list, asked staff to incorporate the selected items into the next board packet, and requested monthly updates on facilities status and surplus property‑sale progress. Several members also supported scheduling a study session around the time of critical property closings to revisit larger allocations if funds materialize.

No final, binding budget appropriation for the package was adopted at the Dec. 9 meeting; the board did approve procedural items on the agenda and adjourned by roll-call vote at the meeting’s close.