Board hears wide-ranging budget presentation as staff warn of a future deficit tied to enrollment decline

San Ramon Valley Unified School District officials presented a detailed budget overview and multi‑year projection at the board meeting, saying near‑term results should show a modest surplus but that deeper structural risks remain.

Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Danny Hman told trustees the district’s estimated actuals for the just-ended fiscal year reflect several one-time changes — including site and athletics donations and a device refresh authorized in May — and that those moves, together with state revenue assumptions, produce a projected combined general‑fund surplus of roughly $1.8 million for 2026–27. Hman said some state proposals were not yet fully incorporated into the district’s numbers pending legislative action and final distributing rules.

“Tax revenues are incredibly important to school districts,” Hman said, summarizing the governor’s May Revision and its effect on state education funding. He noted the May Revision raised projected statewide revenues and increased the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, but added the governor’s proposal would also withhold roughly $3.9 billion in a proposed settlement that could lower next year’s floor for K‑14 funding.

Board materials show the district expects about $369 million in unrestricted revenue next year alongside roughly $97 million in legally restricted revenue and an ending restricted balance of about $14.3 million. The restricted funds include items such as special education and routine maintenance accounts; Hman emphasized many dollars carry statutory or donor restrictions.

The presentation flagged a key long‑range exposure: the district’s multi‑year projection assumes continuing enrollment decline (465 fewer students in the next year) and the scheduled return of certain labor contract costs in 2028–29. Under those assumptions the district projects a roughly $5.4 million shortfall in 2028–29 unless additional revenue is secured or further reductions are adopted.

Trustees and public commenters pressed staff on the drivers of that gap. Board members cited rising pension and benefit costs and the district’s large general‑fund contribution to special education (which staff said amounted to roughly $54 million in the current year). Hman said proposed state actions — for example, an increase in the special‑education base rate or new discretionary block grants — could materially change the local outlook but that distribution rules and legislative language must be clarified before staff can include those funds in the adopted budget.

Public commenters focused on enrollment‑to‑staffing ratios, the pace of employee reductions relative to student losses, and the limits of local control. A commenter noted the district’s long‑term personnel obligations and argued that employee counts have not fallen in proportion to enrollment. Hman and the superintendent responded that mandated costs and student needs (especially special education) affect staffing requirements and that some dollars the district uses are restricted by state or federal law.

Next steps: staff told the board they will present a final adopted budget at the legally required hearings and will update figures when the state completes its budget and releases implementation language. Hman said any significant new state allocations would be added to the district’s budget in July or August and returned to the board for amendment once distribution details are known.

The board held the public hearing; formal adoption of the 2026–27 budget is scheduled in line with state timelines once the district confirms state allocations and final assumptions.