(SAN RAMON, CA.) – The San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) Board of Education approved the first step toward an electric school bus charging project and adopted revisions to its 2026-27 budget during its July 28 meeting, where district leaders also raised concerns over the state's handling of education funding.
Executive Director for SRVUSD Operations Chris Hansen said PG&E requested a 10-foot-wide easement for underground conduit, along with a separate 20-by-30-foot easement for a transformer and related equipment.
State law requires a two-step process before a school district can dedicate an easement. Tuesday's meeting marked the first step, with the board approving a resolution to move forward and schedule a public hearing for its August 18 meeting.
Following the hearing, the board will vote on whether to grant final approval.
Board Member Shelley Clark, who represents Trustee Area 2, clarified that the project is intended to support charging stations for electric school buses that the district is purchasing through a state grant.
The resolution passed unanimously.
The board then approved 45-day budget revisions following the adoption of California's 2026-27 state budget.
Assistant Superintendent Vince Morales presented the required 45-day budget revision report and explained how changes in the state budget affect the district.
Photo Credit: YouTube / SRVUSD
Morales outlined several updates to the budget.
Photo Credit: YouTube / SRVUSD
"The first change we're accounting for is to our restricted side for special education- our base funding per student was $999 for this year, and that was increased to $1,340," Morales said.
Photo Credit: YouTube / SRVUSD
The report also covered changes ranging from paid pregnancy disability leave to SRVEA furlough days, with total new expenses reaching about $7 million.
Morales also noted that despite a 34% increase in Special Education Base Funding, the program remains underfunded. SRVUSD will contribute about $45 million, or 13% of its Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) revenue, toward special education programs.
He highlighted other financial challenges as well. Examples included SRVUSD's actual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is significantly lower than the state's funded 4.31% COLA because of declining enrollment and the costs associated with paid pregnancy disability leave.
Additionally, any anticipated funding from the Proposition 98 settle-up will instead be deposited into the state's Education Rainy Day Fund.
Staff also recommended transferring $1.8 million for student devices to Fund 17, restoring facility use revenues set aside for Fund 40, and using 50% of the SSPD balance to increase district reserves to 7%, in accordance with board policy.
"It's worth noting just how impactful this manipulation of Prop. 98 is at the state level," Superintendent CJ Cammack said. "Ballpark figures here- that Prop. 98 funding that was withheld for this budget approval by the governor and the state legislature was probably $18 million that we should be receiving this school year."
Cammack said that when the state handles Proposition 98 funding this way, it is not only addressing its own budget issues at the expense of classrooms, students, and staff, but it also turns what should be ongoing funding into one-time funding by placing the money into the Education Rainy Day Fund.
"When the state-level money is added to the Rainy Day Fund, that ongoing money that should be coming to school districts as the new baseline for funding turns into a one-time fund, because spending the money from the Rainy Day Fund is only used once," Cammack said. "It's incredibly frustrating when Prop. 98 is designed in the state Constitution to promise a certain amount of money to education, and that money is intended to be ongoing. When they consider repayment, they don't repay the districts directly; they put it in the Rainy Day Fund... I think it's a remarkable failure at the state level."
To add to or correct any information in this report, please email me at yashi.s@lead4earth.org or leave a comment below.
0
0
Comments