Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget office, City Controller detail ERAF 'windfall' and how revenue could be used
Summary
District finance staff and City Controller materials explained a newly identified $415 million ERAF‑related windfall and the existing legal allocations (charter baselines and reserves); community groups and commissioners urged lobbying for a larger share of recurring funds for SFUSD.
SAN FRANCISCO — At the Dec. 11 board meeting, district budget staff and City Controller materials briefed the San Francisco Unified School District board on a recently identified Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) windfall and how local and voter‑approved baselines will affect any distribution to the school district.
Budget staff summarized that $415 million of additional ERAF‑related dollars surfaced across two fiscal years as counties closed their books. After required baseline and reserve allocations set by voter measures (including the Public Education Enrichment Fund and other city charters), roughly $181 million remained discretionary for the city and county to allocate, staff said.
Assistant Chief Financial Officer Myung Lee and colleagues explained the mechanics: property taxes are split among the city, the school district, community college and an ERAF transfer; when the sum of property tax plus ERAF exceeds the state’s LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) minimum guarantee, the excess may remain with the county rather than flow to districts. That is the circumstance that produced the recent windfall in San Francisco.
Community representatives, union leaders and parents urged the city and county to prioritize school funding. “Don’t tell me your priorities. Show me your budget,” said a family‑advocacy representative quoting a well‑known line about budget commitments. United Educators of San Francisco described how recent local measures (Prop G) already helped recruit and retain teachers and asked the city and county to continue supporting educators and students.
Budget staff outlined legal options and constraints: some allocations (for example to MTA and voter‑established programs) are specified by charter amendments and would require voter action to change; other approaches could involve local commitments by the city or seeking state‑level statutory changes. Staff also described the district’s rainy‑day reserve rules and the thresholds needed to draw funds down for school purposes.
Board members asked for continued updates and said the district should pursue all legal and political avenues to capture funding for schools, including working with city officials and community partners on ballot or legislative options.
