Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Shortfall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD outlines $113 million shortfall and a menu of cuts, labor measures and revenue options
Summary
Superintendent Garcia and staff told the Board of Education the district faces a $113 million shortfall tied to the governor’s budget and proposed a package of measures — sweeping some categorical (tier‑3) funds, front‑loading Prop A parcel tax money, major labor‑negotiation savings and deep cuts to summer programs — while urging advocacy and possible litigation against the state.
San Francisco Unified School District officials told the Board of Education on Jan. 26 that a revised analysis of the governor’s proposed state budget raised the district’s projected deficit to $113 million over the next two fiscal years. Superintendent Garcia and Deputy Superintendent Lee said the change stemmed from the governor making a one‑time $250 per‑pupil reduction effectively permanent and from expected reductions in federal and state stabilization funds.
The presentation laid out a series of options staff say could, in combination, close most of the gap: redirecting some tier‑3 categorical funds (programs the state has made more flexible), fronting $15 million of Prop A parcel‑tax proceeds through a memorandum of understanding, sweeping selected centrally budgeted unrestricted funds, and negotiating labor‑contract concessions. Staff estimated up to $44.28 million of potential savings from negotiated labor measures if bargaining partners agree to furlough days, temporary step‑and‑column freezes and other concessions.
Board members and staff discussed the mechanics and consequences of each option. Deputy Superintendent Lee emphasized that many central‑budgeted positions — custodians, STAR supports and site‑deployed facilitators — are budgeted centrally but work at schools, complicating simple “central vs. site” categorizations. “We can break down for anybody how every dollar of the school district’s budget is allocated,” he said, directing the public to the district budget book and page 47 for details.
Several labor and parent speakers urged the district to protect classrooms. Teacher Lita Blanc told the board, “It is not our job to accelerate the destruction of our schools,” and argued against class‑size increases, furloughs and pay freezes. Parents and union leaders repeatedly requested transparent, itemized lists showing which central expenditures would change and asked the district to exhaust non‑classroom options first.
Staff also proposed operational changes to reduce costs: a possible large reduction in summer‑school scope (staff estimated saving roughly $4.6 million across the two‑year period), transportation savings, suspending sabbaticals, replacing some paid professional development days, and considering a temporary, average K–3 class size of 25 to reduce costs (staff projected roughly $8 million in savings from that alone). Garcia framed the proposals as a two‑year plan intended to spread impacts to avoid catastrophic cuts in year two.
The superintendent said the district would explore a local parcel tax and pursue litigation with other districts over what they allege is inadequate state funding. He urged board members and the public to press Sacramento for change. The board directed staff to post clear, layperson‑friendly budget breakdowns online and to return with more precise recommendations for bargaining and categorical flexibility.
Next steps: staff will continue to refine numbers, update the public budget pages and bring concrete bargaining proposals and final recommendations back to the board in coming weeks. The district cautioned that the May budget revisions at the state level could change available options.
