Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD officials outline budget shortfall after lower COLA; commissioners press for clear impact analysis
Summary
Deputy Superintendent Chris Mompanitis told the board that a reduced state COLA lowers SFUSD’s ongoing revenue by about $9.8 million over two years though special-education equalization adds roughly $2.4 million and one-time block grants total about $15.5 million; commissioners demanded clearer communication, site-level reconciliation and impact analyses before any layoffs or schedule changes proceed.
Deputy Superintendent Chris Mompanitis presented the board with a fiscal snapshot tied to the governor’s January budget proposal and a district operational update.
Mompanitis said the state’s cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) projection decreased from the 3.02% previously assumed to 2.41%, translating to an ongoing shortfall of about $3.7 million annually for SFUSD and roughly $9.8 million across the next two years compared with prior expectations. He added that special-education equalization would bring an estimated $2.4 million in ongoing funds to the district and that one-time discretionary block grants and learning-recovery funds could total roughly $15.5 million in one-time support.
"So that's the loss, when you reduce COLA," Mompanitis said, summarizing the math and stressing that much of the rest of the district’s fiscal picture depends on collective-bargaining outcomes and enrollment patterns.
Staff also described operational priorities: completing a district-wide position-control reconciliation (linking every job to a position-control number), implementing a credit-card procurement and ACH payments system, and moving check-cutting functions to the county office. Staff said the district aims to finish the reconciliation ahead of February so the board and principals can better see the net staffing delta by site.
Commissioners pressed for clearer public messaging about how the December fiscal stabilization plan (FSP) relates to January’s staffing allocations. Several commissioners said members of the public read the staffing scenarios as final cuts and urged the district to explain the role of discretionary and restricted funds that many sites can use to preserve positions.
"There is a direct relationship between those two documents," the board’s governance lead said of the FSP and the staffing model, but commissioners repeatedly asked the superintendent and finance team to produce impact analyses that demonstrate how proposed changes would affect student outcomes and equity before the board votes on layoffs or notices.
Superintendent Sue Hsu told the board she had restored social-worker allocations and security guard positions in response to community input where restricted funds were identified and pledged a series of site-level meetings with principals, HR and cabinet staff to reconcile allocations and allow tailored changes. Hsu also listed operational gains — a higher teacher fill rate (reported at 97%), adoption progress for new ELA and math curriculum, new procurement and payroll systems, and partnerships with local higher-education institutions.
Votes at a glance: the board readopted its rules and procedures (motion carried; roll call recorded seven ayes), approved minutes from Dec. 16, 2025, and passed consent items including provisional internship permits and local assignment options for speech therapists; President Kim recorded a standing recusal from the consent calendar due to his City/County employment.
Next steps: staff said they will submit a written budget-development timeline and memos into the record, continue principal-level reconciliation meetings, prepare the first districtwide position-control reconciliation in February, and return to the board with more detailed impact analyses before layoff notices or critical staffing decisions are finalized.
