Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LA Unified CFO warns of multiyear budget shortfall; town halls surface calls for clearer, bilingual materials and equity protections
Summary
Chief Financial Officer San Bravo Karimi told the Committee of the Whole the district spent $1.1 billion more than revenues last year and projects multi-year deficits that could deplete reserves without savings from the Fiscal Stabilization Plan; community town halls emphasized plain-language materials, translated resources, and protection of student-centered programs.
Los Angeles Unified’s chief financial officer presented a multi-year forecast on Nov. 4 showing the district spent about $1.1 billion more than it collected last school year and faces projected annual shortfalls that could exhaust reserves and lead to a negative ending balance in the 2027–28 projection if no further savings are realized.
"Last school year our expenditures exceeded revenues by $1.1 billion," San Bravo Karimi said in the committee presentation, calling the trend “unsustainable” without additional actions. He showed a multi-year scenario that, before the district's Fiscal Stabilization Plan (FSP) or special reserves (Fund 17) are applied, would leave the district with a projected negative unassigned general fund balance of about $1.5 billion by 2027–28. When the cost of salary 'me‑too' offers to other labor groups is included, Karimi said, the negative projection could grow to roughly $2.1 billion by 2027–28.
Board members pressed staff on what the numbers include and how they are presented. Kelly and Carla asked that future public slides show both unassigned and assigned unrestricted balances (for example school carryovers and SENI allocations) so the public sees the fuller picture. "When you only show unassigned balances the pool looks much smaller," one board member said.
Karimi and staff described steps already taken to reduce costs (consolidation of local districts, reductions in central office positions and some programs funded with one‑time ESSER dollars) and emphasized that the board’s June FSP remains a key tool. He added the state budget outlook is uncertain: higher-than-projected state tax receipts reported by the Legislative Analyst are encouraging, but those revenues may narrow state deficits rather than create new K–12 funding without action in January’s governor’s proposal.
The presentation summarized feedback from six of seven district town halls, gathered through ThoughtExchange: residents asked for plain‑language budget materials, earlier community engagement before votes, bilingual and multi‑language materials (including Armenian and Korean), and clarity about how reserves and assigned funds (school carryovers, SENI) are used. Town-hall respondents commonly urged protecting classroom supports, mental-health staffing (PSWs and counselors), and enrichment programs; others asked for administrative reductions, contract reviews, and consideration of local revenue options.
Next steps outlined by staff include a Nov. 21 budget workshop, Dec. 2 committee discussion, and Dec. 16 certification of first interim; staff said they will update projections for those meetings and provide more detail on reserve accounting and proposed FSP impacts.
Board members asked for more accessible presentations, timely posting of materials, and an equity impact analysis of proposed FSP reductions. Staff said they will make additional documents—and the raw ThoughtExchange responses—available publicly and will bring more detailed departmental and contract reviews to the board in upcoming sessions.
