Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burbank Unified board approves fiscal stabilization plan and staffing reductions amid steep enrollment decline
Summary
After hours of public comment and debate, the Burbank Unified School District board unanimously approved a fiscal stabilization plan and second interim budget that rely on roughly $5.9 million in staffing and contract reductions next year and additional savings thereafter; resolutions to reduce classified and certificated positions passed 4–1.
The Burbank Unified School District board on March 5 approved a fiscal stabilization plan and second interim budget aimed at closing a multi-year funding gap driven by declining enrollment and rising costs.
Board members voted unanimously to adopt the stabilization plan and the district's second interim report after hearing hours of public testimony from students, parents, teachers and labor representatives about the human impact of cuts. The plan projects roughly $5.9 million in personnel and contract reductions for 2026–27 and anticipates an additional roughly $3 million of reductions in the following year to preserve statutory reserve requirements and secure a positive certification.
The plan presented by the district's finance team and interim superintendent summarized key drivers: an enrollment decline of more than 400 students in the last year, modest state cost-of-living adjustments, higher benefit and pension rates, and reduced one‑time federal or state funding. District staff said the multi‑year projection produces an unrestricted deficit of about $7.4 million for 2026–27 and $5.2 million in 2027–28 without the proposed reductions; implementing the recommended cuts is what enables the district to certify the budget as positive under state rules.
Board members then approved two separate resolutions that give the district authority to issue statutory layoff notices: one to eliminate or reduce classified positions (resolution 24) and one to reduce certificated positions (resolution 25). Resolution 24 passed 4–1; a similar 4–1 vote approved resolution 25. Members voting against the personnel reductions said they were not comfortable that the board had enough site-level detail to ensure student safety and instructional continuity.
Staff described how the reductions were developed: budget advisory and site‑level committees reviewed enrollment and program trends and recommended changes, including eliminating some vacant district-office posts, reducing a small number of assistant principal FTEs at sites with sustained lower enrollment, and trimming a mix of contracted agency support and some floating paraeducator positions. Special education leaders told the board that IEP services for students with required one‑to‑one supports will be preserved; several reduced roles cited in the package were contracted agency positions or positions tied to faded IEP supports.
Interim Superintendent Dr. Macias told the board he did not take the staffing decisions lightly and emphasized the district would seek to preserve direct student services where required by law and to improve position control and contracting practices going forward.
What happens next: the board and staff said they will provide site-level implementation plans, meet with impacted employee groups, and pursue additional revenue and cost‑containment options. The board also directed staff to maintain clear public communication and to bring estimated-actuals and budget-adoption updates in the coming months.
