Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sacramento City Unified board adopts 2026–27 budget amid warnings about deficit and cash flow
Summary
The Sacramento City Unified governing board approved the district—s 2026—17 adopted budget after presentations from staff that added a $5.3 million learning recovery block grant and showed a multi-year projection with a continuing deficit; teachers and board members urged faster, clearer follow-up (45‑day revise, unadudited actuals) to address reserves and cash management.
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sacramento City Unified governing board on Monday reviewed and adopted the district—s 2026—17 adopted budget and multi‑year projection after presentations from staff and public comment raising concerns about reserves and cash flow.
Lisa Grant Dawson, who introduced the presentation, said the budget documents compare the current year (25‑26) with the 26‑27 base year and later years, and that assumptions shown incorporate updates from the governor—s May revise. "There—s approximately $5.3 million that the district would be eligible to receive" from the state learning recovery block grant, she said, and the district has placed those dollars in object code 43.99 to be allocated after adoption.
The presentation outlined other technical changes: a $3,773,000 reduction in the unrestricted general fund contribution to the ongoing major maintenance resource (resource 8150, funded at 3% of total general fund expenditures), updated indirect cost calculations on restricted resources, and cash‑flow modeling. Grant Dawson told the board the district is still projecting a deficit in the opening column for the multi‑year projection but expects that number to improve as purchase orders and requisitions close out.
Audrey Kilpatrick focused on average daily attendance (ADA), the primary driver of LCFF funding. She said current ADA is about 91.7%, down from a pre‑pandemic 94%, and presented scenarios showing that if ADA rose to 94% the district would gain roughly $5.8 million in 26‑27 and materially more across subsequent years. "If you increase that ADA percentage by any amount, it—s going to increase your revenues overall," Kilpatrick said, and urged monthly enrollment monitoring to identify school‑level dips.
Staff also showed a cash‑flow projection with an expected ending cash position of about $28 million and noted a county treasurer change in how the constitutional property tax advance will be distributed: the district will receive the roughly $111 million constitutional advance only as needed each month to make the district whole, rather than in a larger lump sum, increasing the need for active cash management.
Two public speakers urged urgency and clarity. Lindsay Row, a teacher at SUSD, said, "These numbers are terrifying," cited figures she read in the packet (she referenced "total available reserves -283 million" and a December beginning cash balance of -$7.5 million), and asked, "When and where is a plan with numbers attached?" Row warned the board that, without a robust plan, the district could be at risk of state intervention.
Another speaker, Jennifer Wulmarmac, asked why the budget totals did not match the LCAP all‑funds total and why LCFF projections remained for 25‑26 when some apportionment data (P1) are available.
Board members pressed staff for follow‑up work. Member Singh asked for a formal 45‑day revise to update projections after July 1 state actions and to move from assumptions to actuals; other members urged clearer, more accessible materials for the public and prioritized strategies to maximize eligible revenue (identifying students for LCFF, recovering ADA), and to present specific expense‑reduction options with numbers over the summer.
After discussion, Member Singh moved to approve the budget and Member Benjamin seconded. A student trustee cast a preferential vote of "reluctantly yes." In roll call, Members Jean, Benjamin, Navaro, Rhodess and Singh voted yes and Member Ibara voted no; the motion carried and the adopted budget was approved.
What—s next: staff said the district will submit the approved LCAP and budget to the county office referenced in the packet (mentioned as "Skoey" in the presentation), continue audit preparation, reconcile position control in August, present unadudited actuals in September, and present the 26‑27 first interim in December with the final audit for 25‑26 scheduled for January. Several board members reiterated a request for a 45‑day revise and more readable materials for families and community members.

