u/Avesa

tl;dr = the Board voted to appeal the Sacramento County Office of Education’s decision to overturn SCUSD’s ~$48M agreement with SCTA (SCOE essentially said it was a bad move for long-term financial recovery). SCUSD is hoping that the California Superintendent of Public Instruction will reinstate this agreement as part of their Fiscal Solvency Plan. This was a very short meeting barely worth a recap, but still posting for consistency of information sharing. Also check out this Abridged article, which includes mention of the uncertain legality of this effort: “Sacramento City school leaders challenge county decision in back-and-forth power struggle”

---------------------

Resolution: Appeal to State Superintendent of Public Instruction Regarding SCOE July 31 Recession of Board Action

• SCUSD Board approved the $158.8M fiscal solvency plan & AB1200 SCTA Agreement on July 30, and then SCOE rescinded the AB1200 Board Approval on July 31.
• Today is a special board meeting to discuss a resolution authorizing an appeal to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction on this matter.

SEUI Union President speaks in favor of the resolution to appeal. Encourages all partners to work together to regain long term fiscal responsibility and keeping student needs centered.

Steve Bruno speaks about how SCOE is trying to keep the Board from making a bad decision and steer them on a good path.

President Jeane says that the Board was told by FCMAT that $135M was the deficit, so last week we approved a plan to give us $158M, which gives us breathing room. The resolution we are about to vote on empowers our Superintendent to write a letter that documents exactly where we are at, and the letter is expected to be released tonight. 

No board discussion. Moves directly to vote.

Resolution passes unanimously (Members Ybarra and Benjamin absent). 

Adjourn. Next Board Meeting is on Thursday, August 6th. 

EDIT: 7/31 According to the SacBee, SCOE just cancelled the labor agreement with SCTA, saying that “the agreement would only temporarily delay SCUSD’s impending insolvency by a few weeks while also making it more difficult for the district to make a sustainable long-term fiscal recovery.” --- so the information from the Board meeting below about the SCTA MOU is moot.

• SCOE also expressed skepticism about the fiscal solvency plan (discussed below) because a good chunk of the savings is tied to this teacher’s agreement.
• “SCUSD cannot solve its fiscal crisis by merely delaying it”

According to Abridged, SCTA President states on 7/31 that this move by SCOE “undermines our democratically-elected board’s authority to solve local issues, compromises our district’s ability to avoid insolvency, and, in effect prolongs the need for her own paid oversight.” The article also says that SCTA is encouraging the Board to appeal SCOE’s decision to the CA State Superintendent. 

--------------------------------------------

$158.639M fiscal solvency plan to meet $150M target presented to Board. Separate from budget. Four categories: state grant ($31M; one-time revenue), program optimization and reductions ($20M), cash flow savings ($58.6M), & OPEB/SCTA relief package ($48.7M for 2026-27; ~$98M over the full 3 years). 

• Agenda packet shows details of cuts including: eliminating district issued cell-phones for staff, stop providing free AP/IB testing for students, stop using G1 for some graduations, eliminate 6th grade science trips. See Abridged article for more details.

Public commenter from Black Parallel School Board speaks about how the plan is clear and understandable. If it’s implemented, urges SCUSD staff to implement all aspects of the plan, or to go somewhere else. 

Member Benjamin thanks SCTA for their willingness to work together on the agreement needed at this time. State receivership serves no one, and so this agreement is a meaningful step forward and provides time for the district to make additional changes to eliminate structural deficit. Says he will be supporting the fiscal solvency plan tonight.

Member Singh states that the Board has gotten more from the current staff in the last 1-2 months than from the last 6+ months with the previous Interim CBO. What we’re doing tonight is more than what has been asked for by SCOE/FCMAT. Echoing what Member Benjamin said, no one benefits from a state takeover. Says he’ll also be supporting the plan tonight.

Member Ybarra speaks about how she’s also in agreement. State receivership would not be a benefit, and makes an analogy to her past job working in check cashing and payday lending and how hard it is to pay back loans. 

Member Rhodes speaks about how the reductions in the plan are still hard and that they will impact families, but state receivership would be much harder. Says that FCMAT employees have allegedly said that we don’t need Assistant Principals at schools, and so things like that are why maintaining local control is so important. He will also be voting yes.

Member Navarro expresses gratitude to SCTA, SCUSD staff, and Superintendent; and how we “finally have the staff that is willing to do it.”

Member Kayatta speaks that there are cuts and they aren’t easy decisions, but they are the right ones. This Board is willing to make the cuts necessary to keep our district solvent. He will also be voting yes. We’ve been doing more work than a lot of school boards in the state. Claims that SCOE has wanted to control SCUSD for a long time, and he doesn’t know why. States that the County has threatened to rescind some of the actions that the Board in taking tonight which “would put us in peril.” He encourages them not to do that, for our children. He’s not happy to vote for it because there are cuts, but he is proud to make the right decision. 

Passes unanimously (President Jeane and Student Member Naqica absent)

Public Hearing: AB1200 Disclosure/Approval of Agreement Between SCUSD & SCTA to Aid the SCUSD Fiscal Recovery

• Money coming from Teacher’s Retiree Trust Fund to pay for health benefits for three years, to allow the district to free up general fund money for those three years.
• Medi-Cal reimbursements may be added to the district’s general fund.
• SCTA allowing vaccines to remain unfilled.
• Agreement also allows SCUSD and SCTA to explore health benefit options that provide no reduction in benefits but provide savings to the district’s bottom line.
• SCUSD and SCTA will work together to initiate the Parcel Tax.
• This agreement has been submitted to SCOE for review and it’s been revised and resubmitted.

Steve Bruno asks the Board why they have told the other bargaining units there is not more money for raises, but then included the Me-Too clause in the SCTA contact (i.e., SCTA would get the additional same raise the other labor partner received). 

Public commenter speaks against the SCTA union contract because he argues it’s nothing more than an effort by SCTA to protect itself against state receivership (i.e., locking in a contract that can’t be changed in receivership until 2023). Agreement does not solve the structural deficit, it just pushes out the date. They want protection because they’re the biggest piece of the financial pie. SEUI makes far less annual salary than teachers, and a far smaller piece of the SCUSD budget. Asks the Boards to stop kicking the can down the road and just get the pain over with, and vote no on the plan tonight. 

Member Singh says this isn’t kicking the can down the road, and this is a real opportunity. SCUSD staff responds to say that this extends the timeline, FCMAT says it extend the timeline by just a month. Blames prior issues on poor budgeting practices by staff.

Member Ybarra speaks about how when people say that receivership would be better, they are saying that the most vulnerable students don’t matter. She says it’s not that we don’t want to give other labor partners raises, it’s that there is no money to give.

Member Kayatta states that unions don’t lose their bargaining rights in receivership. This agreements isn’t about who supported who in any campaign. Reads from a legal opinion about pulling money from trust fund for health care costs, saying it’s fine to do.

SCTA MOU passes unanimously.

tl;dr = Teamsters union workers asking for fair treatment and the same raises given to other unions in the district. Board members continue voting to pay themselves stipends for missed meetings. 2026-27 Special Education Local Plan Annual (SELPA) Service Plan & Annual Budget Plan passes. Board votes unanimously to put a $95/parcel/year Parcel Tax on the November 2026 ballot with the intent that this will fund Special Education programs (will need 2/3 of the vote to pass and become law). Sacramento County is removing some of SCUSD’s autonomy in spending money, by (among other things) requiring that Sacramento review payments in advance to ensure that SCUSD actually has enough money to make each purchase (i.e., school district funds are held in the County treasury and the County essentially doesn’t trust that SCUSD won’t write a bad check; see Abridged article on this topic). District also announced a new ConCap Random Lottery Process, not related to budget, but highly impactful for some families.

Teamsters Union Representatives are in favor of SEIU pay raises, but not in favor if special treatment for some labor unions over another. Every union deserves the opportunity to bargain before the district claims they have no remaining funds. Teamsters are simply asking for fair treatment and the same raises given to other unions.

Steve Bruno states that he has requested verbally and via email that an item be added to the agenda, but it has still not been added. He has repeatedly asked the Board to suspend their stipends while they are cutting hours and firing staff, or to publicly defend why they are not doing so. But they are again voting to pay Members for missed meetings.

SCTA speaks in favor of the Parcel Tax later on the agenda (only referring to it as a “special education tax”).

Superintendent McArn highlighted many campus improvements happening over the summer throughout the district, and “thanks the voters” for making it possible.

Public Hearing & Approval of 2026-27 Special Education Local Plan Annual (SELPA) Service Plan & Annual Budget Plan - passes

Public commenter argues that SELPA plan is not legally approvable, with sections not filled out, not enough money for supplies. Asks for more discussion and to not approve it tonight.

Resolution No. 3597: Calling an Educational Parcel Tax Election

• part of Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Framework (i.e., programs that help prevent students from needing to be in Special Education programs)
• School principal and SCTA President speaks about how valuable MTSS is.
• Lawyer adviser speaks on the parcel tax: federal funding falls short and this allows SCUSD to help close the gap for critical programs and go beyond the legal requirements (which they have the money for).
• Needs 2/3 vote to pass
• $95/parcel/year starting next year
• Exemptions for seniors and social security recipients
• Constitutionally required to be spent on Special Education
• Anticipate initial revenue of $10 million
• Board voting tonight to put it on the ballot in Nov. 2026

Public comment from parent/homeowner/realtor saying that there’s no doubt we need something like this for this kids, but we also need to consider the consequences of putting the costs on the backs on families already stretched thin. Property taxes are already thousands of dollars per year and about a third of them already goes to education. We need to find a better way to deal with mismanaged funds than putting it on the backs of families. Asks the Board to not put this on the ballot.

Student Board Member Naqica sees the value of a parcel tax, but is concerned about renters and the costs being passed on to them. Though overall thinks it’s necessary and likes that the funds are guaranteed to go to education.

Member Kayatta is excited to vote yes and it excited to have this on his tax bill.

Member Singh states that it’s only 26 cents per day, which is a fair investment when our federal government fails to do it. He will also be voting yes. Members Ybarra, Benjamin, and Jeane all go on to say they’ll be voting yes.

Passes unanimously. $95/year parcel tax going on Nov. 2026 ballot.

Letter from Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) & County of Sacramento: Fiscal Accountability Joint Letter of Procedures

• All districts’ funds are held in the County treasury (i.e., the district’s bank)
• The County administers the accounting software/payroll/payments/etc. for most districts in the county, but not SCUSD. This is because SCUSD requested “financial accountability” status in 1998, so they’ve been doing all of those tasks themselves since then.
• Now the County is making some changes to this because of SCUSD’s current financial struggles. The County basically needs to make sure that SCUSD isn’t making payments that can’t be honored (bounced checks).
• SCUSD must sent notice of payments 2 days in advance in order for the County to make sure they have enough $$.
• The County also made a point to ask that they have the opportunity to evaluate the legality of any shifting around of bond funds done by SCUSD to try and cover debts.
• The letter sent to SCUSD requested that this be put on the Board agenda so that the public is aware of the situation.

New ConCap Random Lottery Process, initial presentation for information only, (I think to be voted on later). Teachers have a maximum # of students they can teach under their contract, schools are funded for that amount, but every year more students end up in the school than they can actually have, so some # of students have to be forcibly moved to another school at the beginning of the school year. This is called contract capping, or “ConCapping.” (not really relevant to budget, but super relevant for parents to be aware of, so please check it out). Powerpoint presentation here.

tl;dr = More of the same, but now with proposing a Parcel Tax in an attempt fix their revenue problems! It’s not yet guaranteed to be on the ballot because there’s a lot of steps between now and then, but the Board approving the recommendation to move forward is a big step. The TK Aide position situation remains a flashpoint, because it sounds like the District will be hiring outside contractors to fill the vacant positions, who cost much more than the employees they laid off (makes no financial sense). The Board votes to adopt the 2026-2027 proposed budget presented at the last meeting; has some changes but the same massive deficit remains. 

Friends: the video of the meeting isn’t posted on YouTube yet like normal. I’m assuming that this is because today is a holiday, and posting the video requires a staff person (thank you to whoever does that!). I’m further assuming that they won’t work on the weekend and thus the video won’t post til Monday. So I’m just going to go ahead and post my summary without links today. I’ll edit the post if I can, but otherwise I’ll provide the links via a comment after the video posts. Sorry, I figured people may want the info sooner rather than later, but tell me if I’m wrong and comment what I missed!

Superintendent McArn announces a new Chief of Schools and a new Chief Academic Officer (these had been Interim). They didn’t announce a new Chief Business Officer, as was on the agenda; President Jeane later says that they didn’t discuss this in closed session. Superintendent McArn also states that these senior positions will now be contract positions subject to renewals, not permanent positions as implied they were before.

A TK Aide shares the options for employment she was presented with: 1) to either remain in her classroom with her students and be reduced to 3.5 hours per day and loose health benefits for her and her family, 2) other jobs in the district (OP note: I needed to go back and watch here for specifics). She also raises concern that the Board is apparently voting tonight on a contract to hire outside contractors to provide the same services that many TK Aides were just laid off from (making $20/hour), but paying the contractors $70/hour. Doesn’t make financial sense, in a budget crisis or otherwise.

SCUSD Employee from the Early Learning & Care Department expresses concern that the entire leadership team was removed, and that the job description for the supervisor of this department doesn’t require an administrator credential. It costs much more to hire someone with this credential and isn’t necessary for this program. Urges the Board to review specific Ed Codes before proceeding with finalizing the job descriptions for this department.

SCTA is still mad at the budget office and continues to claim that the proposed budget is garbage. Math still doesn’t math. Expresses relief that this is “the last time we’ll be subjected to this from the current CBO” (OP note: this is Interim CBO Lisa Grant-Dawson’s last Board Meeting). Continues to claim that SCOE and FCMAT are punishing SCUSD for something, and alleges that they are are preventing the SCUSD Board from doing what they need to do to fix the problem and avoid receivership (ex: hiring external financial consultants). Similar to what Board Member Ybarra expressed last meeting, argued for needing a forensic auditor for Special Education.

SEIU still has massive concerns with TK Aides being cut to 3.5 hours per week with no benefits while making minimum wage in this district. Half of these employees opted to leave their positions, leaving them vacant. Contractors are much more expensive, plus it will likely be difficult to find contractors for such short shifts per day. Similar to SCTA, expressed continued concern with the budget numbers presented.

Member Singh followed up on the earlier public comments about contracts to fill the vacant TK Aide positions. Acknowledges that cutting aide positions just to contract them out will cost SCUSD more in the long run.

Approve Parcel Tax Recommendation for November 2026 Ballot.

• “A parcel tax is a voter-approved local tax charged on each parcel of property in the district. Rate is set on a formula proposed in ballot, not property value” (an important distinction)
• The passing rate must be greater than 66.7% (i.e., a 2/3 super-majority)
• Funds stay local and are stable and dedicated. Meaning that they can’t be redirected for other purposed or taken away by the federal government.
• Timeline for getting this on the November 2026 Ballot:
  • Propose Parcel Tax = today, June 18
  • Conduct voter survey = June 25-July 12
  • Present voter survey results to Board = July 23
  • Deadline to publish notice = July 26
  • Public hearing on parcel tax = August 6
  • Pass resolution to put parcel tax measure on ballot = August 6
  • Election Day = November 3, 2026
• What they say it could theoretically fund: special education, visual and performing arts, high-quality teaching, field trips and experiences, athletics and co-curriculars, advanced electives, college and career readiness. Asking what else/different does the public want to see if funded?
• In 2016, a previous attempt to do a Parcel Tax missed passage by half a percent.
• Only voters in the SCUSD District boundary would vote on this (not all of Sacramento).
• Recommendation with proceeding with these planning steps unanimously passes.

Adopt Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Proposed Budget for all Funds

• Has included the May Revise and proposed adjustment to its assumptions in the Third Interim. 
• A couple of key changes from what was presented at the Board meeting 2 weeks ago: restricted funds added some more revenue from learning recovery grant, final transfers in/out were finalized once the budget was finalized, and contribution increase from ongoing major maintenance increase.
• Multi-year projections still have the same deficit as 2 weeks ago: unrestricted funds start 26-27 at -$61M and are projected to end at -$283M.
• Still in declining enrollment, do decreasing Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is driving some of this.
• Reduction in books, supplies, and staffing.
• Total All Funds 26-27 ending balance = -$98.4M
• ADA is how schools are funded. District would like to get ADA back up to pre-covid levels around 94% (currently 91.7%), because this would provide approximately $5.8M in revenue.

 

Teacher public comment pointing out that the massive negative budget reserves over all three years is very concerning. How do we practically make payroll with negative cash balances at the beginning of a school year? We’re running out of time for staff and students.

Student Member Owen Naqica (new Student Board Member started tonight; Student Member Kemper finished her term) expressed that a lot of this budget information is inaccessible to families and to the public and is confusing. 

Board approves the Proposed 2026-2027 Budget.

This was a spicy one.

tl;dr = State agency of educational finance experts (FCMAT) tells the Board that insolvency in inevitable so they need to start the process of asking the State for help, because the process takes time. They basically need to start now because of the legislative calendar in order to have the loan available to meet payroll by the projected cash deficit in ~February 2027. Board disagrees with experts (!!) and literally states that they are going to wait to make the decision as late as possible, even though that risks bankruptcy and being unable to make payroll for employees. Better summaries than mine here: Abridged article titled "Sacramento school board rebuffs warnings, declines to ask state for budget help" and Sac Bee article titled "Sacramento school board resists state agency’s urging to surrender to insolvency" The meeting further went off the rails at the end, when the Board showed their complete ignorance about how the layoffs they directed are actually working.

SCTA talks about how multiple teachers are being laid off, despite the Board directing that cuts are supposed to be made away from the classroom. Specifically VAPA (most of the middle school music program), Early Learning and Care, and CTE (4 classes). Alleges that the Board doesn’t understand how all the pieces of the district fit together.

SEUI talks about many specific job types that are being eliminated under the proposed reorganization and the negative impacts this will have on student services and overall district function. 

UPE talks about how laying off administrators will negatively impact students, this long-standing uncertainty has caused disruption, and highlights the inequity between labor partners.

FCMAT presentation — analysts/presenters state that they are here to talk about cash flow not the budget, because too much time has passed on the budget issue such that cash flow is at a critical point (negative for next year) such that they’ll be unable to process payroll.

• What they are presenting tonight is the best case projection
• Reminded the Board that they have a long history of deficit spending, so there is no cash buffer and reserves are essentially eliminated.
• Reminded the Board that insolvency means having insufficient cash and exhausting all borrowing opportunities to meet payroll obligations. Essentially bankruptcy, if they were a business.
• Projected deficit of $412M in 2027-2028 on current trend.
• No allowance in projections made for separation costs (i.e., paid out vacation leave balances), but savings from staffing reductions are included. However, separation costs are likely to be significant because many people have high vacation balances that will need to be paid out.
• Likely to run out of cash at the end of January 2027.
• Next steps: If SCUSD can’t make payroll, it can’t borrow like a business because of the constitutional debt limit. Board doesn’t have a lot of choices, that’s why the receivership statutes exist. 
  • Need to get the legislation for receivership voted on by the CA Legislature when it’s in session. It’s already pretty late for that, so you need to do it soon.
  • Scenario 1: Summer Trailer Bill to have funds available Fall 2026. This is the only option to have loan in place to prevent insolvency in January 2027 with current projections.
  • Scenario 2: December Urgency Legislation to have funds available early April 2027. Funds will not be in place to fund payroll if insolvency occurs in January 2027 = bankruptcy
• Board needs to make the decision whether to ask the state for help or not. Board legally needs to engage the community and take testimony before doing so, and this takes time. So you need to start doing this now, if you’re going to do it in time.
• FCMAT is telling the Board that time is of the essence because of the legislative window; the CA Legislature has been briefed on this situation and is ready.
• Bottom line, SCUSD is running the risk of not having the cash to make payroll at the end of January 2027 if they fail to get the state receivership loan in place in time (they spend $60M/month on payroll).

Member Kayatta says that they want to make the decision as late as possible; Member Singh said something similar earlier. Member Kayatta wants to see if bond borrowing is an option, even though the FCMAT presenter clearly said that is not advised. 

Student Board Member Kemper asks about what the consequences of receiverships are. FCMAT presenter states that the statue provides that labor agreements need to be honored under state receivership, but these protections are not kept in bankruptcy court. Board members stay in their seats, but they have no authority/power. The Superintendent is dismissed the day the Administrator is appointed to the District.

President Jeane says that the Board does not want to accept receivership and there’s maybe things that aren’t accounted for. Similar to what Kayatta said, they aren’t “giving up” and are asking for “a plan” based on their local leadership. FCMAT presenter says “that would be great” but you’re running out of time. 

Board is essentially delusional and denying math, and their hubris is risking the ability of the district to meet payroll for thousands of employees. This is not a hypothetical situation.

Staff presentations on district office restructuring and layoffs. Following this, public comments were made: Budget Services employees spoke about the proposed 60% staffing reductions, Culture & Climate employee spoke about the proposed reduction to one employee, Safe Schools employee. Member Ybarra didn’t realize this wasn’t even an action item on the agenda. Board Member Rhodes wondered who directed these deep cuts (!!). Staff responded that they made the choices based on what is legally mandated and operationally necessary. Ybarra wonders why there are so many administrative assistants in Business Services; CBO responds that it has been much reduced and they do a large amount of support work. Information item only, no vote. 

Staff presentation on certificated employee (i.e., teacher) layoffs. No public comments. I thought I heard President Jeane say they are voting on 22 people to be issued final layoff notices. Member Singh says this feels like a waste of time to feel like they “have no clarity” and not having good enough justifications and nothing to compare to. Motion passes anyway.

Staff presentation on preschool employee layoffs. No public comment. Motion passes. 

Staff presentation on classified employee layoffs. TK aides give public comments about their planned layoffs and the legal consequences associated with these legally mandated positions (ex: financial penalties, etc. as has been raised before). Member Rhodes asked why these positions are being eliminated if they are legally mandated. Staff responds they are aware, they fully intend to comply with the state mandates. Member Kayatta states (out of nowhere) that he wants to fire Superintendent of Technology Services and Superintendent of Community Engagement and Communication, and wants a new org chart and resolution to reflect these individuals (I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence that the Superintendent of Technology Services is Steve Bruno’s boss). Motion passes.